NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
Just found it ironic ... fighting spam with ... um more spam. (and I agree but as long as people are having fun...)

There was this one feminist magazine that did a story on how Iceland didn't allow women to serve in its armed forces. They forgot to mention that men didn't get to either, since Iceland has no own military.

There was this one feminist magazine that did a story on how Iceland didn't allow women to serve in its armed forces. They forgot to mention that men didn't get to either, since Iceland has no own military.
Lol that is a good example of how statistics can be twisted

Lol that is a good example of how statistics can be twisted

it's sad how you can never know what to believe anymore

it's sad how you can never know what to believe anymore

"Believe Nothing"

"Believe Nothing"
I don't believe you :p :D

I don't believe you :p :D

Ooooh, should have seen THAT one coming... :)

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...


You totally missed the point of my thread. Somebody said women could get rid of men and reproduce in labs... I am saying, that if you just go on a technical and "what is possible" basis, men could enslave all women, but we do what is right, not "what is possible."


I am quite frankly insulted that you would suggest I am in favor of raping, beating, and enslaving women, that just... I won't even reply to this further or else I'm liable to start yelling at you. I know you don't like me from your replies to my other posts, and you're just trying to get me worked up by acting like you didn't know what my post was about (you know full-well what it was about)

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.



My grandmother and great grandmother used to tell me about how they respected their husbands and their husbands respected them, and I could see this and knew from watching them interact in daily situations, it was true.

Now I can watch the society at large, and see with my own eyes, the way "modern" "liberated" women do nothing more than moan about men, mistreat them, reject the ideals of family, marriage, sacrifice for children, even wanting to have children (they've been conditioned to reject natural instincts!)

My grandmother and great grandmother used to tell me about how they respected their husbands and their husbands respected them, and I could see this and knew from watching them interact in daily situations, it was true.

Now I can watch the society at large, and see with my own eyes, the way "modern" "liberated" women do nothing more than moan about men, mistreat them, reject the ideals of family, marriage, sacrifice for children, even wanting to have children (they've been conditioned to reject natural instincts!)

Funny, my mother is a "modern" "liberated" woman and she stayed with my father up until she couldn't stand it anymore. Why? For us kids.

She has since remarried and respects her husband, as he respects her.

And, just so you know, not *all* women have the huge impulse to have children that the rest of us do. Personally, I'm holding back my impulse until I'm in a better financial/time situation and I have a dog as a child-substitute (and man does he get spoiled =)

My grandmother and great grandmother used to tell me about how they respected their husbands and their husbands respected them, and I could see this and knew from watching them interact in daily situations, it was true.

Now I can watch the society at large, and see with my own eyes, the way "modern" "liberated" women do nothing more than moan about men, mistreat them, reject the ideals of family, marriage, sacrifice for children, even wanting to have children (they've been conditioned to reject natural instincts!)

Not all men were respectful like your Grandfathers were back then. But Men haters seem to have a chip on their shoulder about something. I appreciate a good man ......and as I said earlier-especially the ones who are still chivalras. Nothing wrong with a man opening the door for a lady.

Not all men were respectful like your Grandfathers were back then. But Men haters seem to have a chip on their shoulder about something. I appreciate a good man ......and as I said earlier-especially the ones who are still chivalras. Nothing wrong with a man opening the door for a lady.


I've had women refuse my offer to help them carry things that they were dropping all over in the mud because, "No! I can handle it, I don't need help!"


When you're dropping everything all over, and nearly falling down yourself, it's quite clear you need help.


There is nothing wrong with accepting help. (I've never really had an older person, male or female, turn down an offer for their driveway to get shoveled, free of course, or for me to carry their groceries for them, etc. It seems that younger "Liberated" women, just can't admit when they need help, which might explain why the rape rate went through the roof in the last few decades, women can't accept help from anybody and they've also been conditioned not to want to be around guns, thus they're cut off from outside help and from tools useful for defense. Personally, I think all good women should have guns, all bad women should be sent to the moon, they can make a feminazi nation with no men, and live happily ever after)

Just like every other issue, it depends on the person.

I've had women refuse my offer to help them carry things that they were dropping all over in the mud because, "No! I can handle it, I don't need help!"

When you're dropping everything all over, and nearly falling down yourself, it's quite clear you need help.

Funny, I've seen some men do the same thing. Some people simply have a problem swallowing their pride, it has nothing to do with gender. I've had to learn to swallow mine.

which might explain why the rape rate went through the roof in the last few decades, women can't accept help from anybody and they've also been conditioned not to want to be around guns, thus they're cut off from outside help and from tools useful for defense.

Ah, new and interesting ways to blame rape on the woman being attacked. Glad to see that people like you are still going at it. Perhaps we should give you a job telling a woman that it was her fault she got raped because all that screaming she was doing didn't constitute "asking for help."

Do you realize that women have to be taught *not* to scream "Help!" or "Rape!" when they are attacked? Why? **BECAUSE NO ONE COMES TO HELP IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SCREAM** You are much more likely to get people to come if you scream "FIRE!"

Funny, I've seen some men do the same thing. Some people simply have a problem swallowing their pride, it has nothing to do with gender. I've had to learn to swallow mine.



Ah, new and interesting ways to blame rape on the woman being attacked. Glad to see that people like you are still going at it. Perhaps we should give you a job telling a woman that it was her fault she got raped because all that screaming she was doing didn't constitute "asking for help."

Do you realize that women have to be taught *not* to scream "Help!" or "Rape!" when they are attacked? Why? **BECAUSE NO ONE COMES TO HELP IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SCREAM** You are much more likely to get people to come if you scream "FIRE!"



A woman is much more likely to get the point across to the would be rapist, that she won't be a victim, if she screams "Die!" right before shooting the SOB. And if I ever hear anybody screaming, I'd go to their assistance.

A woman is much more likely to get the point across to the would be rapist, that she won't be a victim, if she screams "Die!" right before shooting the SOB.

Yes, and if she doesn't have a gun, it's all her fault for being raped - we get it darling.

And if I ever hear anybody screaming, I'd go to their assistance.

Funny, that's what most of the people who watched a woman being raped in broad daylight in the middle of a NY street most likely said prior to. During, they all assumed "someone" must've already called the cops for them.

they've been conditioned to reject natural instincts!

Natural instincts? You nazis have a serious problem with genetic determinism. Haven't you heard the saying "Existance proceeds essense"?

Yes, and if she doesn't have a gun, it's all her fault for being raped - we get it darling.



Funny, that's what most of the people who watched a woman being raped in broad daylight in the middle of a NY street most likely said prior to. During, they all assumed "someone" must've already called the cops for them.

In the middle of a NY street? wouldn't they have got run over? source?

In the middle of a NY street? wouldn't they have got run over? source?

It was an alleyway I believe, but it was in broad daylight.

For source, check *any* sociology book.

It was an alleyway I believe, but it was in broad daylight.

For source, check *any* sociology book.

You can't talk about a specific incident then say its in *any* sociology book. You made the point so go and find some evidence to back it up.

Yes, and if she doesn't have a gun, it's all her fault for being raped - we get it darling.



Funny, that's what most of the people who watched a woman being raped in broad daylight in the middle of a NY street most likely said prior to. During, they all assumed "someone" must've already called the cops for them.



Answer to part one, no, of course not, it's the guy who did it. But at this day in age, if you don't have a gun, don't complain when you become the victim of crime, the NWO doesn't give a damn about non-elites and thus they won't protect you. Count on yourself and you won't be disappointed. (why trust others with your life?)



Answer to part two, I don't believe calling the police is appropriate in the case of rape. I believe calling the county morgue would be, because I believe rapists should be shot on sight, or if captured, hanged shortly after capture.

You can't talk about a specific incident then say its in *any* sociology book. You made the point so go and find some evidence to back it up.

I believe this is the case I was thinking about, and it *is* in any sociology book. It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of it.

I was wrong about one detail - it was not daylight (I believe I have heard the account told that way, but it was apparently wrong.)

One thing is sure, however, this woman was repeatedly stabbed, beaten, and raped. There were 38 witnesses, and *not a single one called the police* until after she had been attacked at least three separate times. Some looked out their windows, one even yelled once at the attacker, but none intervened, and none called the cops.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Kitty+Genovese&btnG=Search

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/csilk_why-kitty-genovese-die.asp

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/mooreportal/kitty.html

http://web.utk.edu/~wmorgan/psy470/kitty2.htm

http://www.pineforge.com/newman4study/resources/latane1.htm

http://www.garysturt.free-online.co.uk/The%20case%20of%20Kitty%20Genovese.htm

Would you like more sources?

I believe this is the case I was thinking about, and it *is* in any sociology book. It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of it.

I was wrong about one detail - it was not daylight (I believe I have heard the account told that way, but it was apparently wrong.)

One thing is sure, however, this woman was repeatedly stabbed, beaten, and raped. There were 38 witnesses, and *not a single one called the police* until after she had been attacked at least three separate times. Some looked out their windows, one even yelled once at the attacker, but none intervened, and none called the cops.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Kitty+Genovese&btnG=Search

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/csilk_why-kitty-genovese-die.asp

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/mooreportal/kitty.html

http://web.utk.edu/~wmorgan/psy470/kitty2.htm

http://www.pineforge.com/newman4study/resources/latane1.htm

http://www.garysturt.free-online.co.uk/The%20case%20of%20Kitty%20Genovese.htm

Would you like more sources?



That was possibly the most disgusting thing I ever read, not the crime itself, which was certainly disgusting, but the most disgusting part was the apathy and complicity shown by those who could have stopped it, but didn't. There is no middle ground, as Christ said, "Him who is not with me, is against me." You are either with good or with evil, if you don't oppose evil, but don't help good, you are helping evil.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

I'd like to add, that Mr. Winston Moseley (the man who raped and killed the woman) was a black man (Just mentioining this, so people can think, what if the races had been reversed, and a white man had killed and raped a black woman in plain view of nearly 40 people, we'd be hearing in on the radio every year the anniversiary of the day it happened, etc)


http://www.karisable.com/wmoseley.htm



I'd also like have to wonder if the people that saw were white, black, poor, middle class, etc.

I've heard of modern cases of even the police not helping people being attacked by criminals (Reginald Denny in LA Riots on Florence and Normandy, the trucker, remember?) there were 6 squad cars 1 block from him, watching as he was pulled out and beat)


I also have (will dig this citation up soon) a case where a mob of blacks brutally beat a jewish man, coming out of his synagogue, during a riot, police were about 50 feet away, and did nothing. The courts ruled the man wasn't entitled to police protection.


Scary world we live in if they won't let you own a gun to defend yourself and they won't protect you either.

It doesn't matter that the man attacked was a jew (some people will point out to me "he's a jew! you should be happy!" well no, not at all, not at all, anybody should have the right to defend themselves if attacked, yes that includes non-Christians)

I believe this is the case I was thinking about, and it *is* in any sociology book. It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of it.

But if you want to make a point it is your job to back it with evidence. If you cannot your point is invalid. The fact that you found a slight error in your story shows the need for evidence.

Would you like more sources?

One would have been fine. There is no need to get angry, I simply wanted evidence.

It is unfortunate that none of the residents called the cops but that does not make them evil, they made a bad decision and had to live with it, something I'm sure was hard for them. That being said they were all idiots.

It is unfortunate that none of the residents called the cops but that does not make them evil, they made a bad decision and had to live with it, something I'm sure was hard for them. That being said they were all idiots.

I never said it made them evil. Scary thing is, it made them normal.

Most people would have followed Hitler's orders. Why? Because people take orders from people in authority.

Most people will stand by and watch something like this happen. Why? Because it is "somebody else's problem."

Sad.

I never said it made them evil. Scary thing is, it made them normal.

Most people would have followed Hitler's orders. Why? Because people take orders from people in authority.

Most people will stand by and watch something like this happen. Why? Because it is "somebody else's problem."

Sad.

The world is a brutal place. Survival of the fittest ect ect. People followed Hitler's orders cause he had lots of guns.

I never said it made them evil. Scary thing is, it made them normal.

Most people would have followed Hitler's orders. Why? Because people take orders from people in authority.

Most people will stand by and watch something like this happen. Why? Because it is "somebody else's problem."

Sad.
No, most will stand by because they are sheeple.

No, most will stand by because they are sheeple.

Sheeple is such a great word.

You totally missed the point of my thread. Somebody said women could get rid of men and reproduce in labs... I am saying, that if you just go on a technical and "what is possible" basis, men could enslave all women, but we do what is right, not "what is possible."


I am quite frankly insulted that you would suggest I am in favor of raping, beating, and enslaving women, that just... I won't even reply to this further or else I'm liable to start yelling at you. I know you don't like me from your replies to my other posts, and you're just trying to get me worked up by acting like you didn't know what my post was about (you know full-well what it was about)

I have to admit... I don't actually know who you are... if someone asked me to point to three of your posts, I would have to search them out - so there's no point thinking I don't "like you".

If the 'Feminazi" refrain is part of your average post, then you are picking up on the fact that I find such a label silly in the extreme - and suspect it does more harm to any platform you try to establish, than any help it might be.

Feel free to yell at me - do it in TG if you wish, so you don't get deleted - I didn't say you DID favour rape or beatings, I tried to draw some meaning out of (what I consider) a very cloudy post. A simple "No" would probably have worked to allay any suspicions.

And no - I didn't know what your post was about - this one describes (in summary) the content of the last post much more readily than the post itself did, I think.

As a final commentary, though... a little research into western history shows that, for the most part, women are just emerging from the "Slavery" your post mentions. The 'technical possibility' you mention isn't even cold, yet.

You can't talk about a specific incident then say its in *any* sociology book. You made the point so go and find some evidence to back it up.

Hey - I'm not even a sociologist, but I've seen 'humanities' and 'social science' type text books describing the 'on-street-rape' scenarios, and that little fact about "screaming "Fire" rather than for help".

The world is a brutal place. Survival of the fittest ect ect. People followed Hitler's orders cause he had lots of guns.

Actually - no.

And, this is another one that you can probably find in *any* psychology text book.

People just have a habit of following orders, no matter how evil they may be... even when their is no overt threat to themselves.

So long as their is the slightest air of heirarchy, people WILL carry out horrific acts on the orders of another, readily. Very few people break that mould.

Let me see whether I can find the specific 'experiment' I'm referring to..

Ah yes, Stanly Milgram's "Obedience to Authority" Experiment:

http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2004/experiments.htm

"All of them believed that only a very few sadistic individuals would administer the maximum voltage level of shock to the "learner." However, approximately 65% of subjects actually administer the maximum voltage shock (450 volts), even though some were uncomfortable doing so. All subjects administered shocks up to at least 300 volts".

Actually - no.

And, this is another one that you can probably find in *any* psychology text book.

People just have a habit of following orders, no matter how evil they may be... even when their is no overt threat to themselves.

So long as their is the slightest air of heirarchy, people WILL carry out horrific acts on the orders of another, readily. Very few people break that mould.

Let me see whether I can find the specific 'experiment' I'm referring to..

Ah yes, Stanly Milgram's "Obedience to Authority" Experiment:

http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2004/experiments.htm


Bah you and your FACTS!

Actually - no.

And, this is another one that you can probably find in *any* psychology text book.

People just have a habit of following orders, no matter how evil they may be... even when their is no overt threat to themselves.

So long as their is the slightest air of heirarchy, people WILL carry out horrific acts on the orders of another, readily. Very few people break that mould.

Let me see whether I can find the specific 'experiment' I'm referring to..

Ah yes, Stanly Milgram's "Obedience to Authority" Experiment:

http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2004/experiments.htm

Hmm sheeple indeed. Anyone know how much current is needed to kill someone? or do decent damage? I supose since all responsibility is taken by the experimenter true human nature shines through.

Hmm sheeple indeed. Anyone know how much current is needed to kill someone? or do decent damage? I supose since all responsibility is taken by the experimenter true human nature shines through.

I don't know how much current would kill... it's irrelevent in the experiment anyway, because the subjects administered whatever they were told, up to the maximum available... also without knowing if it could kill.

And - of course, no actual shocks were administered (just in case anyone didn't read the link).

But, yes... the 'figurehead' took all responsibility... and, since, they were 'ordered' to do it, ALL those people somehow 'forgot' any other conviction they might have, and administered (what they BELIEVED was) extreme torture on an innocent victim.

I don't know how much current would kill... it's irrelevent in the experiment anyway, because the subjects administered whatever they were told, up to the maximum available... also without knowing if it could kill.

And - of course, no actual shocks were administered (just in case anyone didn't read the link).

But, yes... the 'figurehead' took all responsibility... and, since, they were 'ordered' to do it, ALL those people somehow 'forgot' any other conviction they might have, and administered (what they BELIEVED was) extreme torture on an innocent victim.

I was just interested in what kind of damage 450 volts would actualy do. Also in that situation you would kind of assume no one will come to actual lasting harm. As it said without the supervisor there to take the blame they were less willing, still a scary thought.

I was just interested in what kind of damage 450 volts would actualy do. Also in that situation you would kind of assume no one will come to actual lasting harm. As it said without the supervisor there to take the blame they were less willing, still a scary thought.
Volts can deal damage (burns) but as far as actual death it is all about the AMPS ... If I remember 6 miliamps across the heart does it (I will try to look it up) (note ACROSS THE HEART ... it has to hit right)

I have taken 240 at 60 amps before ... slight singing ... no real pain though blacked out for a bit ... ehh enough you can do serious burns (450 no ... at about 7.2k is where people start loose fingers)

Volts can deal damage (burns) but as far as actual death it is all about the AMPS ... If I remember 6 miliamps across the heart does it (I will try to look it up) (note ACROSS THE HEART ... it has to hit right)

I have taken 240 at 60 amps before ... slight singing ... no real pain though blacked out for a bit ... ehh enough you can do serious burns (450 no ... at about 7.2k is where people start loose fingers)

yeah current rather than power. LOL remind me not to annoy you any time soon, you shouldn't mess with people who know that sort of thing ;)

yeah current rather than power. LOL remind me not to annoy you any time soon, you shouldn't mess with people who know that sort of thing ;)
Dad's a masters electrician ... now inspector ... some of it has to bleed over
I worked as a journyman for a while too... more into computers then my origional Electrical Engenering

Dad's a masters electrician ... now inspector ... some of it has to bleed over
I worked as a journyman for a while too... more into computers then my origional Electrical Engenering

Fair enough. Computers are interesting :). Lol I have to look back to see how we got to talking about this.

Fair enough. Computers are interesting :). Lol I have to look back to see how we got to talking about this.
I dont know responded to a specific comment I saw :D

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

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

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

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

There are no "masculinists" because men like to have sex. Imagine being a young man and in the "masculinists" and tring to get a date.

Very funny "women can't" and "blacks can't".

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic

I dont know responded to a specific comment I saw :D

ok it went. no one helped rape victim - science experiment about taking orders (used electricity) - how much electricity is needed to kill.

ok it went. no one helped rape victim - science experiment about taking orders (used electricity) - how much electricity is needed to kill.
Ahhh intresting :D

ok it went. no one helped rape victim - science experiment about taking orders (used electricity) - how much electricity is needed to kill.

See, you KNEW there must be a logical reason.

(I hate Jurassic Park).

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Hear, hear!

See, you KNEW there must be a logical reason.

(I hate Jurassic Park).

Hahaha we're rambling off topic but its a much nicer conversation then we were having on topic. Do you hate the Jurassic Park movies or just the idea of that sort of thing?

Now I can watch the society at large, and see with my own eyes, the way "modern" "liberated" women do nothing more than moan about men, mistreat them, reject the ideals of family, marriage, sacrifice for children, even wanting to have children (they've been conditioned to reject natural instincts!)
some poeple don't want kids.

and i've never seen a girl berate a man in a relationship. i have seen the reverse a number of times. i assure you, for every woman who degrades her husband, there are at least 10 wives undergoing the same treatment.

I've had women refuse my offer to help them carry things that they were dropping all over in the mud because, "No! I can handle it, I don't need help!"


When you're dropping everything all over, and nearly falling down yourself, it's quite clear you need help.


There is nothing wrong with accepting help. (I've never really had an older person, male or female, turn down an offer for their driveway to get shoveled, free of course, or for me to carry their groceries for them, etc. It seems that younger "Liberated" women, just can't admit when they need help, which might explain why the rape rate went through the roof in the last few decades, women can't accept help from anybody and they've also been conditioned not to want to be around guns, thus they're cut off from outside help and from tools useful for defense. Personally, I think all good women should have guns, all bad women should be sent to the moon, they can make a feminazi nation with no men, and live happily ever after)
some people don't like help.

i know that even if i'm hungry, i won't accept food if offered unless it's from a very close friend, usually then it's only if i've given them food on a previous occasion. i simply end up feeling endebted to someone for helping me out and i don't like that. so unless i feel that i really need it, chances are i won't ask for help or accept it.

by the way, it's really fuckign disgusting that you blame the victims of rape for their attacker's actions. the first things they teach you in self defense class are to avoid situations that might make you vulnerable and if you find yourself in such a situation, yell as loud as you can. it's not necessarily yell for someone to come save you, but yell so the attacker will worry that someone will come along or take notice so they will run off. furthermore it announces that you are unwilling to partake in such activities loudly and clearly... rapes happen because people go out and do so, not because women don't call for help. disgusting pig you are. i suppose women are at fault when their partners beat them too, aren't they?

some people don't like help.

i know that even if i'm hungry, i won't accept food if offered unless it's from a very close friend, usually then it's only if i've given them food on a previous occasion. i simply end up feeling endebted to someone for helping me out and i don't like that. so unless i feel that i really need it, chances are i won't ask for help or accept it.

I used to feel that way. If someone offered me help or gave me a gift I could not wait to get rid of the obligation by paying back, returning the help, or giving a comparable gift.

I have since come to realize that offering and accepting help is a way to bind myself to others and they to me. Kind of a "Godfather" mentality of mutual favors (without all the killing).

Do you realize that women have to be taught *not* to scream "Help!" or "Rape!" when they are attacked? Why? **BECAUSE NO ONE COMES TO HELP IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SCREAM** You are much more likely to get people to come if you scream "FIRE!"
yeah, that was the other thing.

scream "no" try to fight them off, and if you're in an apartment building or somewhere where other people might be nearby, yell "fire" because people are more likely to come out and do something.

some people don't like help.

i know that even if i'm hungry, i won't accept food if offered unless it's from a very close friend, usually then it's only if i've given them food on a previous occasion. i simply end up feeling endebted to someone for helping me out and i don't like that. so unless i feel that i really need it, chances are i won't ask for help or accept it.
While I understand been in a few situations where it was carried to extremes

Example (short version)

Live in country … have a big 4wd truck

Find a girl age about 25 with Taurus complete off the road in the snow. I pull over and try to help … I get told that she does not need a mans help (remember she is completely stuck and it is -20 f out there …dangerous weather)

Lucky for her I couldn’t leave it at that and pulled down the road and into a driveway to make sure someone was coming to help her that maybe she knew. Bout 15 min later she fell breaking a leg … middle of the snow when it was cold enough to freeze to death in minuets (with the wind and such exposed skin at that temp frostbites at like the 10 min mark or less)

If I had not stayed her pride in her sex might very well have killed her… not saying don’t have pride but saying don’t let that drive you to do dangerous or stupid things.


On the other end of the scope pulled into a gas station filling up with a friend when we noticed a lady fooling around under the hood … looking confused we went to go see what we could do to help … (she was trying to reset the computer by disconnecting the battery as a mechanic GF of hers told her to do … correct) but the only thing she had was a bad set of channel locks and a dim flashlight

Simple I have my tool set … by accepting our help it took only 2 minuets no problem and she was on her way (granted maybe her 2 year old or her puppy in the car made her more willing for help) but it was not about skill or “men” being better
I just keep a full tool kit around me … simple as having the right equipment


Anyways I am probably being confusing … moral of the story is accept help when needed even if pride tells you otherwise ... besides most of us feel good about helping others when we can

some people don't like help.

i know that even if i'm hungry, i won't accept food if offered unless it's from a very close friend, usually then it's only if i've given them food on a previous occasion. i simply end up feeling endebted to someone for helping me out and i don't like that. so unless i feel that i really need it, chances are i won't ask for help or accept it.

And women constantly complain about male egos....
Not accepting food from strangers is probably a good idea though.

by the way, it's really fuckign disgusting that you blame the victims of rape for their attacker's actions. the first things they teach you in self defense class are to avoid situations that might make you vulnerable and if you find yourself in such a situation, yell as loud as you can. it's not necessarily yell for someone to come save you, but yell so the attacker will worry that someone will come along or take notice so they will run off. furthermore it announces that you are unwilling to partake in such activities loudly and clearly... rapes happen because people go out and do so, not because women don't call for help. disgusting pig you are. i suppose women are at fault when their partners beat them too, aren't they?

"disgusting pig you are" hmmmm keep it civil please I don't want this thread locked. He never said it was a womans fault for bring raped, just that prehaps some rapes could be avoided if different actions were taken (carrying guns ect).

I used to feel that way. If someone offered me help or gave me a gift I could not wait to get rid of the obligation by paying back, returning the help, or giving a comparable gift.

I have since come to realize that offering and accepting help is a way to bind myself to others and they to me. Kind of a "Godfather" mentality of mutual favors (without all the killing).

Hey your still here :) . I thought you left in disgust a long time ago. And help is good.

]I just keep a full tool kit around me … simple as having the right equipment

I bet you do....

And women constantly complain about male egos....
Not accepting food from strangers is probably a good idea though.
it's not an ego thing.

and with the food... i work in a gorcery store making pizzas, once the franchisee ordered a pizza, i made it and then went on my break. in the break room was the franchisee eating the pizza i made, she offered me a slice, i was a little hungry, but i declined. i just always feel like i'm imposing when i take something from someone without giving them something back.

i mean, i'll accept door openings, if i have a lot of stuff, i won't let someone else carry them unless i know the person (one reason being i don't want people running off with my stuff) i don't jump all over people helping me if i drop stuff either. if my car broke down and someone offered to help me out a bit, i would accept, but i wouldn't like it. i just end up feeling like i owe them something for their troubles. it has nothing do with ego.

and if you want to talk about male egos, see my ex, he wouldn't go through a door if i was holding it. he would stand there and wait for me to release the door for him to hold. hell, my current bf was reluctant to do so at first. but since there are usually two doors to most places (one inside one outside) usually i get one and he gets the other. and this is door opening... it's common courtesy to hold the door for people who follow you. i hold the door for strangers, strangers hold the door for me. this isn't going out of anyone's way.


"disgusting pig you are" hmmmm keep it civil please I don't want this thread locked. He never said it was a womans fault for bring raped, just that prehaps some rapes could be avoided if different actions were taken (carrying guns ect).
have you noticed the rest of his posts? this man is a pig. he seems to enjoy blaming everything on women being able to work and earn money for themselves. on women who don't feel the need to depend on a man for everything... on women who want to be treated as equals. he is quite a pig.

it's not an ego thing.

and with the food... i work in a gorcery store making pizzas

Your grocery stores make pizzas, where do u live I want to move.


once the franchisee ordered a pizza, i made it and then went on my break. in the break room was the franchisee eating the pizza i made, she offered me a slice, i was a little hungry, but i declined. i just always feel like i'm imposing when i take something from someone without giving them something back.

If they offer it they can obviously live without it. Maybe your starving them of that good feeling they get by giving someone something. Some people like to give.

i mean, i'll accept door openings, if i have a lot of stuff, i won't let someone else carry them unless i know the person (one reason being i don't want people running off with my stuff) i don't jump all over people helping me if i drop stuff either. if my car broke down and someone offered to help me out a bit, i would accept, but i wouldn't like it. i just end up feeling like i owe them something for their troubles. it has nothing do with ego.

If its given freely there is no debt.

and if you want to talk about male egos, see my ex, he wouldn't go through a door if i was holding it. he would stand there and wait for me to release the door for him to hold. hell, my current bf was reluctant to do so at first. but since there are usually two doors to most places (one inside one outside) usually i get one and he gets the other. and this is door opening... it's common courtesy to hold the door for people who follow you. i hold the door for strangers, strangers hold the door for me. this isn't going out of anyone's way.

Most males do have ego issues, some have serious issues. Some are just idiots.


have you noticed the rest of his posts? this man is a pig. he seems to enjoy blaming everything on women being able to work and earn money for themselves. on women who don't feel the need to depend on a man for everything... on women who want to be treated as equals. he is quite a pig.

Hehehe I've been here since page 5 :) :) . I dont like to comment on other peoples behaviour, I'll just leave it at that.

I bet you do....
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: maybe you will find out ;) (wow I know me and you flirt but this seems dirty in a feminist thread for some reason)

for the greater glory of my country's image, and, of this I am sure, as a practical joke, women were given serious political positions. Not because of their skills or capabilities, but because of the fact that a minimum number of female politicians should be reached. This leads to quite ridiculous situations.
One used money intended for public matters to redecorate her office in an extreeeeemely luxurious way, and another, a mayor of an important industrial harbor-city, used money raised by taxes to be used for city-improvements to go out and buy jewellery! jewellery I tell you!
Men in their position would have been bribed without a doubt, but at least that's politics!
It seems important however to make a clear difference between emancipation (which is a bless) and feminism (which is, as goes with witches, a curse)

to conclude: a hole is a hole, and my mighty destroyer has got no eyes, but wants to see justice nevertheless

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: maybe you will find out ;) (wow I know me and you flirt but this seems dirty in a feminist thread for some reason)

well if they cant take a joke then they need meds

well if they cant take a joke then they need meds
:D your cool lol

to conclude: a hole is a hole, and my mighty destroyer has got no eyes, but wants to see justice nevertheless

Wow you turned a semi-relevent post into complete randomness with one sentance. *bows*

Hey your still here :) . I thought you left in disgust a long time ago. And help is good.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 70+ pages. Who would have thought there were so many insecure guys so terrified of women.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 70+ pages. Who would have thought there were so many insecure guys so terrified of women.

Hehehe actually read them, see how much of it is actualy about feminism ;) . Plus this is the internet, its where guys afraid of girls go so they dont have to talk to anyone.

for the greater glory of my country's image, and, of this I am sure, as a practical joke, women were given serious political positions. Not because of their skills or capabilities, but because of the fact that a minimum number of female politicians should be reached. This leads to quite ridiculous situations.
One used money intended for public matters to redecorate her office in an extreeeeemely luxurious way, and another, a mayor of an important industrial harbor-city, used money raised by taxes to be used for city-improvements to go out and buy jewellery! jewellery I tell you!
Men in their position would have been bribed without a doubt, but at least that's politics!
It seems important however to make a clear difference between emancipation (which is a bless) and feminism (which is, as goes with witches, a curse)

to conclude: a hole is a hole, and my mighty destroyer has got no eyes, but wants to see justice nevertheless

I think that you are confused about what feminism actually is. Your 'example situation' is not a praticularly good one, in the first place many feminists would consider mandatory instatement of females simply for the sake of appointing females, to be stupid and counterproductive. What you describe is not an example of 'feminism' but rather an example of apparent stupidity, whether or not some people might have thought that in doing so they were furthering feminism, is not really relevent to whether or not it is a good or stupid thing to do....

As it happens a particular 'political type' appointee that immediately springs to mind when reading your example, also made extravagant tax funded purchases, most notably some very pricey 'silky undies'. If I had to choose between female political appointees wasting tax $s on jewellery, or their male equivalents wasting tax $s on silky boxers, I'll go with the jewellery - the deppreciation isnt as steep if we catch them at it and reposses the illicitly purchassed items. After all 2nd hand jewellery is a more sellable item than some politicians pre-worn undies... :p

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 70+ pages. Who would have thought there were so many insecure guys so terrified of women.
It's almost died about 4 times now, but then some dumbass ressurects it again.

I think that you are confused about what feminism actually is. Your 'example situation' is not a praticularly good one, in the first place many feminists would consider mandatory instatement of females simply for the sake of appointing females, to be stupid and counterproductive. What you describe is not an example of 'feminism' but rather an example of apparent stupidity, whether or not some people might have thought that in doing so they were furthering feminism, is not really relevent to whether or not it is a good or stupid thing to do....

As it happens a particular 'political type' appointee that immediately springs to mind when reading your example, also made extravagant tax funded purchases, most notably some very pricey 'silky undies'. If I had to choose between female political appointees wasting tax $s on jewellery, or their male equivalents wasting tax $s on silky boxers, I'll go with the jewellery - the deppreciation isnt as steep if we catch them at it and reposses the illicitly purchassed items. After all 2nd hand jewellery is a more sellable item than some politicians pre-worn undies... :p

You never know. Some creeps will pay a lot for celebrities used undies.

You never know. Some creeps will pay a lot for celebrities used undies.

Tukurangi a celebrity???!!! I guess I never thought of him like that, still infamous is a form of fame... :rolleyes:

None the less, I have to wonder if you have already gotten going on your New Years celebrations, and are at a point where 'too far gone' might be a better fit than too far away....that or I'm more naive than I thought, I mean Tuku's undies...that'd have to be one desperate deviant.... ;) :D

Tukurangi a celebrity???!!! I guess I never thought of him like that, still infamous is a form of fame... :rolleyes:

None the less, I have to wonder if you have already gotten going on your New Years celebrations, and are at a point where 'too far gone' might be a better fit than too far away....that or I'm more naive than I thought, I mean Tuku's undies...that'd have to be one desperate deviant.... ;) :D

The earth has no end of weird people. I have drunk a little (no really, I mean a little) but I have to work tommorow :( . Oh and my comment about underware was more general then this spesific case.

The earth has no end of weird people. I have drunk a little (no really, I mean a little) but I have to work tommorow :( . Oh and my comment about underware was more general then this spesific case.
Sorry you have to work on New Years day!

Anyway now that I've thought about your suggestion it does make sense (sorta). It could be a great way to raise additional funds for tax coffers, I can see the Trade Me advert...

seller hon.h.clark - check out my other great listings including;

Painting personally painted and signed by me (perspective bidders please note that the phrase 'personally painted and signed by me' is not meant to indicate or imply or infer in any way, that the painting referred to was personally painted and signed by the seller)....

M.P formally of cabinet quality, but slightly tarnished by tax incident - starting bid a $1.00, NO RESERVE (please note, perspective bidders should be aware that item is more expensive to get rid of than to acquire)

ITEMS WANTED, opposition party for parlimentary organisation, ours is either missing entirely, or might as well be.....

I suppose I like to consider myself an independent person with feminist tendencies. However, i don't think that women can ask for equal rights without agreeing to equal hardships. I'm all for women being included in the draft, if it helps get the Equal Rights Ammendment passed. And I don't dislike men, it's not their fault that they happened to get the higher hand in the whole gender deal. <3

Sorry you have to work on New Years day!

Anyway now that I've thought about your suggestion it does make a sense (sorta). It could be a great way to raise additional funds for tax coffers, I can see the Trade Me advert...

seller hon.h.clark - check out my other great listings including;

Painting personally painted and signed by me (perspective bidders please note that the phrase 'personally painted and signed by me' is not meant to indicate or imply or infer in any way, that the painting referred to was personally painted and signed by the seller)....

M.P formally of cabinet quality, but slightly tarnished by tax incident - starting bid a $1.00, NO RESERVE (please note, perspective bidders should be aware that item is more expensive to get rid of than to acquire)

ITEMS WANTED, opposition party for parlimentary organisation, ours is either missing entirely, or might as well be.....

Hahahaha brilliant. Working ain't so bad, I'm still at school so I've been on holiday for a while now, plus I get 1.5x pay.

I suppose I like to consider myself an independent person with feminist tendencies. However, i don't think that women can ask for equal rights without agreeing to equal hardships. I'm all for women being included in the draft, if it helps get the Equal Rights Ammendment passed. And I don't dislike men, it's not their fault that they happened to get the higher hand in the whole gender deal. <3

Yay spread the love.

Hahaha we're rambling off topic but its a much nicer conversation then we were having on topic. Do you hate the Jurassic Park movies or just the idea of that sort of thing?

The first one was bad enough, and they went downhill from there... bad plots, bad scripts... incredibly bad continuity...

If it wasn't for Jeff Goldblum I'd never have finished the first...

Always like Dinosaurs as a kid, even the old clay-minature dinosaur movies... but was big disappointed by the JP franchise.

Actaully... I was close to where our divergent topic had headed to, though... there is an example of all I hated about JP, that ties in with our electric shock commentary...

The little kid gets fried by a charge great enough to stop a Tyrannosaur... and yet, CPR brings the little tyke back.... no burned organs, no internal damage... no 'microwaved' blood supply... right-as-rain with a little bit of mouth-to-mouth.

Grrr.

:)

The first one was bad enough, and they went downhill from there... bad plots, bad scripts... incredibly bad continuity...

If it wasn't for Jeff Goldblum I'd never have finished the first...

Always like Dinosaurs as a kid, even the old clay-minature dinosaur movies... but was big disappointed by the JP franchise.

Actaully... I was close to where our divergent topic had headed to, though... there is an example of all I hated about JP, that ties in with our electric shock commentary...

The little kid gets fried by a charge great enough to stop a Tyrannosaur... and yet, CPR brings the little tyke back.... no burned organs, no internal damage... no 'microwaved' blood supply... right-as-rain with a little bit of mouth-to-mouth.

Grrr.

:)

Hehehe yeah but there are a lot of unrealistic movies out there.

Hehehe yeah but there are a lot of unrealistic movies out there.

Yes... unfortunately so... but at least some of them (Hero) use the un-realism as an element of the film - rather than just being laziness on the part of the writers/producers.

Yes... unfortunately so... but at least some of them (Hero) use the un-realism as an element of the film - rather than just being laziness on the part of the writers/producers.

Yeah if all movies were realistic then we wouldnt have horror, action, sci-fi and many other enjoyable genres.

Yeah if all movies were realistic then we wouldnt have horror, action, sci-fi and many other enjoyable genres.

I'm willing to tolerate some un-realism... I can suspend disbelief enough to watch "Dawn of the Dead", for example...

But, when you set up the all-important premise that a creature with a hide a foot thick, is being held in place by these huge electric fences...

Well, suffice it to say... the writer either shouldn't put a kid on that fence, or he should never come off the fence un-cooked... bah.

Yeah if all movies were realistic then we wouldnt have horror, action, sci-fi and many other enjoyable genres.

like romantic comedies and porn :p

Hello. This is my first post. I am an 18 year old male from Australia. I've been reading this thread for over 4 hours, so I've absorbed all the points said so far. I'd just like to start with some more general arguments.

This is a trend I've noticed in this thread - The people arguing pro-feminism have been resorting to personal attacks at people like Neo Cannen and Bozzy, when all they're doing is stating things that aren't so much anti-feminism so much as improvements for the feminist movement. They haven't attacked back.

This thread was focussed on Western Women's rights - There's no point talking about the injustices women face in countries where there is no feminist movement, that isn't what this thread is about.

America isn't the world. In almost all western countries (note: Amiercan doesn't mean "almost all"), racism and sexism are miniscule problems. If you're going to quote statistics, make sure you say "American statistics" or "French statistics".

In stead of focussing on one area where there is inequality, I've decided to mesure them up as a whole (minus the things we can't control (yet) - things like our genes. If you think of the term feminism, you'll find the term is sexist in itself. Feminism believes in equality between men and women. What happens when women have it better off than men? Would it still be called feminism. The term should be changed to Humanism.

Just about everything that can be done to equalise the two sexes has been done. All it needs now is time. All changes in society take time. It was less than 2 generations, and the majority of racial hatred in America was abolished. In fact, feminism is working against equality between men and women. I was in high school less than a year ago, and there was nothing that said "men are better than women" or vice versa. There was nothing that could be called "unequal", yet the feminists are still preaching, and every time they do that, some childs thoughts change from "there's a general equality between the sexes" to "men are dominating women". There isn't any point going on about old issues like equal pay, because almost everyone (the other people being the women haters that some feminists seem to think make up 3/4s of the western worlds male population) agrees that equality between the sexes is a good thing, and they sympathise with the feminists want for equality.

There's no way to measure how society is equal, but it's (very easily) noticeably different to 100 years ago. A (generalization - most things in my post are)feminist will make an argument that there is still inequality between the sexes, saying "oh, there's still a difference in pay", and then a non feminist would make a point "child custody laws heavily favour women" and these two people can just keep slinging argument and argument at eachother, but it's still equal. It balances out.

I noticed someone saying that men will see a woman who sleep around with people as a slut, but SO WILL MOST WOMEN. That's just how it is. Sure, it'd be great if it wasn't that way and maybe in a few decades, it will be different, but there's no way we can speed up society to change it's views. It happens gradually, it takes a shitload of time and sure, in the meantime, it sucks but you're just going to have to deal with it.

This is about the third time I've said this, but the more people bitch and complain, the more they change people's ideas from "equality" to "female superiority".

Feminists, are in a small unconscious way, anti-male. The image that everyone has of them being like this would change very quickly, if the feminist rallies would just TELL everyone that they don't support the ideas of feminazis (I'm using that term for conveniance's sake).

Here are some good reads about domestic violence and how rape/sexual harrasment isn't a male only thing.
http://www.truthhurts.org/articles/51/equality-of-the-sexes/
http://www.truthhurts.org/articles/16/women-who-deserve-it/
Disclosure - Michael Crichton

Sorry for ressurecting, but I just had to respond.
Until I see some replies worth replying to, Have a good night (I've spent a fair while researching, etc about this so I'm going to go to bed).

Hello. This is my first post. I am an 18 year old male from Australia. I've been reading this thread for over 4 hours, so I've absorbed all the points said so far. I'd just like to start with some more general arguments.

This is a trend I've noticed in this thread - The people arguing pro-feminism have been resorting to personal attacks at people like Neo Cannen and Bozzy, when all they're doing is stating things that aren't so much anti-feminism so much as improvements for the feminist movement. They haven't attacked back.

This thread was focussed on Western Women's rights - There's no point talking about the injustices women face in countries where there is no feminist movement, that isn't what this thread is about.

America isn't the world. In almost all western countries (note: Amiercan doesn't mean "almost all"), racism and sexism are miniscule problems. If you're going to quote statistics, make sure you say "American statistics" or "French statistics".

In stead of focussing on one area where there is inequality, I've decided to mesure them up as a whole (minus the things we can't control (yet) - things like our genes. If you think of the term feminism, you'll find the term is sexist in itself. Feminism believes in equality between men and women. What happens when women have it better off than men? Would it still be called feminism. The term should be changed to Humanism.

Just about everything that can be done to equalise the two sexes has been done. All it needs now is time. All changes in society take time. It was less than 2 generations, and the majority of racial hatred in America was abolished. In fact, feminism is working against equality between men and women. I was in high school less than a year ago, and there was nothing that said "men are better than women" or vice versa. There was nothing that could be called "unequal", yet the feminists are still preaching, and every time they do that, some childs thoughts change from "there's a general equality between the sexes" to "men are dominating women". There isn't any point going on about old issues like equal pay, because almost everyone (the other people being the women haters that some feminists seem to think make up 3/4s of the western worlds male population) agrees that equality between the sexes is a good thing, and they sympathise with the feminists want for equality.

There's no way to measure how society is equal, but it's (very easily) noticeably different to 100 years ago. A (generalization - most things in my post are)feminist will make an argument that there is still inequality between the sexes, saying "oh, there's still a difference in pay", and then a non feminist would make a point "child custody laws heavily favour women" and these two people can just keep slinging argument and argument at eachother, but it's still equal. It balances out.

I noticed someone saying that men will see a woman who sleep around with people as a slut, but SO WILL MOST WOMEN. That's just how it is. Sure, it'd be great if it wasn't that way and maybe in a few decades, it will be different, but there's no way we can speed up society to change it's views. It happens gradually, it takes a shitload of time and sure, in the meantime, it sucks but you're just going to have to deal with it.

This is about the third time I've said this, but the more people bitch and complain, the more they change people's ideas from "equality" to "female superiority".

Feminists, are in a small unconscious way, anti-male. The image that everyone has of them being like this would change very quickly, if the feminist rallies would just TELL everyone that they don't support the ideas of feminazis (I'm using that term for conveniance's sake).

Here are some good reads about domestic violence and how rape/sexual harrasment isn't a male only thing.
http://www.truthhurts.org/articles/51/equality-of-the-sexes/
http://www.truthhurts.org/articles/16/women-who-deserve-it/
Disclosure - Michael Crichton

Sorry for ressurecting, but I just had to respond.
Until I see some replies worth replying to, Have a good night (I've spent a fair while researching, etc about this so I'm going to go to bed).

This impressive level of quality of posting is not often seen. Thank you very much (No sarcasm at all)

Hello. This is my first post. I am an 18 year old male from Australia. I've been reading this thread for over 4 hours, so I've absorbed all the points said so far. I'd just like to start with some more general arguments.

Sorry for ressurecting, but I just had to respond.
Until I see some replies worth replying to, Have a good night (I've spent a fair while researching, etc about this so I'm going to go to bed).

Trimmed purely for the sake of space.

Just responding to a one of the points you raised.

You say that men call 'available women sluts, but then justify that by saying "so do women"... which is kind of missing the point. Sure, women are conforming to a male-enforced 'mind-set'. I also know some women who have no greater ambition than to get pregnant, married and clean the house.

The issue is a double standard. Personally, when I hear a guy boasting about how he has had sex with a hundred women, I feel like he is missing some of the point of sex - but, hey that is his choice... and I think the same for a girl.

I don't call the one a 'slut' and the other a 'stud'.

I may come back and reply to more, later - when I have more time.

I'm not justifying it by saying "so do women". If women are saying it about women then that has to change before men can start to change. Because the women are saying it, there is an IMAGE of it being acceptable to talk like that - "If they didn't like it then why would they say it themselves?" is what those men generally think (I don't call women sluts, etc because labelling is stupid). It's a catch 22 here, but it's a very fragile one. All it takes is the will to change for it to happen and it will.

That's happening - If it weren't would we really be having this discussion? I don't know about your country (Where are you from, anyway?) but I personally haven't heard anyone labelled a slut/stud in a wrong time. This is just another one of those things that need time to evolve in society.

Also - Never said anything about "available women" - that's not what this is about, and NO one thinks that.

I completely agree with this topic. At first feminism was to make women and men equal. It was noble and just. Nowadays the feminazis are out to ruin this country. They MURDER millions of unborn children, pay in support for lesbian groups, and degrade men. They want partial birth abortion, you know, the one where the doctor takes an icepick like device and HITS THE BABY IN THE SKULL, you know that one? The feminazis want it legal. They are all sickos.

Hello. This is my first post. I am an 18 year old male from Australia. I've been reading this thread for over 4 hours

I'm in NZ :). Wow you read the whole thing? thats an effort.


This is a trend I've noticed in this thread - The people arguing pro-feminism have been resorting to personal attacks at people like Neo Cannen and Bozzy, when all they're doing is stating things that aren't so much anti-feminism so much as improvements for the feminist movement. They haven't attacked back.

Arguing an issue like this you are always going to get a little anger.


America isn't the world. In almost all western countries (note: Amiercan doesn't mean "almost all"), racism and sexism are miniscule problems. If you're going to quote statistics, make sure you say "American statistics" or "French statistics".

Hahaha it's funny how you have to mention this to some people.

If you think of the term feminism, you'll find the term is sexist in itself.

Yay someone else agrees.

I noticed someone saying that men will see a woman who sleep around with people as a slut, but SO WILL MOST WOMEN. That's just how it is. Sure, it'd be great if it wasn't that way and maybe in a few decades, it will be different, but there's no way we can speed up society to change it's views. It happens gradually, it takes a shitload of time and sure, in the meantime, it sucks but you're just going to have to deal with it.

Women who sleep around have no appeal to me. Its not because im scared she has had someone better its because I think sex is special. Guys who sleep around aren't my idols either, they're just addicts.


Here are some good reads about domestic violence and how rape/sexual harrasment isn't a male only thing.
http://www.truthhurts.org/articles/51/equality-of-the-sexes/
http://www.truthhurts.org/articles/16/women-who-deserve-it/
Disclosure - Michael Crichton

I havn't read them but as soon as I have time I shall take a look.

Arguing an issue like this you are always going to get a little anger.

Yes, but the thing is it's only the pro feminists that are doing this. And funnily enough, most of the insults are the traditional "I'm going overboard on the whole feminist thing, you said "hi" to me, thats sexual harrassment, You're a male chauvinist pig because you don't agree with me." feminazi (Again, used for conveniance) kind of insults.

It's one thing to say "You're an idiot" in a thread about feminism. It's a completely different thing to say "You're a male chauvinist pig".

They want partial birth abortion, you know, the one where the doctor takes an icepick like device and HITS THE BABY IN THE SKULL, you know that one?

I think the majority of abortions occur well before the baby has reached that level of development, as to HAVE a skull. I personally haven't heard of that method, sounds like biased bs to me. A small cluster of cells is not a human being and that's what a "baby" is for quite some time before it is even remotely recognisable as a human being or even a living thing. There is plenty of time to have an abortion durin this early stage. I'm not saying it should be legal to have an abortion at any time durin a pregnancy, obviously haveing one a month before the baby is expected is indeed killing a human being, but as ive said, it isn't really a human life until quite some time into the pregnancy, therefore it's as much murder as picking a scab or tearing of a toe nail, its just cell matter. As for those that say it's denying a child a chance at a life, wtf is that supposed to mean, by that logic, all women should constantly be having babies as fast as they can to avoid being murderers?

You say that you agree with this topic, but your ideals go by the notion that women shouldn't have control over their own bodies and that's the absolute first thing that they should be concerned with. How can they get started having an equal share of power in society if they don't even have total control over their bodies?

And frankly, if you are a religious person, let me know so I don't waste my time trying to reason with you.

Yes, but the thing is it's only the pro feminists that are doing this. And funnily enough, most of the insults are the traditional "I'm going overboard on the whole feminist thing, you said "hi" to me, thats sexual harrassment, You're a male chauvinist pig because you don't agree with me." feminazi (Again, used for conveniance) kind of insults.

It's one thing to say "You're an idiot" in a thread about feminism. It's a completely different thing to say "You're a male chauvinist pig".

Hehehehe I got called a misogynist a while back, well kind of, I think it was just directed at one of my posts, but I dont get insulted easily.

You say that you agree with this topic, but your ideals go by the notion that women shouldn't have control over their own bodies and that's the absolute first thing that they should be concerned with. How can they get started having an equal share of power in society if they don't even have total control over their bodies?

Abortion should be legal, people talk about giving a child a chance but do they ever consider that maybe the child is better off not getting that chance, certainly some of the would be mothers are. Some people aren't ready for babies, prehaps they are not mature enough for the responsibility, maybe they are broke. For whatever reason is it really worth ruining a life to bring another into an unready home?


And frankly, if you are a religious person, let me know so I don't waste my time trying to reason with you.

That wasn't necessary.

I would just like to state that arguing about issues that are certainly not going to be resolved by you or anyone in this forum seems pretty damn pointless in my mind. If the most intelligent well developed minds in the world have not found a way to solve these problems they will continue forever. Who are you kidding you actually think by proving your point with a "fact" someone just like yourself had input in that you actually PROVING anything? Being a feminist is just part of some ppls originality and fight to be unique. A lot of it is drama and people overreacting to how they were treated in the past. The women are mad because men got more priviledges, the natvies are mad because europeans took over there land and forced them onto reserves, and the colored ppl are upset because they were slaves so long ago. All these things were results of weakness among people. Not race per say just people in general. There leader whom they chose made a BAD choice. Its fair that the stronger peoples would succeed. Thats life and it will continue this way forever. I have also noticed that every arguement in this forum has been based on a technicality like u worded something this way and such. I havent actually seen a valid point yet from either side.

I would just like to state that arguing about issues that are certainly not going to be resolved by you or anyone in this forum seems pretty damn pointless in my mind. If the most intelligent well developed minds in the world have not found a way to solve these problems they will continue forever.

Now heres a great idea, lets just leave the thinking to someone else. We dont deserve an opinion, I'm sure they will choose what is right for us. *Becomes a robot*

In NO way did i say that I wasnt willing to take stand and voice my opinion about issues such as this. I am simply stating that until someone is willing to compromise or create a law stating that actions like being a feminist are illegal why create a battle where there is none. If everyone would just shut up about who is better and stop being so fucking selfish im sure the world would be a better place. But thats not how life is now is it. And out of my whole comment all u could find to argue with was a technicallity once again proving how simple minded ppl like you are. You once again had nothing valid to say that will create change. Now did u?

In NO way did i say that I wasnt willing to take stand and voice my opinion about issues such as this. I am simply stating that until someone is willing to compromise or create a law stating that actions like being a feminist are illegal why create a battle where there is none. If everyone would just shut up about who is better and stop being so fucking selfish im sure the world would be a better place. But thats not how life is now is it. And out of my whole comment all u could find to argue with was a technicallity once again proving how simple minded ppl like you are. You once again had nothing valid to say that will create change. Now did u?

How much of the thread did you actualy read? I never said I was better than anyone else. If you had read this disscusion then maybe you would know it wasn't a bunch of people saying they are better than each other. In fact I beleive you are the one saying you are better than me. proving how simple minded ppl like you are

Dawnitopia, what you're saying is stupid and hypocritical. We're not saying that feminism should be illegal. By your arguments, you even posting in here about your OPINION, as we have been posting about OURS is pointless, because unless it's illegal; we shouldn't argue about it. When you can argue in a sensible manner, and not be a dick (or a feminist bitch/chauvinistic pig) at the same time.

Change is done by spreading ideas. That is what we are doing. If I say something that someone else doesn't know, then they say the same thing to another person that doesn't know it, it will spread. That's how it works and that's what we're doing.

This is what feminism is:

A man has 3 apple trees. A woman has an apple tree and two orange trees. The woman is unhappy. Why should the man have more apple trees? Ignore the fact that she has two orange tree, I mean, who cares? Everyones had oranges. She wants more apples.

At the same time the man is envious of the woman. She's lucky to have an area were orange trees grow he thinks, but since he has extra apple trees, he's content.

The woman isn't though. She's angry. She starts a slander campaign against the man. "His apples are rotten, he's been secretly taking one apple out of every dozen and selling it on the black market!".

The man is shocked. What is this? Things were fair. yes, he got more apples than her, but she had VARIETY. She had SECURITY because if there was a virus against apple trees, she'd still have her orange trees. Why is she persecuting him like this?

Eventually, no one buys the mans apples. He is forced to sell one of his apple trees to the woman cheap because of his "rotten apples". Now the man is unhappy, and distrust the woman and dislikes her. The slander campaign has left its mark and no one likes the man anymore. The woman is happy now though. Now they both have an equal amount of apple trees, and that's good. Everything is fair now, even though she has 2 more orange trees and no one likes the man anymore.

How much of the thread did you actualy read? I never said I was better than anyone else. If you had read this disscusion then maybe you would know it wasn't a bunch of people saying they are better than each other. In fact I beleive you are the one saying you are better than me.

To answer your oh so point proving question that has NOTHING to do with anything i am talking about: Yes, thank you, I have read this thread throughly. It is all either men or women proving how not them as individuals but they as a group are better. And I would certainly be one to think that that would fall under the "a bunch of people saying they are better than eachother" category. Not only is it not a disscusion it is most certainly a never ending battle if you must choose to use technicalities. No one ends up winning this fight. If there was a winner I'd have to say it would be the women...I mean they clearly started off on an uneven playing field and now ARE "equal". And so it is not that I am saying you are of a lesser intelligence than I. I am simply proving it will words. Only an idiot would say they are smart and not be able to back it up.

Dawnitopia, you must be 12 (one of the stupid 12 year olds, not the smart ones) to say shit like that. Everyone has been arguing fairly and nicely, trying to persuade the other side. They're not saying one is better. The feminists are saying equality hasn't been reached, and the men are saying it has if you look at the greater scheme of things. I call your lie. You haven't read this entire thread.

So all you're doing is trying to create arguments. Why can't you go and troll elsewhere? I've reported your post.

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.
Very much like my opinion. Also add Cannen's "demonstrations and marches cannot change the public;s opinion, they are only good for passing laws".

Dawnitopia, you must be 12 (one of the stupid 12 year olds, not the smart ones) to say shit like that. Everyone has been arguing fairly and nicely, trying to persuade the other side. They're not saying one is better. The feminists are saying equality hasn't been reached, and the men are saying it has if you look at the greater scheme of things. I call your lie. You haven't read this entire thread.
Actually Im 16 and I'd say my grasp on things for my age is more advanced then a lot of adults I know. I am not arguing unfairly i am purely not arguing at all. The feminisits are stubborn and the men are open minded. Its how god created people. The men dont care about stupid issues like this and the women overreact. ENTIRE thread NO i would be a complete nerd had i read the ENTIRE thing. so call my lie but it doesnt hurt my feelings to think that one person thinks i lied because i didnt read A WHOLE ENTIRE thread

Hello. This is my first post. I am an 18 year old male from Australia. I've been reading this thread for over 4 hours, so I've absorbed all the points said so far. I'd just like to start with some more general arguments.

This is a trend I've noticed in this thread - The people arguing pro-feminism have been resorting to personal attacks at people like Neo Cannen and Bozzy, when all they're doing is stating things that aren't so much anti-feminism so much as improvements for the feminist movement. They haven't attacked back.
I find this very inaccurate.

This thread was focussed on Western Women's rights - There's no point talking about the injustices women face in countries where there is no feminist movement, that isn't what this thread is about.
Hang on, this thread, which you didnt sart and have never previously contributed to, has been going for over 70 pages, and quite some time, is there a rational reason why you feel entitled to dictate the content and direction of the thread? After all the 1st post neither specifically includes the Western world, nor specifically excludes the non-western world, and posters have discussed or not discussed feminism in relation to the non-western world, as per their own choice, why exactly should they now let that be your decision?

In stead of focussing on one area where there is inequality, I've decided to mesure them up as a whole (minus the things we can't control (yet) - things like our genes. If you think of the term feminism, you'll find the term is sexist in itself. Feminism believes in equality between men and women. What happens when women have it better off than men? Would it still be called feminism. The term should be changed to Humanism.
The term is not sexist, because is not an exclusionary terminology. To call someone a pediatrician is not to imply or infer (much less state) that the person is disinterested in the health of the elderly. A good feminist is always a humanist.
I dont know why you assume women will 'have it better off than men', I think that is quite unlikely. If it did happen, I would expect an increase in masculinist organistions and an increased number of persons belonging to/involved with such organisations, and increase in masculinist discourse, an increase in funding (public and/or privately raised) directed toward masculinist issues, and other increases is masculinist activities.
The term feminism cannot be changed to humanism without diminishing the functionality of the English language, any more than the term pediatrician can be changed to doctor, without diminishing the functionality of English, or boot to footware, or truck to automobile, or cat to mammal, or chair to furniture etc. language.

Just about everything that can be done to equalise the two sexes has been done. All it needs now is time. All changes in society take time. It was less than 2 generations, and the majority of racial hatred in America was abolished.
I dont find this very believable. Improved racial relations, maybe, majority of racial hatred abolished in America, I'm just not buying...

In fact, feminism is working against equality between men and women.
Some feminists, and some feminist inititives (or more accurately initititive concieved as being feminist) are counterproductive, frankly I can only wonder what kind of rose tinted glasses on would have to view the world through to imagine it would be otherwise. Feminists are human beings, ergo some of their efforts will be less than perfect, and in some instances even counterproductive. Equally not everyone is particularly good at formulating and thinking through their view points, and some people are just plain trouble. Feminism is not some magically endowed ideology that prevents such people from flying it's banner, anymore than Christianity. The fact that murdering people and blowing up medical centres under the guise of Christian love is counterprodutive in any and every sense I can imagine, does not render Christianity itself as being counterproductive, any more than stupidity commited under the guise of feminism renders feminism counterproductive.

I was in high school less than a year ago, and there was nothing that said "men are better than women" or vice versa.
Wasnt there? Or did you just not notice when it did occur? Either way, is there any harm in elavuating such things? If I say something is unfair and you think about it, and it isnt unfair, logically your conviction about the fairness is stronger and more accurate than if I said nothing at all, because you have thought through the facts of the matter, rather than merely assuming. If people are making untrue claims (be they liers or misguided) that should be readily apparent and provable, and thus their claims should not be feared, or shouted down, but rather reasoned away.

There was nothing that could be called "unequal", yet the feminists are still preaching, and every time they do that, some childs thoughts change from "there's a general equality between the sexes" to "men are dominating women".
There are things that are unequal, feminists have other issues than inequality and therefore every reason to attempt to engage in discourse, and frankly the claim you make is very far-fetched, and not one I am prepared to believe unless you can substantiate it.

There isn't any point going on about old issues like equal pay, because almost everyone (the other people being the women haters that some feminists seem to think make up 3/4s of the western worlds male population) agrees that equality between the sexes is a good thing, and they sympathise with the feminists want for equality.
It's not about whether or not people agree. If you and I are walking down the street our agreeing that the police should be called about the burglery we see happening is useless if we both walk on by without ever calling the police. Sympathy doesnt pay the mortgage.

There's no way to measure how society is equal, but it's (very easily) noticeably different to 100 years ago. A (generalization - most things in my post are)feminist will make an argument that there is still inequality between the sexes, saying "oh, there's still a difference in pay", and then a non feminist would make a point "child custody laws heavily favour women" and these two people can just keep slinging argument and argument at eachother, but it's still equal. It balances out.
This paragraph proves that you are not reckoning with the full picture. The fact is wage gaps and child custody are part of the same issue, one feminists have been addressing for a long time, and one that still has not been resolved, and which causes hardship for a great many people.

I noticed someone saying that men will see a woman who sleep around with people as a slut, but SO WILL MOST WOMEN. That's just how it is. Sure, it'd be great if it wasn't that way and maybe in a few decades, it will be different, but there's no way we can speed up society to change it's views. It happens gradually, it takes a shitload of time and sure, in the meantime, it sucks but you're just going to have to deal with it.
No it wont just 'go away' why on earth would it just 'go away'? It might very well end up going away, and if that occurs, it will be in part due to feminist efforts, not just of the past, but of the present and the future.

This is about the third time I've said this, but the more people bitch and complain, the more they change people's ideas from "equality" to "female superiority".
Who's views do they change? I mean really, who are all these momumental idiots who cant think for themselves; I'd like to invite them to join my 'for profit' cult, I'm going to tell them that I am the child of the one true deity and that they must give me all their money to avoid world-wide annilation. So hurry up and get the contact details of all these suckers to me, I'll cut you in on the profit....if you really have access to people so stupid they believe whatever they are told, we can make a mint...., later when they have recouperated financially, we can sell them the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Sydney Opera House, if you prefer.

Feminists, are in a small unconscious way, anti-male.
No, some feminists are anti male, some are drug addicts, some are Christians, some are clever, some are incompetent, some like ice cream, some ride motor bikes, some collect stamps, some prefer baths to showers.....

The image that everyone has of them being like this would change very quickly,
The image you have...many people dont have such an image of feminists...

if the feminist rallies would just TELL everyone that they don't support the ideas of feminazis (I'm using that term for conveniance's sake).
What on earth are you on about. Should they also make a general announcement about which mass murderer's behaviour they dont support, or which gambing racket they'd like to take down....feminist rallies are probably primartily aimed at announcing what they are in favour of/striving for, probably because it's a lot quicker than going through a list of things they dont support.....as for your use of the term, it says more about you than about those you are attempting to deride and in light of you 'attack the point not the person' comments made earlier in this post.....er well, it doesnt exactly add to credibility, either as being generally objective, and as being objective and honest in your comments which seemed to imply that you disapproved of the kind of tactics that use of such a word constitutes. Never the affront your implying Nazis are no worse than misguided or malicious rabble rousers caused to those who have been on the recieving end of the acts of real nazis.

Here are some good reads about domestic violence and how rape/sexual harrasment isn't a male only thing.
http://www.truthhurts.org/articles/51/equality-of-the-sexes/
http://www.truthhurts.org/articles/16/women-who-deserve-it/
Disclosure - Michael Crichton
Hang on, what the heck has this got to do with anything? Surely you are not implying that there is so much sexism regarding the potential traits of females, that people actually need a link to realise that women are capable of commiting violent crime and capable of forming an intention to do so? Mmm, I guess you are implying just that, even though recognising the problem of female domestic violence is a concern of many of those feminist groups you insist are not needed.

Sorry for ressurecting, but I just had to respond.
Until I see some replies worth replying to, Have a good night (I've spent a fair while researching, etc about this so I'm going to go to bed).
I dont think that you know what feminism is, it seems to me that you imagine that the worst A-typical examples are somehow representitive of the whole, which implies that you are probably not very objective.
After all I'm sure you are aware of Australians who commited acts that are absolutely abhorrent, and yet I doubt you consider all Australians are abhorrent. The logical error of judging a whole based on A-typical traits of some the parts, rarely occurs when one is being objective.

So all you're doing is trying to create arguments. Why can't you go and troll elsewhere? I've reported your post.
Hmmm id like to see once where i put im CREATING an argument. And how am i more then any one else. Your "telling" on me because you cant prove me wrong? Wow thats so big of you really truly proving ur maturity level to the world i must say. I am here for the same reason you are NOTHING BETTER TO DO. So get a small grip on what the point of the thread is. Huh i mean who isnt arguing? :headbang:

. I am not arguing unfairly i am purely not arguing at all.

So get a small grip on what the point of the thread is. Huh i mean who isnt arguing?


Hmmmm lets think about this for a second shall we?

Hmmmm lets think about this for a second shall we?
i am arguing a point not arguing with a person sorrie next time ill specify that so that u dont get confused

Trimmed purely for the sake of space.

Just responding to a one of the points you raised.

You say that men call 'available women sluts, but then justify that by saying "so do women"... which is kind of missing the point. Sure, women are conforming to a male-enforced 'mind-set'. I also know some women who have no greater ambition than to get pregnant, married and clean the house.

The issue is a double standard. Personally, when I hear a guy boasting about how he has had sex with a hundred women, I feel like he is missing some of the point of sex - but, hey that is his choice... and I think the same for a girl.

I don't call the one a 'slut' and the other a 'stud'.

I may come back and reply to more, later - when I have more time.
Well, the question of either having sex with many people should be a subject of boast or shame is still there, and i, for one, think that both the man should be shamed for having sex with hundreds of women, just like women are today. That way, women are already there, while men are not.


I completely agree with this topic. At first feminism was to make women and men equal. It was noble and just. Nowadays the feminazis are out to ruin this country. They MURDER millions of unborn children, pay in support for lesbian groups, and degrade men. They want partial birth abortion, you know, the one where the doctor takes an icepick like device and HITS THE BABY IN THE SKULL, you know that one? The feminazis want it legal. They are all sickos.
Please keep abbortion talk off this topic.

Abortion should be legal, people talk about giving a child a chance but do they ever consider that maybe the child is better off not getting that chance, certainly some of the would be mothers are. Some people aren't ready for babies, prehaps they are not mature enough for the responsibility, maybe they are broke. For whatever reason is it really worth ruining a life to bring another into an unready home?
Please keep abortion talk off this thread. This thread is about feminazis, not abortion. If you want, i'll be delighted to argue with you about abortions on another thread made just for that.

I would just like to state that arguing about issues that are certainly not going to be resolved by you or anyone in this forum seems pretty damn pointless in my mind. If the most intelligent well developed minds in the world have not found a way to solve these problems they will continue forever. Who are you kidding you actually think by proving your point with a "fact" someone just like yourself had input in that you actually PROVING anything? Being a feminist is just part of some ppls originality and fight to be unique. A lot of it is drama and people overreacting to how they were treated in the past. The women are mad because men got more priviledges, the natvies are mad because europeans took over there land and forced them onto reserves, and the colored ppl are upset because they were slaves so long ago. All these things were results of weakness among people. Not race per say just people in general. There leader whom they chose made a BAD choice. Its fair that the stronger peoples would succeed. Thats life and it will continue this way forever. I have also noticed that every arguement in this forum has been based on a technicality like u worded something this way and such. I havent actually seen a valid point yet from either side.
You're obviously new to these forums, and to forums in general. No, we're probably not going to solve issues, we're just here to take pleasure in arguing about the issues.


btw, zentia. I do believe that what you are saying is true. Neo Cannen had a very bright point. When the opponents couldn't argue about it, they turned to personal attacks.

To call someone a pediatrician is not to imply or infer (much less state) that the person is disinterested in the health of the elderly.
Of course it does. He is concentrated on the health of kids, and is not specialized in the health of the elderly.

I dont know why you assume women will 'have it better off than men', I think that is quite unlikely.
Can a woman work today? Yes. Can a woman be a housekeeper today? Yes.
See, she has at least two choices.
Can a man work today? Yes. Can a man be a housekeeper today? No, most of the society wouldnt understand.
A man got one choice. Woman got two choices, man got one.

I dont find this very believable. Improved racial relations, maybe, majority of racial hatred abolished in America, I'm just not buying...
That's complete bullshit. If anything, african americans have it better today, just think of affirmative action, which is legal racism in their support. Sure there is some racism, but probably the least in the world. Even KKK is practically dead now.

Wasnt there? Or did you just not notice when it did occur? Either way, is there any harm in elavuating such things?
I am in High School right now. I don't see anything either. Would yuo care to point it out to the ignorant ole' me?

It's not about whether or not people agree. If you and I are walking down the street our agreeing that the police should be called about the burglery we see happening is useless if we both walk on by without ever calling the police. Sympathy doesnt pay the mortgage.
Well, what else do you want. All the laws call for equal employment. If anything else needs to be changes, is public opinion, aka public sympathy.


No, some feminists are anti male, some are drug addicts, some are Christians, some are clever, some are incompetent, some like ice cream, some ride motor bikes, some collect stamps, some prefer baths to showers.....
It's a nice thing how you tried to make anti-male just a human trait. Which would be fine, if feminists were synonymous to the word people. But feminists are not "people" they are a subgroup of people, people who believe women should have more rights/power than they have now.

What on earth are you on about. Should they also make a general announcement about which mass murderer's behaviour they dont support, or which gambing racket they'd like to take down...
It's different, noone is accusing the feminists of being mass murderers, or gamblers, but we are directly accusing them of being feminazis. THat's why they should announce that. But they don't, even in spite of the accusations. Could it be, because the accusations are true?

Hang on, this thread, which you didnt sart and have never previously contributed to, has been going for over 70 pages, and quite some time, is there a rational reason why you feel entitled to dictate the content and direction of the thread? After all the 1st post neither specifically includes the Western world, nor specifically excludes the non-western world, and posters have discussed or not discussed feminism in relation to the non-western world, as per their own choice, why exactly should they now let that be your decision?
I'm not dictating the content and direction. I'm saying that at the time of it's creation, it was focussed on western women rights.


The term is not sexist, because is not an exclusionary terminology. To call someone a pediatrician is not to imply or infer (much less state) that the person is disinterested in the health of the elderly. A good feminist is always a humanist.
I dont know why you assume women will 'have it better off than men', I think that is quite unlikely. If it did happen, I would expect an increase in masculinist organistions and an increased number of persons belonging to/involved with such organisations, and increase in masculinist discourse, an increase in funding (public and/or privately raised) directed toward masculinist issues, and other increases is masculinist activities.
The term feminism cannot be changed to humanism without diminishing the functionality of the English language, any more than the term pediatrician can be changed to doctor, without diminishing the functionality of English, or boot to footware, or truck to automobile, or cat to mammal, or chair to furniture etc. language.

Then why not just call it humanism? The term is still sexist and my arguments still stand. There are exceptions to everything, and I believe this is one of them.


I dont find this very believable. Improved racial relations, maybe, majority of racial hatred abolished in America, I'm just not buying...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that it isn't an entire cshitload better than what it was like in the bad times? Racism will never be abolished, but it's been changed into a more TOLERABLE level. It would be better if it wasn't there, but I can't change that.


Some feminists, and some feminist inititives (or more accurately initititive concieved as being feminist) are counterproductive, frankly I can only wonder what kind of rose tinted glasses on would have to view the world through to imagine it would be otherwise. Feminists are human beings, ergo some of their efforts will be less than perfect, and in some instances even counterproductive. Equally not everyone is particularly good at formulating and thinking through their view points, and some people are just plain trouble. Feminism is not some magically endowed ideology that prevents such people from flying it's banner, anymore than Christianity. The fact that murdering people and blowing up medical centres under the guise of Christian love is counterprodutive in any and every sense I can imagine, does not render Christianity itself as being counterproductive, any more than stupidity commited under the guise of feminism renders feminism counterproductive.

When I wrote that I meant (And still do) that it is more counter productive than equalising.


Wasnt there? Or did you just not notice when it did occur? Either way, is there any harm in elavuating such things? If I say something is unfair and you think about it, and it isnt unfair, logically your conviction about the fairness is stronger and more accurate than if I said nothing at all, because you have thought through the facts of the matter, rather than merely assuming. If people are making untrue claims (be they liers or misguided) that should be readily apparent and provable, and thus their claims should not be feared, or shouted down, but rather reasoned away.

I've been interested in feminism for about 5 years now, so I was actively looking for it. It's no longer "You're a woman, and I'm a man. I'm better". The worst thing I've seen is someone calling someone a woman, not because they were inferior, but because they weren't strong. If we go back to human roots, the males were the protectors and hunters and made for strength, and the woman were there for mothering.


There are things that are unequal, feminists have other issues than inequality and therefore every reason to attempt to engage in discourse, and frankly the claim you make is very far-fetched, and not one I am prepared to believe unless you can substantiate it.



It's not about whether or not people agree. If you and I are walking down the street our agreeing that the police should be called about the burglery we see happening is useless if we both walk on by without ever calling the police. Sympathy doesnt pay the mortgage.

Like I've said multiple times now - It takes time. Society is changing, HAS changed, to make a womans place better. And if we don't call, then the owners will get back, they'll ring the police, forensics will show up and they'll get the evidence they need to find the criminal because lets face it - criminals are fools.


This paragraph proves that you are not reckoning with the full picture. The fact is wage gaps and child custody are part of the same issue, one feminists have been addressing for a long time, and one that still has not been resolved, and which causes hardship for a great many people.

No, that paragraph proves that you are not listening. There are so many arguements for both sides that it has to be basically equal. Some men have it better than some women, just like some women have it better than some men. It BALANCES OUT. All feminists are looking for now is having it so that they have all the best of the male world, plus the good things they've got from the female, while the men just have the male world things. Read the story I wrote.


No it wont just 'go away' why on earth would it just 'go away'? It might very well end up going away, and if that occurs, it will be in part due to feminist efforts, not just of the past, but of the present and the future.

This is another one of those time answers. It's HAPPENING. Society is CHANGING to make it equal, but soon it'll go overboard.


Who's views do they change? I mean really, who are all these momumental idiots who cant think for themselves; I'd like to invite them to join my 'for profit' cult, I'm going to tell them that I am the child of the one true deity and that they must give me all their money to avoid world-wide annilation. So hurry up and get the contact details of all these suckers to me, I'll cut you in on the profit....if you really have access to people so stupid they believe whatever they are told, we can make a mint...., later when they have recouperated financially, we can sell them the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Sydney Opera House, if you prefer.

Sydney Opera House sucks anyway - they can have it :P. And the people I'm referring to here are the children who watch TV and see in the news some feminist rally. I can remember a few years ago (I was about 9) when the Australian government decided to allow women into the combat part of the armed forces. A feminist was on the screen and she was saying that the Australia government was now giving woman a chance to die. WHAT? Excuse me, but that's making it equal but oh! Sorry, I forgot! You don't want equality, you want the best of both worlds while the men are stuck with one world with good and bad.


No, some feminists are anti male, some are drug addicts, some are Christians, some are clever, some are incompetent, some like ice cream, some ride motor bikes, some collect stamps, some prefer baths to showers.....

OK, I went a bit overboard there and you're right. My apologies (no sarcasm).


The image you have...many people dont have such an image of feminists...

Wait. So if we have an image like that it's a bad thing, but when you feminist have the (multiple times in this thread) repeated view that men still want women as slaves it's OK? This is the crap I'm talking about. Best of both worlds.


What on earth are you on about. Should they also make a general announcement about which mass murderer's behaviour they dont support, or which gambing racket they'd like to take down....feminist rallies are probably primartily aimed at announcing what they are in favour of/striving for, probably because it's a lot quicker than going through a list of things they dont support.....as for your use of the term, it says more about you than about those you are attempting to deride and in light of you 'attack the point not the person' comments made earlier in this post.....er well, it doesnt exactly add to credibility, either as being generally objective, and as being objective and honest in your comments which seemed to imply that you disapproved of the kind of tactics that use of such a word constitutes. Never the affront your implying Nazis are no worse than misguided or malicious rabble rousers caused to those who have been on the recieving end of the acts of real nazis.

Mass murderers aren't doing it in the name of feminism.


Hang on, what the heck has this got to do with anything? Surely you are not implying that there is so much sexism regarding the potential traits of females, that people actually need a link to realise that women are capable of commiting violent crime and capable of forming an intention to do so? Mmm, I guess you are implying just that, even though recognising the problem of female domestic violence is a concern of many of those feminist groups you insist are not needed.

No, but many women don't want to look at both sides. I like to think that I do, and I've looked into this topic alot (topic, not thread - though it's both aswell :) ) but I may have missed something. I admit that, and that is why I am debating this with you. So that you can show me how they don't have it as good.


I dont think that you know what feminism is, it seems to me that you imagine that the worst A-typical examples are somehow representitive of the whole, which implies that you are probably not very objective.
After all I'm sure you are aware of Australians who commited acts that are absolutely abhorrent, and yet I doubt you consider all Australians are abhorrent. The logical error of judging a whole based on A-typical traits of some the parts, rarely occurs when one is being objective.

I did add somewhere in my post that I generalise a lot, however the generalisations I've done aren't the most negative they can be. I think that they're fairly neutral or slightly negative.

Please keep abortion talk off this thread. This thread is about feminazis, not abortion. If you want, i'll be delighted to argue with you about abortions on another thread made just for that.


Sorry I just like to follow interesting off topic comments.


That's complete bullshit. If anything, african americans have it better today, just think of affirmative action, which is legal racism in their support. Sure there is some racism, but probably the least in the world. Even KKK is practically dead now.

Some people wont change. Racism is sufficently gone so that it doesnt really effect people.


I am in High School right now. I don't see anything either. Would yuo care to point it out to the ignorant ole' me?

Me too. We should make a club.

Doom777, do we really need to repeat this....
You didn't even change your wording.
Do you really just like feminist arguing intellectual masterbation?...
I suspect so.

So all you're doing is trying to create arguments. Why can't you go and troll elsewhere? I've reported your post.

Amen Zentia.

Doom777, do we really need to repeat this....
You didn't even change your wording.
Do you really just like feminist arguing intellectual masterbation?...
I suspect so.

Out on a limb your back. YAY. :)

Amen Zentia.
Oh dear me now your praising someone for telling on me ...wow nicely done my friend maybe you would like to take a stab at proving me wrong in " my "argument" seein as how ur friend cant or wont :gundge:

The feminisits are stubborn and the men are open minded. Its how god created people. The men dont care about stupid issues like this and the women overreact.

And you were telling us not to go on about one sex being better before. You cant just group people as this or that.

And you were telling us not to go on about one sex being better before. You cant just group people as this or that.

Ummm yes i can. Who is going to stop me from voicing my opinion. Its what I THINK. doesnt mean its right and it sure as hell doesnt mean its right in your eyes. But i dont base my thoughts upon your belief system now do i? I am not saying women are worse I am one i think that we deserve how much we got in this life by how much we fought. We won as much as we deserved because we woulda gotten farther if we faught harder. Name One man who cares soooo much about one thing they'd seriously have a panic attack about it. Other then family or friends im talkin like issue wise. U cant cuz guys are naturally way more slack about drama bullshit

Ummm yes i can. Who is going to stop me from voicing my opinion. Its what I THINK. doesnt mean its right and it sure as hell doesnt mean its right in your eyes. But i dont base my thoughts upon your belief system now do i

Ah and now who is arguing "technicalities". Alright let me rephrase.
No one will beleive an argument based completely on generalizations. And bringing people to your point of view is the point of spreading an opinion.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I won't add much to this, but I will add some. I thought of something on the thing about how they don't want sports teams to be all-male. Does anyone else out there get the feeling that, if there were women in the NFL, the feminazis would try to boycott the NFL or what-not until rules were passed saying that the women had to be tackle or "set-down" differently? I have this really strong feeling that that is what would happen. These women want equal rights for women? No, they want equal rights, then some. I've got a special finger for each one of them psychos, and I'll shove it in their face if im ever confronted by one. And I'm NOT afraid to smack them in their moustached face either.

Ah and now who is arguing "technicalities". Alright let me rephrase.
No one will beleive an argument based completely on generalizations. And bringing people to your point of view is the point of spreading an opinion.
what part was the technicality? and read the update i hit enter before i was done

I am not saying women are worse I am one i think that we deserve how much we got in this life by how much we fought. We won as much as we deserved because we woulda gotten farther if we faught harder. Name One man who cares soooo much about one thing they'd seriously have a panic attack about it. Other then family or friends im talkin like issue wise. U cant cuz guys are naturally way more slack about drama bullshit

Many men have panic attacks about their work, about their cars, about their hobbies. Men are in no way immune to mental anguish.

what part was the technicality? and read the update i hit enter before i was done

I have. The technicality was that while yes you CAN base an argument on generalisations it makes them pointless

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

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

Maybe kids are put to bed because half the time, the parents can't control the little shits that color on the wall, try to ride the dog like it's some kind of horse, and all this other shit. You know, I work at Chuck E. Cheese's, and it's the weirdest thing... I never have to tell the WELL-BEHAVED kids to calm down... I never have to tell the WELL-BEHAVED kids to quit climbing on the damn skee-ball machine. It's all the other little shits with the parents that think I'm some kind of fucking babysitter that make my job not worth 5.50 an hour. THAT is why kids are put to bed.

Many men have panic attacks about their work, about their cars, about their hobbies. Men are in no way immune to mental anguish.



I have. The technicality was that while yes you CAN base an argument on generalisations it makes them pointless

Yes but No man has a huge panic attack cuz there best friend invited someone over and not them. Girls do were all like OMGOSH over everything were made differently pure and simple i dont think it can be expected that we have the EXACT same rights. I didnt say u were immune to mental anguish. I basically stated that they dont worrie about drama issues. as pointless as ur technicality argument

Yes but No man has a huge panic attack cuz there best friend invited someone over and not them. Girls do were all like OMGOSH over everything were made differently pure and simple i dont think it can be expected that we have the EXACT same rights. I didnt say u were immune to mental anguish. I basically stated that they dont worrie about drama issues. as pointless as ur technicality argument

You'll grow out of it (hopefully).

One main point of many feminists is that gender is socially constructed; in other words, the things we associate with being masculine and feminine are arbitrary societal distinctions, not traits we're born with. I agree with that. Besides plain old anatomy and body chemistry, gender is socially constructed.

Just as a brief example, imagine a young boy who asks his father for barbie dolls... what does the dad do? Buy them and encourage "awkward" or "feminine" behavior? The point is, the boy has no sense of gender norms, wheras the father is painfully aware of the consequences of not conforming to them.

As for the destruction of chivalry, I see your point, but at the same time, I see the point of feminists, which is that chivalry has its origins in, and still operates on the assumption that females are weak and need to be rescued. Even larger than that, acts of chivalry are seen not as indicative of negative character traits on the part of a single male, but rather as examples of the way our inherently patriarchal society informs our daily, unconcious actions.
However, if a woman chewed me out for holding the door, I wouldn't be pissed, but I would be annoyed - I was just trying to be nice, and would have held it for another man as well.

Again, don't judge a group by its extremists.

I'm also of the opinion that a little extremism in the right direction helps to cancel out extreme sexists on the other side. Plus, there is a HUGE wage gap, and I don't believe it's closing that rapidly. In ths USA, women make something like 73% of what men do for the same jobs. Fight on feminists.

Out on a limb your back. YAY. :)

I was just thinking the same about you :)
I know... I don't want to feed the troll too much... but I had to give a shout out to In too far away. But, man, (in the *tired sigh* directed toward a friend sense)...People will argue about this until the ends of the earth...

I say, "feminists (as one of them) get up off your asses. Walk, talk and act like what you believe, whatever version of feminism that maybe in your heart, your head or your spirit..." embody all your contadictions

And to everyone...
Be articulate.

Figure your thoughts out and before you go making generalities and wanting to ban person XY or Z...

And, Most importantly...

Don't let the haters get you down.

Peace, from Out on a Limb

I was just thinking the same about you :)
I know... I don't want to feed the troll too much... but I had to give a shout out to In too far away. But, man, (in the *tired sigh* directed toward a friend sense)...People will argue about this until the ends of the earth...

Hehehe jokes on them I'm on holiday, I have until the earth ends ;) .

Hehehe jokes on them I'm on holiday, I have until the earth ends ;) .

I work tomorrow, this isn't something I'm touching with a ten foot poll. More than I already have. Check your counties telegrams.

That wasn't necessary.

I wasn't trying to insult anyone, I was serious, I really can't be bothered arguing with a religious fanatic. Religion requires that people dedicate their whole lives to their religion and conform to all of the religions views of all issues. No religious person is going to change their view on something as despised by religion as abortion, because of an argument being made on some net forum.

Please keep abortion talk off this thread. This thread is about feminazis, not abortion. If you want, i'll be delighted to argue with you about abortions on another thread made just for that.

Who are you? Stalin? Just cause you created the thread you can tell people what to discuss, do you have real life conversations or is your human contact limited to net forums? Conversations go off topic and take differant paths. Anyway, I think abortion laws and public views is VERY relevant to feminism...

One main point of many feminists is that gender is socially constructed; in other words, the things we associate with being masculine and feminine are arbitrary societal distinctions, not traits we're born with. I agree with that. Besides plain old anatomy and body chemistry, gender is socially constructed.

Just as a brief example, imagine a young boy who asks his father for barbie dolls... what does the dad do? Buy them and encourage "awkward" or "feminine" behavior? The point is, the boy has no sense of gender norms, wheras the father is painfully aware of the consequences of not conforming to them.

As for the destruction of chivalry, I see your point, but at the same time, I see the point of feminists, which is that chivalry has its origins in, and still operates on the assumption that females are weak and need to be rescued. Even larger than that, acts of chivalry are seen not as indicative of negative character traits on the part of a single male, but rather as examples of the way our inherently patriarchal society informs our daily, unconcious actions.
However, if a woman chewed me out for holding the door, I wouldn't be pissed, but I would be annoyed - I was just trying to be nice, and would have held it for another man as well.

Again, don't judge a group by its extremists.

I'm also of the opinion that a little extremism in the right direction helps to cancel out extreme sexists on the other side. Plus, there is a HUGE wage gap, and I don't believe it's closing that rapidly. In ths USA, women make something like 73% of what men do for the same jobs. Fight on feminists.

Damn, I didn't want to get sucked into this... But (and I don't know if you are a girl actually) AMEN SISTER.

I admit I haven't read all pages of the threads (maybe every 5 or so) but I've noticed that many people are treating feminists as a monolith failing to take into account that there are numerous branches of feminist theories (liberal, radical, etc.)

I believe the majority of feminists are not radical feminists with the notion that females are better than males or anti-male, I think most just ask for equality...basically not get discriminated against or have their rights limited solely based on their sex. I think we're slowly progressing towards equality, granted there still is the glass ceiling and the unequal wages for the same amount of work but I think this will slooowly diminish as the generation that grew up with strong patriarchal values (as in men are the "better" sex) die off.

It just pisses me off when I talk to some women bitching about equality, but they protest when I ask them: 'so if a country is drafting, women should be drafted too' or 'if a boat is sinking and there aren't enough life boats should women and children still be the first to fill them'...come on, that's not equality that's asking for special privilages (btw, i'm female).

Damn, I didn't want to get sucked into this... But (and I don't know if you are a girl actually) AMEN SISTER.

When I open the door for someone, it's me being polite and nice. It's a gift. It's not me saying "women are weak".

I admit I haven't read all pages of the threads (maybe every 5 or so) but I've noticed that many people are treating feminists as a monolith failing to take into account that there are numerous branches of feminist theories (liberal, radical, etc.)

I believe the majority of feminists are not radical feminists with the notion that females are better than males or anti-male, I think most just ask for equality...basically not get discriminated against or have their rights limited solely based on their sex. I think we're slowly progressing towards equality, granted there still is the glass ceiling and the unequal wages for the same amount of work but I think this will slooowly diminish as the generation that grew up with strong patriarchal values (as in men are the "better" sex) die off.

It just pisses me off when I talk to some women bitching about equality, but they protest when I ask them: 'so if a country is drafting, women should be drafted too' or 'if a boat is sinking and there aren't enough life boats should women and children still be the first to fill them'...come on, that's not equality that's asking for special privilages (btw, i'm female).

You should read up on some feminist philosphy. I think you'd like it because you understand the postmodern nature of the beast. Try the author Tang. She gives good definitions of differnt kinds without denying that people's thoughts can overlap.

When I open the door for someone, it's me being polite and nice. It's a gift. It's not me saying "women are weak".

Check out my thoughts on the subject in the same exact, previous thread.

I understand that you are trying to be kind, but kindness is in the heart of the beholder. But don't dwell on that. If someone jumps to conlusions and says you are trying to be oppressive, don't let the them get you down. Ask why they are offended, explain that that wasn't your intention. There are many ways to be chivalrous without reinforcing partiarchal attitudes... Creativity is Key.

(I've repeated myself from my previous posts... :rolleyes: -at myself)

Unfortunately, suspicious minds find an enemy behind every door... Or in this case, opening it. :)

It could almost be argued that feminists are killing off certain forms of kindness. I sure as hell would be scared of opening a door for someone thats going to yell at me, and if I confront them and say that what they're doing is wrong, I'll get called a Male Chauvinist Pig(MCP) again.

Check out my thoughts on the subject in the same exact, previous thread.

I understand that you are trying to be kind, but kindness is in the heart of the beholder. But don't dwell on that. If someone jumps to conlusions and says you are trying to be oppressive, don't let the them get you down. Ask why they are offended, explain that that wasn't your intention. There are many ways to be chivalrous without reinforcing partiarchal attitudes... Creativity is Key.

(I've repeated myself from my previous posts... :rolleyes: -at myself)

Well with so many new people comming in and a thread this long it is understandable.

You should read up on some feminist philosphy. I think you'd like it because you understand the postmodern nature of the beast. Try the author Tang. She gives good definitions of differnt kinds without denying that people's thoughts can overlap.

Can you provide me with her first name? I have time to kill before the semester starts.
I googled feminism and tang...and found Zuleyma Tang-Martinez but she talks about sociobiology and feminism. I don't think that's the correct one...or is it?

Of course it does. He is concentrated on the health of kids, and is not specialized in the health of the elderly.
Of course it does not. Do you really think that a 40 year old pedatrician is entirely indifferent to the health of his elderly mother, his middle aged wife, his own health?! Perhaps you dont know many pediatricians, or health professionals in general. I dont doubt that there are exceptions, but in my experiance, most health professionals are interested in health and/or medicine, which often explains why they got into the field to end up specialising in the first place....... :rolleyes:

Can a woman work today? Yes. Can a woman be a housekeeper today? Yes.
See, she has at least two choices.
Can a man work today? Yes. Can a man be a housekeeper today? No, most of the society wouldnt understand.
A man got one choice. Woman got two choices, man got one.
Actually a man can be home maker. Fortunately one of the issues that many feminists do try to resolve is the unfortunate mind set that leads to some people assuming male=caregiver, female=homemaker, so hopefully in the future this barrier to well being will due (at least in part) to the efforts of feminists be resolved. I dont care who is house-keeping, I only care about whether or not people can choose whether or not they are house keepers.

That's complete bullshit. If anything, african americans have it better today, just think of affirmative action, which is legal racism in their support. Sure there is some racism, but probably the least in the world. Even KKK is practically dead now.
Hang on, you conclude that it is bullshit that the majority of racial hatred has not dissappeared in the US, based on the existence of laws you percieve as being racist...I really dont know what to say about that..

I am in High School right now. I don't see anything either. Would yuo care to point it out to the ignorant ole' me?
I dont go to your highschool, so I am not in any position to evaluate what if any inequalities exist at your highschool, but if you think about whether or not such inequalities exist, the result should be that you yourself have a clearer notion as to whether or not this is the case, than if you had not thought about it (maybe I'm not being clear, because I'm sure if I say it right you'll not disagree, it's not a huge revelation that people are more erudite about things they have specifically looked into and thought about, than they are about things they havent looked into and thought about....) Thus is someone says your school is sexist for instance, and you evaluate the issue, either you will have a reasoned opinion as to why it is sexist or a reasoned opinion as to why it is not, which in either case would make you better informed than you would be if you didnt evaluate the matter and just assumed...

Well, what else do you want. All the laws call for equal employment. If anything else needs to be changes, is public opinion, aka public sympathy.
Well if the only thing that prevents equal compensation is public opinion, then what is wanted is a change in public opinion, frankly I think you are simplyfying the problem to a point where it is deconstructive.

It's a nice thing how you tried to make anti-male just a human trait. Which would be fine, if feminists were synonymous to the word people. But feminists are not "people" they are a subgroup of people, people who believe women should have more rights/power than they have now.
I have tried no such thing, saying that I have effects reality no more than attempting to redefine the normative meaning of the word feminism. Feminists are indeed people, and some believe women should have more rights or powers than they have now, which evidently does not make them anti male.

It's different, noone is accusing the feminists of being mass murderers, or gamblers, but we are directly accusing them of being feminazis. THat's why they should announce that. But they don't, even in spite of the accusations. Could it be, because the accusations are true?
What is so important about 'we' that when 'we' makes accusations about a group that group should run to justify themselves?
As to why no denial could it be because they dont consider your name calling accusations warrant a reply, I mean if someone came up and called you 'poopy face' maybe you would waste your time explaining that your face is not made of or covered with poop, but most of us wouldnt waste our time responding to such silly and juvenille attempts at attention grabbing...

QUOTE=Zentia]I'm not dictating the content and direction. I'm saying that at the time of it's creation, it was focussed on western women rights.[/quote]
The original post doesnt state so, it doesnt even imply so...but that's not the poing, I just a bit bemused I mean we survived 70 odd pages without needing requiring your supervision....
Then why not just call it humanism? The term is still sexist and my arguments still stand. There are exceptions to everything, and I believe this is one of them.
Why not just call all water going vessels, water going vessels, then if you want to specify a yacht instead of an ocean liner, you can spend half an hour describing every trait of the two....feminism is not a sexist word, it is a descriptive word. If you choose to feel someone is being victimised because , consistent with general english language features, it is possible to describe the sub group of humanists who specialise in human well being from a female perspecitve, using only one word, that's your choice...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that it isn't an entire cshitload better than what it was like in the bad times? Racism will never be abolished, but it's been changed into a more TOLERABLE level. It would be better if it wasn't there, but I can't change that.
No, if I were trying to tell you that, I would have told you that.

When I wrote that I meant (And still do) that it is more counter productive than equalising.
Well I believe that you are wrong, and I doubt you can substantiate otherwise, although I will certainly approach any attempt by you to do so with an open mind.

I've been interested in feminism for about 5 years now, so I was actively looking for it. It's no longer "You're a woman, and I'm a man. I'm better". The worst thing I've seen is someone calling someone a woman, not because they were inferior, but because they weren't strong. If we go back to human roots, the males were the protectors and hunters and made for strength, and the woman were there for mothering.
Which is missing the point entirely even while relating it back to me. You have been looking and seem to imply that doing so means you have reason to know what you are talking about. Even if the assertion that made you start looking is false, if you look with clear eyes, you will see more than when you were not looking (which is the point I was making).

Like I've said multiple times now - It takes time. Society is changing, HAS changed, to make a womans place better. And if we don't call, then the owners will get back, they'll ring the police, forensics will show up and they'll get the evidence they need to find the criminal because lets face it - criminals are fools.
Right, well considering the statistics on clearances of burglary cases, the police are worst than fools... ;)
And really this is skirting the point entirely, because I could have easily said the murder, or the rape, or the bashing, and frankly the police catching the perpetrator after the act is completed, is no compensation for the perpetrator not being prevented from commiting the fullness of their crime when they could have been, but for one phone call...

It takes more than time, we can prove this for a fact. Modern feminist thought evolved in the last few hundred years, humans existed for many many many thousands of years before that, ergo if time were all it took the most progress towards equality would have occured in the longer time spand of the many many many thousands of years as opposed to the smaller few hundred year time span. This is in fact the opposite of what has occured, because it takes more than the passing of time.

No, that paragraph proves that you are not listening. There are so many arguements for both sides that it has to be basically equal. Some men have it better than some women, just like some women have it better than some men. It BALANCES OUT. All feminists are looking for now is having it so that they have all the best of the male world, plus the good things they've got from the female, while the men just have the male world things. Read the story I wrote.
I read the fairytale you wrote, I suggest if you wish to retain any credibility that you avoid pointing people towards it, with luck on your side people might miss it entirely...

Your statement about feminists is untrue, if you cant come up with facts, false accusations will impress none but the converted....

You could go on about balancing till you are blue in the face, it doesnt improve anything for those effected. As I pointed out, your comments indicate that you are not looking at the big picture. Men, women and children suffer unnecessarily due to the 'female=homemaker/male=earner' stereotype, I dont care if those trying to change this for the betterment of us all, call themselves feminists, humanists, masculinists, Ronald McDonaldists, or Farty Paints McWatson...so long as the work they are doing is necessary and beneficial, that's what matters to me. The wage gap and custody assumptions are both aspects of the male=provider/female=homemaker stereotype that feminists have been striving to counter. Although they are both feminist issues, they are also masculinist issues, and they are humanist issues. A feminist might (for obvious reasons based on knowledge base, general areas of interest etc) approach the problem from the wage gap arena and a masculinist from the custody issue, or they might try to tackle both simultaneously, regardless they are attempting to make valuable contributions to the ongoing betterment of society.

This is another one of those time answers. It's HAPPENING. Society is CHANGING to make it equal, but soon it'll go overboard.
Evidence suggests that your time point is wrong. Thousands of years (of human sexual relations) vs a few hundred (of emerging feminist progress), if your time theory was true the greater progress would have occured in the 1000's of years time span, not the few hundred...

Sydney Opera House sucks anyway - they can have it :P.
Sure but most people realise that I cant sell it....however I have never met people that believe whatever they are told, as those you describe apparently do.
Evidently if someone believes 'men are treating women unfairly' just because someone told them so, isnt solving this problem as simple as telling them otherwise? Wont these sheeple believe you just as readily?

And the people I'm referring to here are the children who watch TV and see in the news some feminist rally.
That's right, because most kids are paying a lot of attention to the news....really if someone is too young to make up their own mind, they shouldnt be watching the news (or any adult themed programe) without adult supervision and guidence. This sounds more to me like a problem with parental standards, you should address your concerns to them. I watch the news regularly, it is not family viewing, contains adult themes, and often includes graphics not at all suitable for children. If someone is too impressionable to not be 'damaged' from hearing some misguided nonesence being touted under the guise of feminism, then they are certainly too young to look at strewn body parts on the streets of Iraq...

I can remember a few years ago (I was about 9) when the Australian government decided to allow women into the combat part of the armed forces. A feminist was on the screen and she was saying that the Australia government was now giving woman a chance to die. WHAT? Excuse me, but that's making it equal but oh! Sorry, I forgot! You don't want equality, you want the best of both worlds while the men are stuck with one world with good and bad.
I can pick up the paper any day of the week and find multiple cases of men raping women, I can prove that christians regularly blow up abortion clinics, at any modern Olympics meet I can find steroid users, I however am objective and so dont for a moment believe that all men are rapists, or that all christians are terrorists or that every athlete is a drug user. I suspect that you also (despite knowing that some men rape women) dont think all or even most men are rapists, I'd guess that you think most men are not rapists, I can only speculate that the reasoning you cant apply this correct concept to feminists, is because you dont have a bee in your bonnet about men, but you do have one about feminists thus you objectively reason that the acts of a few news worthy men, do not in any way represent the conduct of the whole.

OK, I went a bit overboard there and you're right. My apologies (no sarcasm).
Wait. So if we have an image like that it's a bad thing, but when you feminist have the (multiple times in this thread) repeated view that men still want women as slaves it's OK? This is the crap I'm talking about. Best of both worlds.
I have never made such a claim, nor endorsed the making of such claims, as any objective evaluation of the facts would imply.

Mass murderers aren't doing it in the name of feminism.
I have been to many churches where not a single word was said about terrorists who blow up medical clinics in the name of God, I dont believe for a moment that the churches as a whole, or their members support terrorism....and I suspect that you wouldnt make such a bizaar assumption either, unless you also have a bee in your bonnet about christians too....

No, but many women don't want to look at both sides. I like to think that I do, and I've looked into this topic alot (topic, not thread - though it's both aswell :) ) but I may have missed something. I admit that, and that is why I am debating this with you. So that you can show me how they don't have it as good.
I find it untrue that not many women want to look at both sides, in my experiance I know few men who are interested in, much less are concerned with female on male domestic violence, I know at least as many women who are interested in this issue, if not more...I dont feel that you look objectively at both sides of the issue. You constantly engage in strawman arguments, you use (and even self identify with using) the same tactic that appears to be one of your primary grudges against the group you are defamming. Further you engage in derogatory name calling of the group you are targetting.
This kind of conduct is not consistent with the actions of someone who is being objective, so even though you say you are being objective, I am finding that difficult to believe right now.



And you were telling us not to go on about one sex being better before. You cant just group people as this or that.
Well they can...but it seriously reduces the likihood of having any credibility whatsoever...

Ah and now who is arguing "technicalities". Alright let me rephrase.
No one will beleive an argument based completely on generalizations. And bringing people to your point of view is the point of spreading an opinion.
Oh I see...you already went there....still it's probably all for the good repeating the sentiment, based on the response, some people are slower on the uptake than others.... ;)

I won't add much to this, but I will add some. I thought of something on the thing about how they don't want sports teams to be all-male. Does anyone else out there get the feeling that, if there were women in the NFL, the feminazis would try to boycott the NFL or what-not until rules were passed saying that the women had to be tackle or "set-down" differently? I have this really strong feeling that that is what would happen. These women want equal rights for women? No, they want equal rights, then some. I've got a special finger for each one of them psychos, and I'll shove it in their face if im ever confronted by one. And I'm NOT afraid to smack them in their moustached face either.
Is this a joke post? You are not seriously putting it out there that you actually think this is going to happen, surely that's nothing you'd want spread around... :confused:

Yes but No man has a huge panic attack cuz there best friend invited someone over and not them. Girls do were all like OMGOSH over everything were made differently pure and simple i dont think it can be expected that we have the EXACT same rights. I didnt say u were immune to mental anguish. I basically stated that they dont worrie about drama issues. as pointless as ur technicality argument
I like so seriously ya' know like dont know like any girls that like are all like all like that kinda thing like....umm maybe you just need to pick less banal friends to hang with.... :(

Unfortunately, suspicious minds find an enemy behind every door... Or in this case, opening it.

It could almost be argued that feminists are killing off certain forms of kindness. I sure as hell would be scared of opening a door for someone thats going to yell at me, and if I confront them and say that what they're doing is wrong, I'll get called a Male Chauvinist Pig(MCP) again
If you allow the poor conduct of a few to prevent you from showing common politeness to others, you are part of the problem as much as those you accuse. I open doors for people and some of them give me strange looks and have even been confrontational, they dont make the smiles and polite murmers of thanks from the majority any less genuine and sincere. I certainly wont be deprived of my chance to spread little bits of goodwill by doing small tasks like opening/holding doors for others, it's a shame but primarily your loss if you allow a few misguided and/or miscontented anti-social types to intimidate you into doing otherwise...

Why not just call all water going vessels, water going vessels, then if you want to specify a yacht instead of an ocean liner, you can spend half an hour describing every trait of the two....feminism is not a sexist word, it is a descriptive word

In this case, it's a car getting called a yaught. They're both transportation, but they go different ways.

Which is missing the point entirely even while relating it back to me. You have been looking and seem to imply that doing so means you have reason to know what you are talking about. Even if the assertion that made you start looking is false, if you look with clear eyes, you will see more than when you were not looking (which is the point I was making).


Can anyone look with the proper observers eyes? I'm sure there is as much inequality that I see, as do you.

and frankly the police catching the perpetrator after the act is completed, is no compensation for the perpetrator not being prevented from commiting the fullness of their crime when they could have been, but for one phone call...

Unfortunately, you don't always know who's a criminal, and who's in the right until it's too late. That could be applied to feminism aswell. Just like if we had have rung, the police would have gotten there and captured a criminal or annoyed the hell out of the owner who'd lost his key.


Modern feminist thought evolved in the last few hundred years, humans existed for many many many thousands of years before that, ergo if time were all it took the most progress towards equality would have occured in the longer time spand of the many many many thousands of years as opposed to the smaller few hundred year time span. This is in fact the opposite of what has occured, because it takes more than the passing of time.

And equal rights have risen exponentially, though I believe there is about an equal amount of feminists (I couldn't really tell, but i'd expect it's this way. I can't give you the statistics because there's too many countries to try and get them from - Also, from now on the arguments I make are about western women. I don't really know enough about non western womens rights to argue back effectively)

read the fairytale you wrote, I suggest if you wish to retain any credibility that you avoid pointing people towards it, with luck on your side people might miss it entirely...

Your statement about feminists is untrue, if you cant come up with facts, false accusations will impress none but the converted....
If I didn't say it during the anology, I'm sorry but yes, that was a nasty view of feminism, and grossly exaggerated, but in a small sense it's still true.

You could go on about balancing till you are blue in the face, it doesnt improve anything for those effected. As I pointed out, your comments indicate that you are not looking at the big picture. Men, women and children suffer unnecessarily due to the 'female=homemaker/male=earner' stereotype, I dont care if those trying to change this for the betterment of us all, call themselves feminists, humanists, masculinists, Ronald McDonaldists, or Farty Paints McWatson...so long as the work they are doing is necessary and beneficial, that's what matters to me. The wage gap and custody assumptions are both aspects of the male=provider/female=homemaker stereotype that feminists have been striving to counter. Although they are both feminist issues, they are also masculinist issues, and they are humanist issues. A feminist might (for obvious reasons based on knowledge base, general areas of interest etc) approach the problem from the wage gap arena and a masculinist from the custody issue, or they might try to tackle both simultaneously, regardless they are attempting to make valuable contributions to the ongoing betterment of society.


Unfortunately, you can also argue that women don't have it equal until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change anything about how feminism has a chance to overshoot or how men can be unjustly treated in areas, the same as women thanks to fem=home, man= earn. The opression against women has hurt everyone, and don't try and twist this that I'm saying that males are the victims. I'm not. Women have been opressed. It's true. But those same opressions are hurting current males, males that don't agree with opression of women.

That's right, because most kids are paying a lot of attention to the news....really if someone is too young to make up their own mind, they shouldnt be watching the news (or any adult themed programe) without adult supervision and guidence. This sounds more to me like a problem with parental standards, you should address your concerns to them. I watch the news regularly, it is not family viewing, contains adult themes, and often includes graphics not at all suitable for children. If someone is too impressionable to not be 'damaged' from hearing some misguided nonesence being touted under the guise of feminism, then they are certainly too young to look at strewn body parts on the streets of Iraq...

Just like santa, these things are spoiled by other people. One child hears about it, they spread it and again, it rises exponentially.

I have been to many churches where not a single word was said about terrorists who blow up medical clinics in the name of God, I dont believe for a moment that the churches as a whole, or their members support terrorism....and I suspect that you wouldnt make such a bizaar assumption either, unless you also have a bee in your bonnet about christians too....
Yes, but the church doesn't condone this and everyone knows it because it's said "thou shalt not kill". That there are exceptions is even less known to people because they just look at the easily accessible and commonly said things like the 10 commandments.

If you allow the poor conduct of a few to prevent you from showing common politeness to others, you are part of the problem as much as those you accuse. I open doors for people and some of them give me strange looks and have even been confrontational, they dont make the smiles and polite murmers of thanks from the majority any less genuine and sincere. I certainly wont be deprived of my chance to spread little bits of goodwill by doing small tasks like opening/holding doors for others, it's a shame but primarily your loss if you allow a few misguided and/or miscontented anti-social types to intimidate you into doing otherwise...
Quite often it's been the few ruining it for the many. This is one of those examples.

Also, could we please be a bit more respectful to eachother? Your posts always seem very condescending and slightly arrogant (unless it's just the way it's shown on the internet).

In this case, it's a car getting called a yaught. They're both transportation, but they go different ways.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean...



Can anyone look with the proper observers eyes? I'm sure there is as much inequality that I see, as do you.
Not really sure what this means either. All I am saying is people usually know more about things they have evaluated, and that people raising issues (right or wrong) generate evaluations. This isnt a revelation, or anything. Can you please specify which part you disagree with
evaluating things leads to greater knowledge about them
or
talking about things can generate evaluation of them,
because I'm not really sure what exactly you disagree with here.

Unfortunately, you don't always know who's a criminal, and who's in the right until it's too late. That could be applied to feminism aswell. Just like if we had have rung, the police would have gotten there and captured a criminal or annoyed the hell out of the owner who'd lost his key.
A-typical examples fall into the same category as strawmen...let me put it to you straight, are you really justifying intentionally walking away from what you believe to be a serious crime? Is that really the kind of behaviour you personally condone?

And equal rights have risen exponentially, though I believe there is about an equal amount of feminists (I couldn't really tell, but i'd expect it's this way. I can't give you the statistics because there's too many countries to try and get them from - Also, from now on the arguments I make are about western women. I don't really know enough about non western womens rights to argue back effectively)
Only in places where there are groups committed to promoting human rights. Again this proves the point, times and places where there are no such groups, no improvements, regardless of the passing of time. The passing of time is not a sufficient condition for positive social change.

If I didn't say it during the anology, I'm sorry but yes, that was a nasty view of feminism, and grossly exaggerated, but in a small sense it's still true.
No it's not true of feminism in any sense. If it were you wouldnt need to make up fairy tales...

Unfortunately, you can also argue that women don't have it equal until you're blue in the face.
More sensibly everyone should just admit that inequalities and inedequities exist and will always exist, as will improvements, and betterments.

It doesn't change anything about how feminism has a chance to overshoot or how men can be unjustly treated in areas, the same as women thanks to fem=home, man= earn.
This is what I mean about being objective, an ideology based on getting back to a good economy and a sense of national pride has a chance to turn into a manical murder spree combined with a simultaneous attempt at taking over the world, belief in many deities has a chance of turning into a number of perverse and shocking acts, including mass torture and murder. You admit to generalisations, fine but that doesnt make them any more valid as premises in an argument, and without valid premises you dont have any valid argument.

Evidently the harm of the fem=home male=earn is what I have been demonstrating to you, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you have some idea that every gain for females is a lose for males and that equality means equal suffering rather optimising opportunity for everyone...

The opression against women has hurt everyone, and don't try and twist this that I'm saying that males are the victims. I'm not. Women have been opressed. It's true. But those same opressions are hurting current males, males that don't agree with opression of women.
Fact-oppression of women has hurt everyone
Fact-some of the harmful elements remain
Fact-most forms of feminism involve addressing such harmful elements
your conclusion, feminism is not necessary, I hesitate to conclude that you dont care if people are hurt as long as they are hurt equally, but that fruity fairytale of yours is starting to look more like a self assesment....


Just like santa, these things are spoiled by other people. One child hears about it, they spread it and again, it rises exponentially.
Sorry but I know children too well for this to cut. Good parenting can easily deal with day to day child hood experiances, including the commonplace activity of interacting with children less 'sheltered'...

Yes, but the church doesn't condone this and everyone knows it because it's said "thou shalt not kill". That there are exceptions is even less known to people because they just look at the easily accessible and commonly said things like the 10 commandments.
Well feminists dont condone inequality and everyone knows this because it is stated time and again by many of them and in fact is a well known catch cry of feminists since way back...it's commonly said and is the underlining theme of the founding feminist temenents, which are easily accessible in the many feminist essays, theses, books, writings, transcribes speeches etc, going back a couple of centuries or so....

Quite often it's been the few ruining it for the many. This is one of those examples.
No it's the many who let the few ruin it, and more shame them.

Also, could we please be a bit more respectful to eachother? Your posts always seem very condescending and slightly arrogant (unless it's just the way it's shown on the internet).
Again I dont think you are being objective. Consider this, you started your first post by generalising that people who hold veiws I hold are trouble makers making personal attacks on others (ironic considering your own comments about feminists and even other posters on this board....best call the glazier methinks), you then go onto to make very insulting and derogatory remarks about a group that I belong to, you made false accusations about this group, and then to prove your point, lacking any actual evidence of your slander, you made up some fruity fairy tale. The only evidence of your slanderish accusations appears to be other slanderous generalisations and accusations, which is also a featured complaint that you have against the group you are making wild accusations about.

You have accused me of calling all men rapists and wannabe slave keepers, of wanting other peoples' apples in spite of my own oranges, of corrupting the minds of innoccent children, of wanting gender superiority, of being a sexist, and any other number of things. You have even called me a name that infers I am akin to Nazis! Dont you think in light of all this, my comments to you are actually rather restrained and fairly polite? After all I dont believe you can point out a single false accusation that I have made about you or anyone else, I dont believe you can find anywhere I have started calling you names, or making up stories about you, or making up ridiculous false arguments and trying to pass them as being yours. None of this is respectful treatment, and I earnestly believe that my manner toward you is far more respectful than yours is towards me.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean...This wasn't very clear and I apologise.

Not really sure what this means either. All I am saying is people usually know more about things they have evaluated, and that people raising issues (right or wrong) generate evaluations. This isnt a revelation, or anything. Can you please specify which part you disagree with
evaluating things leads to greater knowledge about them
or
talking about things can generate evaluation of them,
because I'm not really sure what exactly you disagree with here.

I'm saying that for every injustice you find against women, I can for men.

A-typical examples fall into the same category as strawmen...let me put it to you straight, are you really justifying intentionally walking away from what you believe to be a serious crime? Is that really the kind of behaviour you personally condone?
No, but like I've said, full social equality is on its way.

Only in places where there are groups committed to promoting human rights. Again this proves the point, times and places where there are no such groups, no improvements, regardless of the passing of time. The passing of time is not a sufficient condition for positive social change.
These groups have already spread their message. All we're waiting for now is the old generation, with their prejudices against women, to go away. I never meant that the passing of time without a group was necessary. The group has already come, and it's done what it needed to do - spread the word so the changes would be made. The word has been spread, and the changes are rolling in. I don't know your age, so I don't know whether you were there during the bad times, but I believe there has been a massive change for the better.

No it's not true of feminism in any sense. If it were you wouldnt need to make up fairy tales... I've seen hipocrisy on this issue from feminist. It's selective equality.


More sensibly everyone should just admit that inequalities and inedequities exist and will always exist, as will improvements, and betterments.
Things can always be taken too far.

This is what I mean about being objective, an ideology based on getting back to a good economy and a sense of national pride has a chance to turn into a manical murder spree combined with a simultaneous attempt at taking over the world, belief in many deities has a chance of turning into a number of perverse and shocking acts, including mass torture and murder. You admit to generalisations, fine but that doesnt make them any more valid as premises in an argument, and without valid premises you dont have any valid argument.
I've never believed that men would be turned into house slaves/sperm farms, etc. I've worried that feminists won't know when to stop. Eventually, it MAY be "They get born stronger than us, so we should control the government" (as a very bad example).


Evidently the harm of the fem=home male=earn is what I have been demonstrating to you, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you have some idea that every gain for females is a lose for males and that equality means equal suffering rather optimising opportunity for everyone...
That's not what I've been saying at all, and this is just what the problem with feminism is. It's supposed to be humanist, but it's generaly more concerned about women than men. Men don't have any representation, and if we need it, then we'll know feminism has gone too far.


Fact-oppression of women has hurt everyone
Fact-some of the harmful elements remain
Fact-most forms of feminism involve addressing such harmful elements
your conclusion, feminism is not necessary, I hesitate to conclude that you dont care if people are hurt as long as they are hurt equally, but that fruity fairytale of yours is starting to look more like a self assesment....
No, most forms of feminism involve addressing those harmful elements for the WOMEN. Again, no representation for men.

Sorry but I know children too well for this to cut. Good parenting can easily deal with day to day child hood experiances, including the commonplace activity of interacting with children less 'sheltered'... Unfortunately, good parenting is hard to find...


Well feminists dont condone inequality and everyone knows this because it is stated time and again by many of them and in fact is a well known catch cry of feminists since way back...it's commonly said and is the underlining theme of the founding feminist temenents, which are easily accessible in the many feminist essays, theses, books, writings, transcribes speeches etc, going back a couple of centuries or so....
You've convinced me.

No it's the many who let the few ruin it, and more shame them. Often, the many don't have the power to stop them.


Again I dont think you are being objective. Consider this, you started your first post by generalising that people who hold veiws I hold are trouble makers making personal attacks on others (ironic considering your own comments about feminists and even other posters on this board....best call the glazier methinks), you then go onto to make very insulting and derogatory remarks about a group that I belong to, you made false accusations about this group, and then to prove your point, lacking any actual evidence of your slander, you made up some fruity fairy tale. The only evidence of your slanderish accusations appears to be other slanderous generalisations and accusations, which is also a featured complaint that you have against the group you are making wild accusations about.
I've seen the profeminists attack the men, without provovation and without them answering back with an attack. You tell me what I'm supposed to think... I've made no attacks, and when speaking about an group like the feminists, it's hard not make generalisations. Any attacks I've made were against a troll. The analogy I made had nothing to do with proof. I've already said, it was nasty and a gross generalization. What the hell else do you want? I don't think I've made any insulting or derogatory remarks about feminists, or false accusations. Already, 3 times, I've agreed I was wrong. You're saying this is bad? No, but you're damn well implying it.

You have accused me of calling all men rapists and wannabe slave keepers, of wanting other peoples' apples in spite of my own oranges, of corrupting the minds of innoccent children, of wanting gender superiority, of being a sexist, and any other number of things. You have even called me a name that infers I am akin to Nazis! Dont you think in light of all this, my comments to you are actually rather restrained and fairly polite? After all I dont believe you can point out a single false accusation that I have made about you or anyone else, I dont believe you can find anywhere I have started calling you names, or making up stories about you, or making up ridiculous false arguments and trying to pass them as being yours. None of this is respectful treatment, and I earnestly believe that my manner toward you is far more respectful than yours is towards me.
I accused you of no such things. Those were general comments about things other feminists have said on this bored. I haven't accused you of "corrupting the minds of innocent children", I said this is what happens when something gets repeated too many times. I've never said you wanted gender superiority, Maybe you should reread everything I've said. I never called you a name that infers you are a nazi. If you'd have read what I fkn said, I was using feminizi for conveniance about the people who the thread creator attributed the name to. You are looking at everything I say, and taking it personally. I honestly believe that you would be one of those people who's complain if I opened the door for them. The way you speak here screams it out to me.

I've never said feminism wasn't necessary, I'm saying it's not necessary now.
I've never said feminists wanted superiority, I've said that that is what I'm afraid might happen if feminists go too far.

Your own comments about this shows that you are taking it the wrong way. Every step of the way you've been condescending, acting with a superior attitude (funny in the light of things, isn't it? :P) and arrogant without willing to concede anything. I AM open minded. At about page 30 of this thread, I started believe feminism was still necessary. I've been swayed both ways, and all the issues I've put up can be resolved to sway me to the side of the feminist. Instead, you've taken them as attacks!

This wasn't very clear and I apologise.
ok, but I'm still in the dark about what it means...

I'm saying that for every injustice you find against women, I can for men.
That's not relevent to my point that discourse if approached rationally promotes knowledge, even discourse that begins from an errant premise.

No, but like I've said, full social equality is on its way.
Because of the continued efforts of those engaged in striving towards it.

These groups have already spread their message. All we're waiting for now is the old generation, with their prejudices against women, to go away. I never meant that the passing of time without a group was necessary. The group has already come, and it's done what it needed to do - spread the word so the changes would be made. The word has been spread, and the changes are rolling in. I don't know your age, so I don't know whether you were there during the bad times, but I believe there has been a massive change for the better.
You are mistaken if you think that all beneficial changes have been identified, and more mistaken if you think that such changes will 'fall into place' of their own accord.

I've seen hipocrisy on this issue from feminist. It's selective equality.
What?! You've seen hypocrisy on the issue of apple and orange trees from feminists? I take that isnt what you mean, but I'll be a toasted sandwhich if I can figure out what you do mean...regardless I suspect it's probably just another 'some X's do, so I'm going to reason that all X's do' argument, which most people readily recongise as being without validity.

Things can always be taken too far.

Yes, good things can be taken to far, so do we get rid of all good things, or do we try to limit the potential for adverse extremist occurances? I personally think the latter is the most sensible,

I've never believed that men would be turned into house slaves/sperm farms, etc. I've worried that feminists won't know when to stop. Eventually, it MAY be "They get born stronger than us, so we should control the government" (as a very bad example).
What exactly do you believe, because so far all I can find are false generalisations and accusations, strawmen, 'some X's are Y, therefore all X's are Y' fallacies, and 'bad examples'. If you actually have a point, wouldnt it be somewhat easier to provide actual examples rather than generalisations, fairytales about fruit, what you admit is a bad (ie far fetched never going to happen) example? Seriously I think we both know your bad example is never going to happen, so why use it rather than an example that is feasable? I cant help but speculate that your only reason for having not done so, is because you dont have one.

That's not what I've been saying at all, and this is just what the problem with feminism is. It's supposed to be humanist, but it's generaly more concerned about women than men. Men don't have any representation, and if we need it, then we'll know feminism has gone too far.
It is what you are saying, it doesnt matter who the heck seeks the improvement or on who's behalf it is sought, unless you're the sort to envy apples...

As for men not having representation that is false and so is the claim that if they did feminism would have gone to far. Men's body of experiance and perspective is valuable and necessary to the goal of optimising human well being. The fact that their efforts centre on improving humanities lot from the prospective of males doesnt mean non-males dont benefit, nor does it mean they cant 'take things too far', it simply means that is the particular angle they choose to attack the issue from, and I for one commend them for their efforts to improve society, regardless of the particular aspect they choose to specialise in.

No, most forms of feminism involve addressing those harmful elements for the WOMEN. Again, no representation for men.
No they involve addressing those harmful elements that feminists have identified as being particularly concerning to them, as not surprising as feminists a lot of the time such issues are 'feminist' issues, and just as unsurprising, many of these people being women, they often present women's viewpoints on such issues....either way as long as the work is beneficial that is the only relevent point.

Unfortunately, good parenting is hard to find...
So people should cease to attempt to improve the world or to have socio/politico opinions etc, in case some children get the wrong idea due to inadequate parenting. That seems to me a very counterproductive means by which to address poor parenting.

You've convinced me.
Often, the many don't have the power to stop them.
Whether or not this is true, it is not relevent to the case we were discussing. The many do indeed have the power to choose to carry on being polite to others despite the anti social few, thankfully most of us choose to exercise this power most of time, and I suspect that this includes yourself. Would you really quit saying thank you when someone did something to you, just because a couple of anti social persons had reacted poorly to you having done so previously?

I've seen the profeminists attack the men, without provovation and without them answering back with an attack.
I have personally been attacked without provacation in this thread, and in my mind standing up for myself appropriately is not attacking someone.

You tell me what I'm supposed to think... I've made no attacks,
every single generalisation you have made is indeed an attack, as is referring to people as feminazis, as is making up fairytales about them....need I continue?

and when speaking about an group like the feminists, it's hard not make generalisations.
You've made nothing but generalisations and/or logical fallacies, and/or made up anecdotes, and if these generalisations actually had any basis in reality, I suggest that would not be the case....

Any attacks I've made were against a troll.
You have maligned every feminist that exists more than once, I suggest that they have not all visited and trolled this thread (I know for instance that I have not trolled in this or any other thread), I suspect millions of them dont even have internet access....

The analogy I made had nothing to do with proof.
It had nothing to do with anything, you just out of the blue made up a story against a target group and then even directed another poster (myself) to read it as some sort of verification or justification of your views...it's not any of these things, what it is, is an ad hominen attack, and to me it indicates that you have no valid point. If you did have a valid point, why would you have even gone there?

I've already said, it was nasty and a gross generalization. What the hell else do you want? I don't think I've made any insulting or derogatory remarks about feminists, or false accusations
You state that you made a nasty and gross generalisation about a group and in the same paragraph state that you have not made any insulting or derogatory remarks about that same group, or any false accusations, even though you know your nasty gross generalising accussation was entirely false, and you are asking me what you are supposed to think? :eek:
Really, I dont know what to say, maybe it's late where you are when you posted this and the coffee is scarce...? :confused:

Already, 3 times, I've agreed I was wrong. You're saying this is bad? No, but you're damn well implying it.
I'm pointing out to you, your conduct in relation to my own, because you raised the issue. If I made up similar nasty gross generalising stories about for instance men or Australians, I dont think you would have any problem seeing that this is an attack.


I have accused you of no such things.
This is untrue, you have accused all feminists of things several times, (I can quote you if you insist). I am a feminist ergo every time you comment on every feminist you comment on me, go back yourself and read the comments you have made and replace the word 'feminist' with Peopleandstuff, and then try to tell me that you have not said some very nasty things about me...

Those were general comments about things other feminists have said on this bored.
If they were about other people why in direct reference to me say 'you feminists'? And why is it any more relevent to the issue than the similar nasty comments made about feminists in this same thread? It doesnt matter who makes ad hominen attacks, they prove nothing, and impress only the converted, and often not even the converted...and this is no different to your employment of the term feminazi.

I haven't accused you of "corrupting the minds of innocent children", I said this is what happens when something gets repeated too many times.
Yes you have, you have said that feminists being feminists corrupt childrens minds by voicing their opinions, I am a feminist and I do voice my opinion, which means according to your statement I am corrupting the minds of innocent children.

I've never said you wanted gender superiority, Maybe you should reread everything I've said./QUOTE]
Yes you did, perhaps you should re-read everything you said, if you cant find it, let me know, I can always do a quote for you...

[QUOTE]I never called you a name that infers you are a nazi.
I dont percieve that you appear to differntiate between feminists and whoever else operating under the guise of feminism, and I frankly still beleive that it is an untrue and inappropriate terminology that simply makes those that use appear to be juvenile name callers who lack any real valid point.

If you'd have read what I fkn said, I was using feminizi for conveniance about the people who the thread creator attributed the name to.
That is no excuse, 'I'm being highly insensitive, inflammatory and name calling people because it is convinient', come on, surely you can do better than that!

Honestly, self serving justifications for employment hatred terminlogy doesnt change what you are doing.
the word is not accurately discriptive, and it is has highly derogatory connotations. Given the 1st aspect alone, 'extremists' would be more convinient, for proof of this consider if you had used it in your own comments on this very thread, instead of using feminazi.....

You are looking at everything I say, and taking it personally.
No, actually I'm not, I'm am telling you outright the truth about what you are saying, when you say feminist you include me in the remarks, you are addressing a number of persons including myself. You cannot say 'feminists are 6 foot tall' and not also be saying that I am 6foot tall. Referring to me is a material consequent of referring to the group 'feminist' because I am a member of that group.

I honestly believe that you would be one of those people who's complain if I opened the door for them. The way you speak here screams it out to me.
Well I honestly believe you just think that because it provides you with an ad hominen attack in the face of lacking a valid counterpoint to the points I have made...

I've never said feminism wasn't necessary, I'm saying it's not necessary now.
I've never said feminists wanted superiority, I've said that that is what I'm afraid might happen if feminists go too far.
Actually you did say that they wanted superiority of rights, and I disagree that feminism is not still beneficial, and point out that you have not provided one valid argument to the contrary. Evidently I open doors for everyone, and like doors being opened for me...I think it's a real shame you let a few anti social people put you off doing what is right and good for you and your community, but we all make our own choices. I encourage you to be brave, take the plunge and open someone's door tomorrow...make the world a better place.

Your own comments about this shows that you are taking it the wrong way.
I dont believe that to be true, and I challenge you to substantiate otherwise.

Every step of the way you've been condescending, acting with a superior attitude (funny in the light of things, isn't it? :P) and arrogant without willing to concede anything.
I am willing to concede anything you can provide a convincing argument to substantiate. Such an argument will not be based on strawmen, well known logical fallacies, fairytales you just made up, generalisations, and 'bad examples', do I arrogantly imagine myself superior, no, do I know that I have presented surperior arguments to your own, yes.

I AM open minded. At about page 30 of this thread, I started believe feminism was still necessary. I've been swayed both ways, and all the issues I've put up can be resolved to sway me to the side of the feminist. Instead, you've taken them as attacks!
You are not objective. That much is obvious from such occurances as your admitting to making a gross and nasty generalisation about a group before proceeding to insist that you have not attacked that same group.....

Very much like my opinion. Also add Cannen's "demonstrations and marches cannot change the public;s opinion, they are only good for passing laws".

The largest public protest in Britians history, the countryside alliance march against the hunting ban. Yet still over 83% of the population of the UK were opposed to hunting. What does that tell you?

The largest public protest in Britians history, the countryside alliance march against the hunting ban. Yet still over 83% of the population of the UK were opposed to hunting. What does that tell you?
If it is true it tells me that
the largest public protest in Britians history was the country side alliance march against the hunting ban,
and
over 83% of the population of the UK were opposed to hunting.

Out of curiosity, what did you percieve it as telling us?

If it is true it tells me that
the largest public protest in Britians history was the country side alliance march against the hunting ban,
and
over 83% of the population of the UK were opposed to hunting.

Out of curiosity, what did you percieve it as telling us?

That public protests do not change public opinion very often. (Would people please read what I quote when I post)

That public protests do not change public opinion very often. (Would people please read what I quote when I post)
I speculated as much...however it certainly doesnt substantiate as much, and frankly it's a stretch to even suggest that it is directly implied.

I say we make women begin to sign up for the selective service....equal rights, equal responsibility.

Dawnitopia, what you're saying is stupid and hypocritical. We're not saying that feminism should be illegal. By your arguments, you even posting in here about your OPINION, as we have been posting about OURS is pointless, because unless it's illegal; we shouldn't argue about it. When you can argue in a sensible manner, and not be a dick (or a feminist bitch/chauvinistic pig) at the same time.


Trimmed for concise space-ness.

A better model, I think, would go something like this:

A man had three apple trees. A woman has an apple tree. The man imprisons her and claims the tree. Another woman has an apple tree. The man imprisons HER, and takes HER tree.

This goes on for a few years.

Eventually, a woman stands up and says... "Hey, why do people keep taking our trees, this isn't fair".

A few more women get imprisoned and have their trees taken.

Then, a gradual switch in public perspective, caused by women saying "What about us?" causes a political movement to re-enfranchise women.

SOME of the women are released, a few are given some seeds, and one or two are given some scrubby wild-apples.

Now - some of the men start complaining... "You got trees, now leave us alone"...

I don't know how much current would kill... it's irrelevent in the experiment anyway, because the subjects administered whatever they were told, up to the maximum available... also without knowing if it could kill.

And - of course, no actual shocks were administered (just in case anyone didn't read the link).

But, yes... the 'figurehead' took all responsibility... and, since, they were 'ordered' to do it, ALL those people somehow 'forgot' any other conviction they might have, and administered (what they BELIEVED was) extreme torture on an innocent victim.

Just to clarify, they did know that it might be lethal, as the "test subject" (the guy supposedly being shocked but just acting) began to scream out in pain and yelled that he had a heart condition and could die.

Just to clarify, they did know that it might be lethal, as the "test subject" (the guy supposedly being shocked but just acting) began to scream out in pain and yelled that he had a heart condition and could die.

Hmmm, I didn't know they thought it might be lethal.

I know that the subjects were told that there was a maximum level they might have to administer (of which, what was it, 70% did?), and that the actor started screaming intensely quite early on, (and, yet, they just kept right on administering higher 'dosages' as instructed)... but I didn't know he screamed about a heart condition... even MORE mesed up when you put that little fact into the mix.

hey MURDER millions of unborn children,

Murder? And here I was thinking that you needed a human being involved for that. Not to mention the fact that most feminists, like most women in general, have never and will never have an abortion.

pay in support for lesbian groups,

Oh no!!! Women support groups of women!!!??? Oh the horror!!!!!

and degrade men.

Example?

They want partial birth abortion, you know, the one where the doctor takes an icepick like device and HITS THE BABY IN THE SKULL, you know that one? The feminazis want it legal. They are all sickos.

And here you demonstrate COMPLETE ignorance of the situation. No one that I have ever met advocates dilation and extraction as an elective procedure. However, there are situations in which it is medically necessary. All anyone is fighting for is the ability to obtain this medical procedure if it is necessary in their case.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that it isn't an entire cshitload better than what it was like in the bad times? Racism will never be abolished, but it's been changed into a more TOLERABLE level. It would be better if it wasn't there, but I can't change that.

You can try.

No, that paragraph proves that you are not listening. There are so many arguements for both sides that it has to be basically equal. Some men have it better than some women, just like some women have it better than some men. It BALANCES OUT.

Balancing out doesn't make anything equal. If you get paid twice as much as me for the same job, but you figure that's ok because I get cheaper turnips than you, that doesn't come out to be equality. Equality would mean that we both got paid the same for the same job and we both get turnips at the same price.

Sydney Opera House sucks anyway - they can have it :P. And the people I'm referring to here are the children who watch TV and see in the news some feminist rally. I caAustralian government decided to allow women into the combat part of the armed forces. A feminist was on the screen and she was saying that the Australia government was now giving woman a chance to die. WHAT? Excuse me, but that's making it equal but oh! Sorry, I forgot! You don't want equality, you want the best of both worlds while the men are stuck with one world with good and bad.

Small minority. Most of us wish to be treated the same. I, for one, feel that women should be included in the draft, etc.

Wait. So if we have an image like that it's a bad thing, but when you feminist have the (multiple times in this thread) repeated view that men still want women as slaves it's OK? This is the crap I'm talking about. Best of both worlds.

Some do. Much like the bloated examples of "feminists" you keep bringing up, they are a small minority, but they are there.

No, but many women don't want to look at both sides. I like to think that I do, and I've looked into this topic alot (topic, not thread - though it's both aswell :) ) but I may have missed something. I admit that, and that is why I am debating this with you. So that you can show me how they don't have it as good.

Now this is better. You don't say "You women just want ....", you say "many women don't want...." Much better.

And the answer to your question is within your own posts.

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


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

I somehow don't think you'd be so dismissive of feminism if you were female. Women get propositioned by men night and day, get constant pressure to look like a supermodel, to be charming for men, et cetera. The overriding message given to women day and night is that they are sex objects, existing only for men's pleasure. Obviously, you probably think that they are, but the fact is that women are intelligent, constructive and competent human beings, no more and no less than men are. While it is true that men are generally physically stronger than women, it is not necessarily true that all women are necessarily interested in men, or that men are somehow less attractive than women. Men just recieve less pressure to preen themselves than women; it has gotten to the point that, if men spend too much time beautifying, they're insulted for being "gay" and not manly enough. There's nothing wrong with manly, straight men taking good care of their bodies by paying special attention to the clothes they wear, spending extra time styling their hair, and using a bit of skin lotion after they shower and shave. After all, men who look nicer do tend to be paid more attention by women.
Finally, the idea that women just want sex is wrong. Men are generally more psychologically motivated towards sexual activity than women, who are more interested by and large in a stable, healthy relationship.

As for the destruction of chivalry, I see your point, but at the same time, I see the point of feminists, which is that chivalry has its origins in, and still operates on the assumption that females are weak and need to be rescued. Even larger than that, acts of chivalry are seen not as indicative of negative character traits on the part of a single male, but rather as examples of the way our inherently patriarchal society informs our daily, unconcious actions.


No it's not! If I open a door for a girl, I HONEST TO GOD not trying to say that you are weak, or inferior in any way. I am just trying to be nice. HONESTLY!


Who are you? Stalin? Just cause you created the thread you can tell people what to discuss, do you have real life conversations or is your human contact limited to net forums? Conversations go off topic and take differant paths. Anyway, I think abortion laws and public views is VERY relevant to feminism...
I am just reminding people that abortion talk is off topic on this thread.

Of course it does not. Do you really think that a 40 year old pedatrician is entirely indifferent to the health of his elderly mother, his middle aged wife, his own health?!
As a doctor, he is specialized in children's healthcare. He is not specialized in elderly health.


Actually a man can be home maker. Fortunately one of the issues that many feminists do try to resolve is the unfortunate mind set that leads to some people assuming male=caregiver, female=homemaker, so hopefully in the future this barrier to well being will due (at least in part) to the efforts of feminists be resolved. I dont care who is house-keeping, I only care about whether or not people can choose whether or not they are house keepers.

But society won't understand if the man is a home maker. I don't see feminists parading trying to give men the right and social understanding to be home makers. And who said that being a caregiver is better than being a homemaker.

Hang on, you conclude that it is bullshit that the majority of racial hatred has not dissappeared in the US, based on the existence of laws you percieve as being racist...I really dont know what to say about that..
Yes, the majority of anti-black racism has dissappeared today. IN fact, even some pro-black racism has appeared. I don't know what's hard about it.

I dont go to your highschool, so I am not in any position to evaluate what if any inequalities exist at your highschool, but if you think about whether or not such inequalities exist, the result should be that you yourself have a clearer notion as to whether or not this is the case, than if you had not thought about it (maybe I'm not being clear, because I'm sure if I say it right you'll not disagree, it's not a huge revelation that people are more erudite about things they have specifically looked into and thought about, than they are about things they havent looked into and thought about....) Thus is someone says your school is sexist for instance, and you evaluate the issue, either you will have a reasoned opinion as to why it is sexist or a reasoned opinion as to why it is not, which in either case would make you better informed than you would be if you didnt evaluate the matter and just assumed...
Ok, assume i go to a very typical high school (which i am not, but assume that). Show me how men are treated better than women.

I have tried no such thing, saying that I have effects reality no more than attempting to redefine the normative meaning of the word feminism. Feminists are indeed people, and some believe women should have more rights or powers than they have now, which evidently does not make them anti male.
Feminists are a group of people united by the belief that women have less rights than they should, and fighting for them to have more rights/powers. Thus being anti-male is not a neutral property when it comes to them.

You could go on about balancing till you are blue in the face, it doesnt improve anything for those effected.
Nothing we'll say here will improve anything. These are just forums, we can't change anything.

'female=homemaker/male=earner'
But is it better if females can be both homemakers and earners, but men are constricted to be earners?

The wage gap and custody assumptions are both aspects of the male=provider/female=homemaker stereotype that feminists have been striving to counter.
Neither the wage gap, nor custody assumption is a law. It's de facto. Which means it's all due to public's opinion, and there is nothing feminists can do to change the public's opinion. That's why they are useless, in fact, counterproductive.

Evidence suggests that your time point is wrong. Thousands of years (of human sexual relations) vs a few hundred (of emerging feminist progress), if your time theory was true the greater progress would have occured in the 1000's of years time span, not the few hundred...
Actually, rate of change of society has greatly increased in the past 100 years. The life in 0 C.E. and 1000 C.E. was less different than the life today, and in 1970. Almost as much was accomplished in the last 100 years, than the 2000 before it. Society is changing faster and faster and faster and faster. And by the way, in the 19th century, when sexism was a gigantic issue, it was men who got custody addumptions, not women.

I have never made such a claim, nor endorsed the making of such claims, as any objective evaluation of the facts would imply
You might not have, but you can't say that this claim was not made in this thread. Many times.

I have been to many churches where not a single word was said about terrorists who blow up medical clinics in the name of God, I dont believe for a moment that the churches as a whole, or their members support terrorism....and I suspect that you wouldnt make such a bizaar assumption either, unless you also have a bee in your bonnet about christians too....Yes, but Christian terrorists are blowing up medical clinics in the name of christianity.

And you were telling us not to go on about one sex being better before. You cant just group people as this or that.
So you cannot group nazis as people who believe in Aryan race supremacy? You cannot group feminazis as people who believe in female supremacy?

won't add much to this, but I will add some. I thought of something on the thing about how they don't want sports teams to be all-male. Does anyone else out there get the feeling that, if there were women in the NFL, the feminazis would try to boycott the NFL or what-not until rules were passed saying that the women had to be tackle or "set-down" differently? I have this really strong feeling that that is what would happen. These women want equal rights for women? No, they want equal rights, then some. I've got a special finger for each one of them psychos, and I'll shove it in their face if im ever confronted by one. And I'm NOT afraid to smack them in their moustached face either.
Is this a joke post? You are not seriously putting it out there that you actually think this is going to happen, surely that's nothing you'd want spread around...
I can remember a few years ago (I was about 9) when the Australian government decided to allow women into the combat part of the armed forces. A feminist was on the screen and she was saying that the Australia government was now giving woman a chance to die. WHAT? Excuse me, but that's making it equal but oh! Sorry, I forgot! You don't want equality, you want the best of both worlds while the men are stuck with one world with good and bad.
So it can happen

Not really sure what this means either. All I am saying is people usually know more about things they have evaluated, and that people raising issues (right or wrong) generate evaluations. This isnt a revelation, or anything. Can you please specify which part you disagree with
evaluating things leads to greater knowledge about them
or
talking about things can generate evaluation of them,
because I'm not really sure what exactly you disagree with here.

What he means, is that noone is completely neutral.

No it's not true of feminism in any sense. If it were you wouldnt need to make up fairy tales...
No, it is true. They want themselves to have equality in some areas, but privelages in others. Which means that man get equality in some areas, but disadvantage in others. Not really fair to men, right? If we are all equal, it means women get drafted, and men get just as much preference in getting lifejackets, and so forth. Oh, and yea, we don't open doors for women or give yuor seat to women (unless she is pregnant) and so forth.

Fact-oppression of women has hurt everyone
Fact-some of the harmful elements remain
Fact-most forms of feminism involve addressing such harmful elements
your conclusion, feminism is not necessary, I hesitate to conclude that you dont care if people are hurt as long as they are hurt equally, but that fruity fairytale of yours is starting to look more like a self assesment....
Feminists cannot do anything about oppression of women. ANd the oppression itself will dissipate with or without their help. Just cause they address some harmful areas, doesn't mean they can do anything about it. Worst they can do, is kick some manager off his job for hiring a man over a woman.

Oh, and by the way, another noble deed of feminism: Prohibition. The only amendment that caused more troubles than there were before, and was in the end repealed.


The largest public protest in Britians history, the countryside alliance march against the hunting ban. Yet still over 83% of the population of the UK were opposed to hunting. What does that tell you?
It tells me that marches cannot force the public's opinion.

You are mistaken if you think that all beneficial changes have been identified, and more mistaken if you think that such changes will 'fall into place' of their own accord.
Of course they will. THe wage gap is decreasing, just as an example.

I have personally been attacked without provacation in this thread, and in my mind standing up for myself appropriately is not attacking someone.
Yes, but neo cannen was flamed for his personal qualitys for like 10 pages. Most of the insults, however were not original, such as "oh you're 12".

every single generalisation you have made is indeed an attack, as is referring to people as feminazis, as is making up fairytales about them....need I continue?
No, he's referring to feminists who are anti-males as feminazis. And the fairy tale is a reflection of reality. For example, do you believe that women should be drafted?

A man had three apple trees. A woman has an apple tree. The man imprisons her and claims the tree. Another woman has an apple tree. The man imprisons HER, and takes HER tree.

This goes on for a few years.

Eventually, a woman stands up and says... "Hey, why do people keep taking our trees, this isn't fair".

A few more women get imprisoned and have their trees taken.

Then, a gradual switch in public perspective, caused by women saying "What about us?" causes a political movement to re-enfranchise women.

SOME of the women are released, a few are given some seeds, and one or two are given some scrubby wild-apples.

Now - some of the men start complaining... "You got trees, now leave us alone"...
Maybe in Middle Eastern countries. We're not talking about them, are we?

I somehow don't think you'd be so dismissive of feminism if you were female. Women get propositioned by men night and day, get constant pressure to look like a supermodel, to be charming for men, et cetera. The overriding message given to women day and night is that they are sex objects, existing only for men's pleasure. Obviously, you probably think that they are, but the fact is that women are intelligent, constructive and competent human beings, no more and no less than men are. While it is true that men are generally physically stronger than women, it is not necessarily true that all women are necessarily interested in men, or that men are somehow less attractive than women. Men just recieve less pressure to preen themselves than women; it has gotten to the point that, if men spend too much time beautifying, they're insulted for being "gay" and not manly enough. There's nothing wrong with manly, straight men taking good care of their bodies by paying special attention to the clothes they wear, spending extra time styling their hair, and using a bit of skin lotion after they shower and shave. After all, men who look nicer do tend to be paid more attention by women.
Finally, the idea that women just want sex is wrong. Men are generally more psychologically motivated towards sexual activity than women, who are more interested by and large in a stable, healthy relationship.
...
Ok, let's start the post bashing.
First of all, unless you only watch porn channels, you will see that the media is sending the message that women are not sex objects existing only for male pleasure. I have never claimed that women are just "sex objects existing only for male pleasure" either. Women are not forced by anyone to look like supermodels, be charming for men, etc. As for beutifying, look at the modern stars, like Nick Lachey (sp?) and Brad Pitt. They probably spend a few hours a day surrounded by make up artists, etc. noone is accusing of them being gay, either. Your post might have made sense in the 1940's, but today is not 1947, its 2005.

OK: Some of the things you replied about have been ocovered by Doom.

Small minority. Most of us wish to be treated the same. I, for one, feel that women should be included in the draft, etc.


Balancing out doesn't make anything equal. If you get paid twice as much as me for the same job, but you figure that's ok because I get cheaper turnips than you, that doesn't come out to be equality. Equality would mean that we both got paid the same for the same job and we both get turnips at the same price.

OK. Let me explain this one more time.
a) I think that women still have it unfair in some typical "male work" scenarios.
b) I think that women have it much better in social scenario between m/f
c) feminists are trying to get the work scenarios changed
d) if b is true (which I think it is) then men have it worse off in social scenarios between m/f
e) I think that men have it unfair in some typical "womens work" scenarios (Housecleaner(not janitor), day care provider) but we wont use this one
f) All Jobs

So a + c = f and b>d then do we have equality? No. In that case, women would have it better off than men and that's one of the things I'm complaining about.

Because of the continued efforts of those engaged in striving towards it.
No! Because their message has been said and the western world has heard it and they're making the changes! All that they CAN talk about now are priveladges for women (Note the "can" before you start trying to twist my words".

ok, but I'm still in the dark about what it means...


A yacht and an ocean liner are 2 things: transport and sea going vessels
a car and a yacht is one thing: transport
humanism is better things for men and women
feminism is better things for women

So people should cease to attempt to improve the world or to have socio/politico opinions etc, in case some children get the wrong idea due to inadequate parenting. That seems to me a very counterproductive means by which to address poor parenting.
That's not what I meant and you damn well know it. This isn't a utopian society.

every single generalisation you have made is indeed an attack, as is referring to people as feminazis, as is making up fairytales about them....need I continue?
You have maligned every feminist that exists more than once, I suggest that they have not all visited and trolled this thread (I know for instance that I have not trolled in this or any other thread), I suspect millions of them dont even have internet access....

No, every generalisation I've made is a generalisation. There's a world of difference. An attack would be me saying something like "You're a feminist bitch" (That's not an attack at you there).

It had nothing to do with anything, you just out of the blue made up a story against a target group and then even directed another poster (myself) to read it as some sort of verification or justification of your views...it's not any of these things, what it is, is an ad hominen attack, and to me it indicates that you have no valid point. If you did have a valid point, why would you have even gone there?

No, I made that as a current model of how western feminism is. It's funny, all I've heard from you and any other feminist in this board is "Pay gap" and "man=earn/fem=house is wrong"... Issues that are being ADDRESSED and are almost resolved. It's very easy to destroy other peoples ideas. It's harder to come up with your own.

I'm pointing out to you, your conduct in relation to my own, because you raised the issue. If I made up similar nasty gross generalising stories about for instance men or Australians, I dont think you would have any problem seeing that this is an attack.
No, I'd see it for what it was. Not serious and a show of how public image from a certain group views males and australians.

This is untrue, you have accused all feminists of things several times, (I can quote you if you insist). I am a feminist ergo every time you comment on every feminist you comment on me, go back yourself and read the comments you have made and replace the word 'feminist' with Peopleandstuff, and then try to tell me that you have not said some very nasty things about me...

I can't comment on a group without making generalisations. No one can, unless it's someone saying "that is a group" and even then someone will get pissed off and say "no, its an organisatinos".

If they were about other people why in direct reference to me say 'you feminists'? And why is it any more relevent to the issue than the similar nasty comments made about feminists in this same thread? It doesnt matter who makes ad hominen attacks, they prove nothing, and impress only the converted, and often not even the converted...and this is no different to your employment of the term feminazi.

OK. I'm addressing you because you identified yourself with the group, and you are the person the argument is against. I can't very well argue with people who don't have the net. I've used feminazi once (or twice - can't remember) on a grop who the creater of the thread said "are feminists seeking superiority of men". You seem to think for some strange and utterly stupid reason that I've been using it hundreds of times, or that it's secretly imbedded in feminism every time I say it.

Yes you have, you have said that feminists being feminists corrupt childrens minds by voicing their opinions, I am a feminist and I do voice my opinion, which means according to your statement I am corrupting the minds of innocent children.
No, I've said feminists making public cries like that are influencing the minds of children. Protests/rallies should only be done when it's needed. It's not that hard to go to some representatives and say "we want this changed", and especially with young representatives (25> ) that would work

I dont percieve that you appear to differntiate between feminists and whoever else operating under the guise of feminism, and I frankly still beleive that it is an untrue and inappropriate terminology that simply makes those that use appear to be juvenile name callers who lack any real valid point.
You still haven't read it again. Here:
a) go back to page 73.
b) read things written be "Zentia"
c) Note that feminazi was used about "women who want superiority" over men while feminist was used about "men and women who want equal right in workplace/select other areas
d) if c has not been achieved, repeat until you finally see it.

Any bets that when peopleandstuff finally realises it, she won't make any apology and she'll continue to make the same point over and over, even though it's wrong, judging from the way you've been twisting my words thus far.

grave and model, thats looking at the whole time frame. Mine was at western women currently.

You can try.
I have no voice in America.

Balancing out doesn't make anything equal. If you get paid twice as much as me for the same job, but you figure that's ok because I get cheaper turnips than you, that doesn't come out to be equality. Equality would mean that we both got paid the same for the same job and we both get turnips at the same price.
Feminism is looking at womens issues about equality.
NOTHING is looking at mens issues about equality and when men get something better and more equal, its generally because it coincides with something good from feminism about women.

What's happening is you get equal pay and cheaper turnips
We get equal pay.

Small minority. Most of us wish to be treated the same. I, for one, feel that women should be included in the draft, etc. It's still the minority thats getting heard. If feminism just changed it's name to humanism so that the extremists (happy peopleandstuff?) can take it it will make things alot easier on everyone and there wouldnt be as much confusion.

I've probably missed some things, but I just woke up 10 minutes ago and haven't had coffee.

So you cannot group nazis as people who believe in Aryan race supremacy? You cannot group feminazis as people who believe in female supremacy?

You can group them if that is their defining charicteristic. You can group painters as people who paint things for a living as that is the definition of a painter. You cannot say painters are all blonde.


Why not just call all water going vessels, water going vessels, then if you want to specify a yacht instead of an ocean liner, you can spend half an hour describing every trait of the two....feminism is not a sexist word, it is a descriptive word. If you choose to feel someone is being victimised because , consistent with general english language features, it is possible to describe the sub group of humanists who specialise in human well being from a female perspecitve, using only one word, that's your choice...

So you will admit that feminists are looking out for females rather than trying to solve inequities?

I'm saying that for every injustice you find against women, I can for men.

You keep repeating this as if it makes a valid point, when it is, in fact, exactly the problem!

No, but like I've said, full social equality is on its way.

If a friend of mine wants to come to my house several miles away and starts walking, she is on her way. Of course, she'll get there a good bit faster if I let her use my car.

I've seen hipocrisy on this issue from feminist. It's selective equality.

I've seen hypocrisy from some members of just about every group. What exactly is your point?

That's not what I've been saying at all, and this is just what the problem with feminism is. It's supposed to be humanist, but it's generaly more concerned about women than men. Men don't have any representation, and if we need it, then we'll know feminism has gone too far.

This really isn't true. I have seen more than one feminist declaration (for instance) that we should not focus only on male-on-female domestic violence but should make it very clear that no domestic violence is acceptable. I have seen more than one feminist declaration that men should have access to child-leave and that men should be equally considered in custody battles. I have met more than one male feminist.

The problem is that you only look for (and at) the bad aspects.

I say we make women begin to sign up for the selective service....equal rights, equal responsibility.

I agree.

I got bored reading so this could be completely irrelevant but here's my two cents.

I don't believe in perfect equality, people are not carbon copies. Each person should be judged on their individual merits. There will always be somethings that most men will be better than most women at and things most women will be better than most men at.

Also, on the pay gap, a greater proportion of men tend to be really ambitious and ready to step on other people to get where they want (which I think is a negative quality) which in part explains the pay gap. The other thing is that as some officials promote like minded individuals and many of these bosses are men (which is bound to be left over from days when innequality was a REALLY large problem) more men get promotions, not intrinsically because they are men but because they are like minded.

I don't believe in perfect equality, people are not carbon copies. Each person should be judged on their individual merits. There will always be somethings that most men will be better than most women at and things most women will be better than most men at.

This is true. The problem comes in when someone says "More men are strong enough to lift a human being and carry them out of a building, so only men should be firefighters" - ignoring the women who are strong enough and wish to have the job. The problem comes in when someone says "Women are often more nurturing, so the law will give custody to women as a default" - ignoring the fact that the man is often better equipped for single parenthood.

Feminism: The mistaken assumption that only women want equal rights.

Seriously though, those damn feminazi's really piss me off. I actually have been told off for holding doors open for women (although I open doors for guys as well, just because I am nice that way.) And then they have the nerve to ask what happened to chivalry! :headbang:

Feminism: The mistaken assumption that only women want equal rights.

Seriously though, those damn feminazi's really piss me off. I actually have been told off for holding doors open for women (although I open doors for guys as well, just because I am nice that way.) And then they have the nerve to ask what happened to chivalry! :headbang:

Here I thought that was a myth. Being nice is wrong now? Holding a door open for men or women is simple politeness. Seeing it any other way must be some form of paranoia.

Here I thought that was a myth. Being nice is wrong now? Holding a door open for men or women is simple politeness. Seeing it any other way must be some form of paranoia.

*Plays X-files music* The truth is out there.

This is true. The problem comes in when someone says "More men are strong enough to lift a human being and carry them out of a building, so only men should be firefighters" - ignoring the women who are strong enough and wish to have the job. The problem comes in when someone says "Women are often more nurturing, so the law will give custody to women as a default" - ignoring the fact that the man is often better equipped for single parenthood.
Reeeeeeeeaaaaaaalllllllllllllly. Let's see, here in good ol' chicago they lowered the physical standards required to allow more women firefighters. This means that not only were unqualified women allowed in to do a job that is a real pain in the ass, but it also allowed unqualified men as well into the system. It's a major problem. Now, I would have no problem with women who could make the original cut being firefighters. Or for that matter, part of the infantry in the Army or even the Marines. But they had damn well better be up to the same standards of physical activity as the men.

Femenazis *snicker* :D

Reeeeeeeeaaaaaaalllllllllllllly. Let's see, here in good ol' chicago they lowered the physical standards required to allow more women firefighters. This means that not only were unqualified women allowed in to do a job that is a real pain in the ass, but it also allowed unqualified men as well into the system. It's a major problem. Now, I would have no problem with women who could make the original cut being firefighters. Or for that matter, part of the infantry in the Army or even the Marines. But they had damn well better be up to the same standards of physical activity as the men.

And I would whole-heartedly agree. Nothing at all in my post suggested that the standards should be changed, just that anyone meeting those standards should be equally considered.

I'm a man, actually. But I support most things feminists fight for.


To expand, my point about door-holding was that if a woman protested that act, it wouldn't be personal, but rather an attempt to change society in a positive way through individual action.

I'm a man, actually. But I support most things feminists fight for.


To expand, my point about door-holding was that if a woman protested that act, it wouldn't be personal, but rather an attempt to change society in a positive way through individual action.
Just curious as to how not letting someone hold a door for you (male or female) makes a positive change? or any sort of important change I should say

You can group them if that is their defining charicteristic. You can group painters as people who paint things for a living as that is the definition of a painter. You cannot say painters are all blonde.

Right. Good. I agree. So now, what is the defining characteristic of feminists, according to you?

I'm saying that for every injustice you find against women, I can for men.

You keep repeating this as if it makes a valid point, when it is, in fact, exactly the problem!
His point, is that since there are an equal amount of injustices against women, as against men, then women are not treated that much worse than men, as you claim.

If a friend of mine wants to come to my house several miles away and starts walking, she is on her way. Of course, she'll get there a good bit faster if I let her use my car.
But that's the point, feminists dont have a car. They only thing they can do, is crowd the friend, talk her supportively, and remove little pebbles from her path. Nevertheless, a crowd around you will just slow the friend down, not speed them up.


I say we make women begin to sign up for the selective service....equal rights, equal responsibility.
I agree.
I am glad that yuo agree. But how many of yuor fellow feminists agree? Do you see "allow women to be drafted!" written on the front page of the feminist websites?


This is true. The problem comes in when someone says "More men are strong enough to lift a human being and carry them out of a building, so only men should be firefighters" - ignoring the women who are strong enough and wish to have the job. The problem comes in when someone says "Women are often more nurturing, so the law will give custody to women as a default" - ignoring the fact that the man is often better equipped for single parenthood. I agree that the issue exists, at least to a certain extent, and that is is a problem. However what me and neo cannen are trying to make you understand, is that social opinion cannot be forced to change, no matter how marches you make, and how many books you write. Let me demonstrate:
The African American civil rights movement, died pretty much along with Martin Luther King, in 1966. Although it still lived somewhat, it had nowhere near the organization it had under King, or the organization feminists have now. Now all the major civil rights laws, desegregating the society and making blacks equal to whites, have been passed by the Civil Rights Act of 1965, right before King died. In 1985 blacks were pretty much equal socially to whites, in 1995, they were definately equal to whites, in 2005 they even have a slight edge over whites, like affirmative action.
You might say: but women also got all the legal equality at the same time as blacks; why do they lag so much behind African Americans in civil rights?
Well the reason it is, is that society of 1960's was much more open to having whites equal to blacks, than men equal to women. The reason for that, is that white people are more similar to black people, then men to women. When a white guy saw a black guy, he eventually realized that if he looked beyond the skin color, they were one and the same; they both have the same urges, they both whistle at a hot girl coming by, they would both injure themselves, just to prove who can benchpress more. While men and women, well, Men are from Mars, Women are from.. you know the rest. Seeing how women are more different from men, basic xenophobia prevented, and still prevents somewhat, men from giving women as much power as the men have. However, the xenophobia, so strong a century ago, is withering and withering away, and women are getting more and more equal to men in jobs, and so forth.
Yet another reason men are reluctant to allow women to be their bosses, is that it is a man's instinct to protect a woman. I am sorry if you think it's sexist, but it's in our blood, and there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop it. If a man is afraid, and he sees a woman afraid, most of the times he'll shed his fear. And it is very hard for a man to allow something he instictively wants to care for and protect, to be his boss. Yet this is whithering away too. Now tell me, what can feminists do to change anything?

I agree that the issue exists, at least to a certain extent, and that is is a problem. However what me and neo cannen are trying to make you understand, is that social opinion cannot be forced to change, no matter how marches you make, and how many books you write.
Campaign against smoking. General War on Drugs. The idea that guns are bad and should not be carried by individuals, an idea started in the modern age by Hitler, the idea that we were losing in Vietnam. Propaganda is a very very powerful tool, for good or ill.

No it's not! If I open a door for a girl, I HONEST TO GOD not trying to say that you are weak, or inferior in any way. I am just trying to be nice. HONESTLY!
Look about this door thing, if you are opening doors indiscriminately (as I do) I doubt very much that females are the only ones giving you odd looks or occassionally reacting less than politely to the gesture. From personal experiance I can assure you this also applies to 'smile and nod' in passing. The kind of people who are part of the minority that react badly include males, females, old, young, well dressed, poorly dressed, etc. Personally I dont even care why those that do, take it the wrong way. I know that smiling and nodding to someone you pass by, is polite, and spread good will, fellow ship and happy feelings amongst the people of my community, and so I know it's a good thing; obviously if someone has a problem with me doing a good thing, it is indeed them who has a problem and as I doubt I can solve it for them, I sure as heck am not going to make it mine since I dont have to. The same goes for opening doors, offering to help when someone is carrying a lot of stuff, stopping to offer help to someone who looks lost, etc...

As a doctor, he is specialized in children's healthcare. He is not specialized in elderly health.
I am aware of that, that is why a pediatrician is a good example. I dont believe that you are obtuse enough to think that the average pediatrician doesnt care about their own health, so I can only gather that you simply dont want to admit the fact that people who specialise in something are not completely uninterested in all other things. Unless you really think that every criminal lawyer doesnt care about their own divore/custody case, that every baker doesnt eat steak (or that when they do, they dont care what it tastes like or how hygienic the cooking process whas) that every city mayor doesnt care who is the President, that a primary school teacher doesnt care about their college aged child's education, etc you know that your argument is provably false when applied to the real world.

But society won't understand if the man is a home maker. I don't see feminists parading trying to give men the right and social understanding to be home makers. And who said that being a caregiver is better than being a homemaker.
Well you might not understand, but I understand fine, in fact I know many such men, they get along fine, their children are happy, and they dont get flack about it either. Maybe people like you dont 'get it' (like it's your business anyhow), but the fathers I know who are the primary caregiver to children really wouldnt be concerned with your censorship, afterall they know they are doing right, their family's doing well.
As for not realising that the ingrained inability to look beyond genderised social roles, being a main point pushed by feminists, that's false. If you dont know that such conceptions of gender roles generally (and ironically in particular the 'male=earner/female=nuturer' stereotype), have been a major focus of feminism and continue to be so today, what's the point discussing the issue with you? Just what did you think they feminists meant by 'ending gender stereotypes'? Can you imagine some way in which females can be free to have their image formed by their individual traits, without males being equally free? I cant. I dont know what you mean 'care-giver' better than a 'home-maker' unless you live entirely by yourself, they are both the same thing...

Yes, the majority of anti-black racism has dissappeared today. IN fact, even some pro-black racism has appeared. I don't know what's hard about it.
So thanks again for proving my point. Racism is unfair racially based discrminiation, so you are telling me that more types of racism are appearing, which in no way is contrary to my point that racial tension has not disappeared in the US. I say that racial tension is still alive and well in the US, you tell me I'm wrong then proceed to point out examples of it being alive and well as evidence that it is not....

Ok, assume i go to a very typical high school (which i am not, but assume that). Show me how men are treated better than women.
Why would I show you that? What makes you think that they are? Or do you imagine that I somehow said or implied that they are?

Feminists are a group of people united by the belief that women have less rights than they should, and fighting for them to have more rights/powers. Thus being anti-male is not a neutral property when it comes to them.
No feminists are people who are interested in promoting well being by enhancing the well being of female humans. Thus being anti-male is in fact counterproductive to their aims. Redefining the veiws of millions of people you have never met, doesnt actually change the veiws of those people in reality. The more I read of your comments, the more I have to conclude that you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you just actually genuinely dont have a clue what you are talking about.

Nothing we'll say here will improve anything. These are just forums, we can't change anything.
But is it better if females can be both homemakers and earners, but men are constricted to be earners?
Men are not restricted to just earners, and the fact that some people (such as yourself) cant imagine them otherwise is proof that feminist efforts still have valuable work to achieve.

Neither the wage gap, nor custody assumption is a law. It's de facto. Which means it's all due to public's opinion, and there is nothing feminists can do to change the public's opinion. That's why they are useless, in fact, counterproductive.
And so changing the law is not enough. And feminists can change public opinion, just why on earth do you think the laws got changed in the first place Doom? Did fairy 'good law change' come and wave her magic law changing wand, or were law changes prompted by changes in public opinion? And how did public opinion change, did fairy 'public opinion improvement' come and waver her magic public opinion changing wand, or could it be that the efforts of feminism had something to do with it....

It is ironic that your main complaint is that men cant be home makers (even though they can) and even though improving this further is one of the contributions feminism is currently making, you state feminism isnt needed.

Actually, rate of change of society has greatly increased in the past 100 years. The life in 0 C.E. and 1000 C.E. was less different than the life today, and in 1970. Almost as much was accomplished in the last 100 years, than the 2000 before it. Society is changing faster and faster and faster and faster. And by the way, in the 19th century, when sexism was a gigantic issue, it was men who got custody addumptions, not women.
Rate of change is never consistent, and this is proved by comparing say political rights in the US with political rights in Saudi Arabia, same time span has passed, and yet a lot more progress one place than the other....Doom if you are arguing that no one does anything and magically over time everything will fall happily into place, I really dont see any point carrying on with you. If you believed that why even complain? It'll all just fall magically into place anyhow? The point is this, time will not of itself result in change for the better. Like all things worth having change for the better requires some effort on the part of the beneficiaries....this is true whether you want to get closer to God, get better grades, win the best part in the community play, or change society for the better. The world helps those who put some effort into helping themselves...
As for men getting custody when women and children were legally chattle and the marraige contract was title of them, er, well, what else would you expect, doesnt the owner of property usually get title and possession?

You might not have, but you can't say that this claim was not made in this thread. Many times.
That is not relevent to the poster I was addressings conduct towards me.

Yes, but Christian terrorists are blowing up medical clinics in the name of christianity.
What?

So you cannot group nazis as people who believe in Aryan race supremacy? You cannot group feminazis as people who believe in female supremacy?
Doom, that is ridiculous. I'm increasingly having trouble taking you seriously. Why dont you go down to a Synagogue and quote to them your 'justification' for heaping salt in their wounds...why dont you find someone who was beaten and put in hospital by skinhead nazi thugs, or who's loved one was brutally beaten to death by nazi thugs and tell it to them...do you actually have something against such people, or are you so eager to spread hatred and think yourself a 'wit' that you are completely insensitive to who you hurt with your name calling...

What he means, is that noone is completely neutral.
Well why put that in as a reply to my comments, it's not exactly relevent beyond implying the likely truth of my comments, and since I posted them I probably know they are true and therefore know those things which implies they are true...

No, it is true. They want themselves to have equality in some areas, but privelages in others. Which means that man get equality in some areas, but disadvantage in others. Not really fair to men, right? If we are all equal, it means women get drafted, and men get just as much preference in getting lifejackets, and so forth. Oh, and yea, we don't open doors for women or give yuor seat to women (unless she is pregnant) and so forth.
No Doom, I dont want that, ergo all feminists dont want that, the vast majority of feminists I know dont want that, ergo 'feminists' dont want that. Perhaps some do, but some men want to rape women, and little boys too, and some men want to own women, and some men want to murder people. Doom I know that I am a feminist and dont want that so I know that it's not true that feminists do want that. You seem to have no idea what feminists want, you dont even seem to know that they are striving to mitigate the impositions and harm of socially enforced gender roles. So of the two of us I trust my judgement on this one before I trust the judgement of someone who thinks that all pediatricians dont care about their own health, and that feminists have not being trying to change society's perception of gender roles.

Feminists cannot do anything about oppression of women. ANd the oppression itself will dissipate with or without their help. Just cause they address some harmful areas, doesn't mean they can do anything about it. Worst they can do, is kick some manager off his job for hiring a man over a woman.
Doom feminist activism is the cause of the improvements that already have occurred, and those improvements have not occured where feminist influence has been restricted. Oppression will not dissipate regardless, and frankly I'm surprised that you are naive enough to think such a thing.
Feminists are achieving productive ends every single day. I'm also unaware of a single case of a manager getting kicked off their job for hiring a man, and frankly I believe it's never happened where I live, since we have feminist activitism, if that kind of carry on happens elsewhere, it's not the feminism thats to blame...

Oh, and by the way, another noble deed of feminism: Prohibition. The only amendment that caused more troubles than there were before, and was in the end repealed.
Aha and fundamentalist christians had nothing to do with that one either....really it was all feminists who voted for it, not that the men and non-feminist women were too lazy to go vote or anthing...
oh and by the way another noble deed of England, trynnising and exploiting the colonies, of the US keeping their own innoccent citizens in concentrations camps in WWII, of Chrisitians, the inquisition, need I go on adding by the ways that no longer apply to current ideology and were not universally accepted by the perpetrators at the time anyhow, or can we agree that historical and currently rejected ideologies are not relevent to the worth of the modern day entities referred to? Name 5 feminists involved in passing that prohibition law who are alive and active participants in modern feminist efforts...name even 3, heck can you even name one?

It tells me that marches cannot force the public's opinion.
Ahh, that it can imply, that public marches rarely change public opinion it cant. There is a vast difference between the two. Marches can change public opinion, they dont necessarily do so. Kinda like running for President, it can get you elected, but it wont necessarily do so....

Of course they will. THe wage gap is decreasing, just as an example.
Of course they will not, the age gap is decreasing the face of constant and continued efforts to ensure that this occurs.

Yes, but neo cannen was flamed for his personal qualitys for like 10 pages. Most of the insults, however were not original, such as "oh you're 12".
This is not relevent to my comments. The poster was referring strictly to interractions between them and myself and the my own comments refer strictly to my conduct and the conduct of the poster I was replying to. No one else's conduct is relevent in any way shape of form unless it directly involved either myself of the poster I was replying to. What has Neo Cannen got to do with that?

No, he's referring to feminists who are anti-males as feminazis. And the fairy tale is a reflection of reality. For example, do you believe that women should be drafted?
No he is using the word without any specifics, it is as subjective as saying idiot...anti male by who's criteria, the person using the hate word....mmm
The fairy tale is a fairy tale, if it reflected reality why not just give an example from reality?
And no I dont believe anyone should be drafted, so how could I believe any sub group of people should be?

OK. Let me explain this one more time.
a) I think that women still have it unfair in some typical "male work" scenarios.
b) I think that women have it much better in social scenario between m/f
c) feminists are trying to get the work scenarios changed
d) if b is true (which I think it is) then men have it worse off in social scenarios between m/f
e) I think that men have it unfair in some typical "womens work" scenarios (Housecleaner(not janitor), day care provider) but we wont use this one
f) All Jobs

So a + c = f and b>d then do we have equality? No. In that case, women would have it better off than men and that's one of the things I'm complaining about.
Men do not have it 'worse off' in social relationships.

No! Because their message has been said and the western world has heard it and they're making the changes! All that they CAN talk about now are priveladges for women (Note the "can" before you start trying to twist my words".
What you are suggesting goes against everything that experts in human behaviour and sociology have found as a result of their studies. Whatever you believe, unless you can substantiate your claims by some more credible means than merely stating them endlessly, I'm going to continue to believe the widepread view and findings of the experts...

A yacht and an ocean liner are 2 things: transport and sea going vessels
a car and a yacht is one thing: transport
humanism is better things for men and women
feminism is better things for women
You are wrong. You have provided no proof that the word means that by itself linguistically, and none that those it describes can be accurately defined as such. Your only proof is your say so, which contradicts my own direct knowledge. Saying so does not make it so. Seriously I have yet to see you present a single sound argument about, well about anything.

That's not what I meant and you damn well know it. This isn't a utopian society.
Er, although I would have hoped so, I dont know it, but since that isnt what you mean, is there some reason you have neglected to state what you did mean, beyond the fact that there is no viable alternative to either doing nothing or doing something? Dont do something but dont do nothing, let me guess, that isnt what you mean either...ok I could sit here all day imaging what you mean, but frankly if you dont mean dont do nothing and you dont mean dont do something, I'll be a toasted sandwhich if I can figure out what you mean...

No, every generalisation I've made is a generalisation. There's a world of difference. An attack would be me saying something like "You're a feminist bitch" (That's not an attack at you there)
Any derogatory generalisation is an attack, just like if I said all men are bastards, the fact of me 'generalising' does not mean that I am not attacking each and every single man, rather it means that I am. I notice you had no trouble picking this up when posters in this thread did make generalisations about men, but dont get it when it's you making them about feminists...mmm...if you are wondering why I dont accept that you are being anything close to objective, look no further.

No, I made that as a current model of how western feminism is. It's funny, all I've heard from you and any other feminist in this board is "Pay gap" and "man=earn/fem=house is wrong"... Issues that are being ADDRESSED and are almost resolved. It's very easy to destroy other peoples ideas. It's harder to come up with your own.
No, you made up a complete fairy tale that you have not been able to show any linkage to reality, and which you desribe as gross and nasty. As for 'what you have heard from me' that is inaccurate. I dont believe I raised any of these issues, nor have referred to them beyond the natural demands of the discussion direction - a direction not dictated by me.
In fact the man = earn/fem = house is something that is nowhere near being resolved, further I recall you yourself have brought up this issue....I will choose to believe that you are ignorant about the huge harms currently occuring due the current socialised perceptions about this particular gender role, because I really dont want to believe you are so callous as to flippantly declare the matter not worthy of efforts towards improvement. I can assure you that recent public policy review documents within the last years indicate that so far as family courts in many western nations are concerned, this issue is not even properly acknowledged yet, much less being productively addressed.

No, I'd see it for what it was. Not serious and a show of how public image from a certain group views males and australians.
So I take it your complaints about the generalisations made about men in this thread, were not genuine, you really dont find that behaviour offensive at all, and were just complaining and appearing as though you disapprove for the sake of being argumentitive? I cant understand what else to make of this...

I can't comment on a group without making generalisations. No one can, unless it's someone saying "that is a group" and even then someone will get pissed off and say "no, its an organisatinos".
Actually anyone can, for instance I can say 'some men are rapists' and be making a true statement rather than a derogatory unjustified, unfair and hate spreading generalisation that says more about me than the target group...as can anyone else who chooses to. Although I expect it's harder if you actually believe the biggotted generalisation you are espousing.

OK. I'm addressing you because you identified yourself with the group, and you are the person the argument is against. I can't very well argue with people who don't have the net. I've used feminazi once (or twice - can't remember) on a grop who the creater of the thread said "are feminists seeking superiority of men". You seem to think for some strange and utterly stupid reason that I've been using it hundreds of times, or that it's secretly imbedded in feminism every time I say it.
When I asked why address me, I meant not just with the term feminist, but with the completly untrue accusation that you followed the word with. You accussed me directly of doing something you have no reason to believe that I do. As for your use of the term, I think it portrays things about how you think... I'd never use the term malenazis to describe men who do quite literally advocate the subjucation of women. For you to use such a term shows that your feelings towards feminists are less than rational, (because rataional people usually dont call names), shows that you are either generally insensitive to others, or so emotionally wrapped up in this issue that you suspend your usual sensitivity. It is offensive to the group you target, offensive to those who claim are not included, but who would feel you might mean them, offensive to an entirely unrelated group, doesnt communicate your point, (and in facts makes your communication less effective) and discredits you. I dont care how many times you used it, once is enough to communicate the above things about yourself.

No, I've said feminists making public cries like that are influencing the minds of children. Protests/rallies should only be done when it's needed. It's not that hard to go to some representatives and say "we want this changed", and especially with young representatives (25> ) that would work
Influencing is not a problem unless it is a corrupting influence. Playing word games doesnt change what was clearly inferred by your words. Whats wrong with influencing children unless that influence is a corruptive one? Nothing...
It's not up to one group to censor the freedom of speech/association of another, you either get over it, or find somewhere non-democratic to live (or worse advocate the removal democracy from your nation), but if you dont have freedoms to rally and protest, then you dont have a democracy either.

You still haven't read it again. Here:
a) go back to page 73.
b) read things written be "Zentia"
c) Note that feminazi was used about "women who want superiority" over men while feminist was used about "men and women who want equal right in workplace/select other areas
and also to describe people who are in a small way anti-male
You also made up a story that describes incrediable petty selfishness and said that is what feminism is,
then on page 74 (which I note you didnt direct me to)
you state that all feminist want is the best of everthing (sounds like inequality to me...hang I thought you only though feminazis want that....) not to mention you reconfirm the made up scenario of feminists as incrediably petty and selfish by using this as justification for stating that feminists want inequality
Now it seems to me that such comments indicate that feminists in your mind are anti-male, pettily selfish, and want inequality, what again are feminazis....

d) if c has not been achieved, repeat until you finally see it.
Er, the problems not what I dont see, rather what I do, still if you can differentiate between how you have described feminists throughout your posts and how you describes feminazis as opposed to how you claim in these comments to think of feminists (ie feminists only wanting equality), I'll be surprised, so please explain to me how wanting someone else's apples and wanting the best of both worlds to the point of inequality (as you describe feminists in your earlier posts) reconciles with only wanting equality (which you claim to have been your stated belief throughout).

Go back and read your own posts, do you see where you describe feminists of wanting
Sorry but you'll need to point out specific examples (a point I keep reminding you of) as I have done with your own comments, if they are there, it's not all that hard...

Any bets that when peopleandstuff finally realises it, she won't make any apology and she'll continue to make the same point over and over, even though it's wrong, judging from the way you've been twisting my words thus far.
Any bets that when challenged once again you wont provide any specific examples and will in some way contradict your own earlier postings again.
I have not twisted any of your words (and in fact find the accusation ironic given your tendancy to make up strawmen to argue against). If you have not thought through the material implications of what you are saying, and dont realise the absurdity of some of your statements until they are pointed out, pointing out the material implication is not twisting your words, it is merely revealing layers of meaning within them.

Feminism is looking at womens issues about equality.
NOTHING is looking at mens issues about equality and when men get something better and more equal, its generally because it coincides with something good from feminism about women.
Sounds like sour apples to me. So what? People are free to choose their own battles, why should I go and campaign for political rights if I care more about animal rights? If you are concerned about men's rights, get off your own chuff and do something about it instead of moaning about those that can be bothered to help themselves. This is the pettiest argument I have heard in this thread yet. Instead of decrying feminists if this is really your concern, you should be moaning at those who are not doing the same for men, or maybe joining those who right now are. Because (as pointed out in this thread) groups dedicated to enhancing well being by addressing either issues of general interest to men (or addressing issues from the masculine perspective angle), or addressing specialised interest from the masculine perspective, do exist and make valuable contributions to society. Instead of moaning, get off your plum and join in, or at least let those getting on, get on.

It's still the minority thats getting heard. If feminism just changed it's name to humanism so that the extremists (happy peopleandstuff?) can take it it will make things alot easier on everyone and there wouldnt be as much confusion.

I've probably missed some things, but I just woke up 10 minutes ago and haven't had coffee.
The terminology is your problem, it is descriptive not sexist, and if you really would disagree with a perfectly reasonable suggestion because you dont like the name of who suggested it, that's your problem, one you cant expect all of the rest of society to cater to. If it's the minority that's heard, do you think maybe people like you wanting to hear the worst (the media is a profit driven market place ergo bums on seats mentality) about them. What kind of rating does 'peaceful feminist rally in support of family and community marched and handed out cookies, ending in a galla at the park where childrens faces were painted and community support groups raised funds and awareness about their activities' vs 'crazy lady calling herself a feminist goes ballastic and rants and raves lunatic demands while making a scene of herself in front of bemused onlookers'....not too hard to see why the squeaky wheel gets heard from is it? The bigger the spectacal the bigger the crowd, reasoned dialogue and hard work away from prying eyes, does not a spectacal make, nor for that matter the local paper, much less TV news...

So you will admit that feminists are looking out for females rather than trying to solve inequities?

No that's the opposite of what I am saying. It seems to me that there is a problem comprehending the interdependency of female/male well being. If you kill a female's father, is her well being uneffected? If you deny a woman's son their rightful opportunity that they both have strived and sacrificed for, is her well being uneffected? Think about it, how can hurting our sons, our fathers, our brothers, our husbands and lovers, our friends etc not hurt us? If I am to look out for myself, it is encumbant on me to look after a great many people because our well being is interdependent.
All this humanist/feminist/masculinist stuff is silly, because if one is properly being any one of the aforementioned, then one must be them all, and if they are not them all, then they are not truely achieving any one.

Feminism: The mistaken assumption that only women want equal rights.
Arrogance - the mistaken assumption that you can define the thoughts and wants of millions of people you have never met and know nothing about.

His point, is that since there are an equal amount of injustices against women, as against men, then women are not treated that much worse than men, as you claim.
It's not about being treated worse (although it could be in a specific case), but about promoting well being. The fact that womens' well being is not maximised is in no way mitigated by the fact that mens' well being is equzlly not maximised, and frankly it seems to me a petty and nasty mindset to see it that way. Inequalities and inequities are things to be strived against regardless of how equally such inequalities and inequities are spread.

But that's the point, feminists dont have a car. They only thing they can do, is crowd the friend, talk her supportively, and remove little pebbles from her path. Nevertheless, a crowd around you will just slow the friend down, not speed them up.
Absolute made up fairy tale nonsense. If you are unaware of the many constructive contributions made by feminism and feminist to community well being, that doesnt make their contribution any less valuable.

agree that the issue exists, at least to a certain extent, and that is is a problem. However what me and neo cannen are trying to make you understand, is that social opinion cannot be forced to change, no matter how marches you make, and how many books you write. Let me demonstrate:
The African American civil rights movement, died pretty much along with Martin Luther King, in 1966. Although it still lived somewhat, it had nowhere near the organization it had under King, or the organization feminists have now.
I for know what you are trying to get me to believe, but I happen to know it's just not true. I have lived through changes in public opinion, I have seen the momentum facilitiation of this that was directly derived from the kinds of activities that many feminists are currently involved in. Your assertion about the Africans rights movement is utterly false, overly simplified and basically displays a lack of historical and socialogical understanding. Post ML King, many many many people poured effort and dollars into promoting the rights of non-whites in the US and elsewhere, and significant gains have been achieved as a result.
I wonder if you believe what you claim, if you do, why are you even here. After all since the feminists cant actually do anything, what do you care what they get up to? Really just ignore any that try to talk to you and wait for everything to magically fall into place. You dont have to worry they will go too far, because apparently they cant do anything about anything anyway....so what exactly is your concern again?

Now tell me, what do you care about what feminists do if feminists cant do anything to change anything?

No that's the opposite of what I am saying. It seems to me that there is a problem comprehending the interdependency of female/male well being. If you kill a female's father, is her well being uneffected? If you deny a woman's son their rightful opportunity that they both have strived and sacrificed for, is her well being uneffected? Think about it, how can hurting our sons, our fathers, our brothers, our husbands and lovers, our friends etc not hurt us?

Very easy one. You rob your father. It hurts him, it has benefits for you. This is the real world, people gain from others losses all the time, cassinos, lawyers. I fail too see the relevance of this.

If I am to look out for myself, it is encumbant on me to look after a great many people because our well being is interdependent.
All this humanist/feminist/masculinist stuff is silly, because if one is properly being any one of the aforementioned, then one must be them all, and if they are not them all, then they are not truely achieving any one.

But feminists still work from a female bias, thats why the word is feminist.

I support the idea that all women that work in the same position as men in the workplace should get the same pay.
But I do not think we should hire women to work in high positions just because they are women. Man or women, it must be the best person for the job.
Feminist go too far!

Feminism: The mistaken assumption that only women want equal rights.

Seriously though, those damn feminazi's really piss me off. I actually have been told off for holding doors open for women (although I open doors for guys as well, just because I am nice that way.) And then they have the nerve to ask what happened to chivalry! :headbang:

This type of post always makes me wonder... what is it YOU are doing wrong?

I have held doors open for people all my life... because I was raised to be helpful and polite... and I have NEVER even had as much as a disapproving look.

It makes me wonder if there is something about the WAY some people hold doors? (As unlikely as that seems...)

This type of post always makes me wonder... what is it YOU are doing wrong?

I have held doors open for people all my life... because I was raised to be helpful and polite... and I have NEVER even had as much as a disapproving look.

It makes me wonder if there is something about the WAY some people hold doors? (As unlikely as that seems...)
Not sure ... I have had one at least ... but she is also the one that freaked if I stood infront of her in a line for something back in highschool (even if I got there first) or if I let her go ahead she would freak again that I was only doing it because I thought she was week

But she was a bit of a wacco so yeah not the norm ...

Not sure ... I have had one at least ... but she is also the one that freaked if I stood infront of her in a line for something back in highschool (even if I got there first) or if I let her go ahead she would freak again that I was only doing it because I thought she was week

But she was a bit of a wacco so yeah not the norm ...

As near as I've got, I think, was a weird look from a girl's mother... the girl in question would have been maybe 13/14, and I held the door for her at the mall - which caused a slight look to cross the mother's face - maybe she thought I was trying to seduce her child with my door-opening-seduction-technique... but her look went away when I continued to hold the door open for HER also... :)

As near as I've got, I think, was a weird look from a girl's mother... the girl in question would have been maybe 13/14, and I held the door for her at the mall - which caused a slight look to cross the mother's face - maybe she thought I was trying to seduce her child with my door-opening-seduction-technique... but her look went away when I continued to hold the door open for HER also... :)
Yeah ... I mean I dont do it just for girls either... everyone gets the door held open :) ;) and you can use that technique on me ;)

Yeah ... I mean I dont do it just for girls either... everyone gets the door held open :) ;) and you can use that technique on me ;)

huh... maybe that's where I've been going wrong... I've always figured "wine and dine"... and now it turns out "hold open the door" is the way to go.

:)

Not implying anything (which I obviously am, but don't intend to):

The only people who have ever snubbed me for doing anything polite or curteous for them have been women. A man has NEVER had a go at me for holding a door open or anything like that. I'm not saying it's the rule, far from it, but when it has happened it has been a woman. And the most horrible obnoxious people I have met have been women. Women as a rule tend to be more pleasant than men, but when they are bad they ARE horrid.

huh... maybe that's where I've been going wrong... I've always figured "wine and dine"... and now it turns out "hold open the door" is the way to go.

:)
You would get me every time!

As near as I've got, I think, was a weird look from a girl's mother... the girl in question would have been maybe 13/14, and I held the door for her at the mall - which caused a slight look to cross the mother's face - maybe she thought I was trying to seduce her child with my door-opening-seduction-technique... but her look went away when I continued to hold the door open for HER also... :)



As she walked through, did you slap the mom on the butt while saying, "You got a cute daughter, you want another kid, I can help."



LOL.


Sorry, I just had to ask, I needed a good laugh for the day..


Now for the serious part. I pretty much hold the door for anybody, or if I'm sitting near the door, I'll stand up and open it for whoever is coming.

I suppose I like to consider myself an independent person with feminist tendencies. However, i don't think that women can ask for equal rights without agreeing to equal hardships. I'm all for women being included in the draft, if it helps get the Equal Rights Ammendment passed. And I don't dislike men, it's not their fault that they happened to get the higher hand in the whole gender deal. <3



But I don't believe there should even be a draft to begin with.

So then what?

I don't think anybody, men, or women, should be required to register for a draft. If there is a time of national emergency, and we are directly attacked, such as 12/7/41, we'll see a surge in enlistment such that they'll have to turn people away until they can process the first waves of arrivals.

Plus, there is a HUGE wage gap, and I don't believe it's closing that rapidly. In ths USA, women make something like 73% of what men do for the same jobs. Fight on feminists.


Are you looking at the big picture? (Perhaps women take more time off for providing care for their children and their households, eh? Is that a bad thing, if women decide to care for their families rather than devoting themselves to a career?)

We need to see specific occupations, a woman surgeon with 5 years experience that works X hours vs a male that is identical in hours and experience and a similar geographic area.


Why is it that feminists are big on women's right to "choose" except when women choose to be housewives and mothers, then the feminists ridicule them as "brainwashed" as though male supremacists were even in a position to put an agenda forward to brainwash anybody.


The marxist so-called "intellectuals" are the ones who dominate the West's institutions of higher learning, and therein lies the major problem and if it isn't correct, the fate of the West is sealed.

As for the destruction of chivalry, I see your point, but at the same time, I see the point of feminists, which is that chivalry has its origins in, and still operates on the assumption that females are weak and need to be rescued. Even larger than that, [B]acts of chivalry are seen not as indicative of negative character traits on the part of a single male, but rather as examples of the way our inherently patriarchal society informs our daily, unconcious actions.


Fine, carry your own heavy luggage, defend yourself from strangers approaching you on the street late at night, haggle on your own with crooked salesmen.


Almost everybody I know who has been cheated by a salesman has been a woman. Men just don't seem to fall for that "Oh well your tires are all old, you need new wiper blades, and hey, let's get you some new brakes too!" crap.


When I go somewhere for a free oil change, I leave without paying a dime. When most of my relatives (male relatives) go for a free oil change, they leave without paying a dime. When most of my relatives (female relatives) go for a free oil change, they get talked into buying 150-200 dollars in things that the car dealership later asks, "Why did you think you needed this replaced so soon?"



I don't think women are "weak" per se, but women certainly, on average, lack the same physical strength that men have, on average.


Thus if a man was trying to get into a fist fight with a woman, I would hope the woman would have enough sense to let a male friend fight off the attacker for her. And I would hope that some man would have the decency to defend her if necessary.



If feminists really want equality, then if I'm walking down the street and see a woman being beaten and raped in an alley, I should keep on walking, for to intervene would be implying she needed to be rescued by a man, and wasn't capable of saving herself, weak female that she is. It would be "sexist" to help a woman, because it would be implying that a woman needed help, let alone anything, from a man.


Indeed feminism goes on the false theory that women need nothing (not even sex) from men. They can get it all from themselves, machines, or each other (which is why modern feminism is so linked with lesbianism).

I'm sorry but if I see ANYBODY male or female, in dire distress, and my assistance would help them, they'll get my assistance.


Feminist ideology is a plague upon the western mentality of what is good and pure.


It is my personal opinion that groups such as NOW (National Organization of Women) are as great a threat as groups such as Al Qaeda, just a different sort of threat. NOW will sap our culture, subverting us from within. Al Qaeda will openly attack us, from without.

You would get me every time!

Now, now, flatterer... that's just because I let you see my pretty eyes... :)

Not implying anything (which I obviously am, but don't intend to):

The only people who have ever snubbed me for doing anything polite or curteous for them have been women. A man has NEVER had a go at me for holding a door open or anything like that. I'm not saying it's the rule, far from it, but when it has happened it has been a woman. And the most horrible obnoxious people I have met have been women. Women as a rule tend to be more pleasant than men, but when they are bad they ARE horrid.

Hehehe. Yes we are.

I don't think women are "weak" per se, but women certainly, on average, lack the same physical strength that men have, on average.


Thus if a man was trying to get into a fist fight with a woman, I would hope the woman would have enough sense to let a male friend fight off the attacker for her. And I would hope that some man would have the decency to defend her if necessary.

fuck that. here's the plan for that happening: my foot meets his balls. end of story.

If feminists really want equality, then if I'm walking down the street and see a woman being beaten and raped in an alley, I should keep on walking, for to intervene would be implying she needed to be rescued by a man, and wasn't capable of saving herself, weak female that she is. It would be "sexist" to help a woman, because it would be implying that a woman needed help, let alone anything, from a man.

now that's fucking retarded.

if i saw a man getting beaten and mugged and had the means to do something about it, i would fight off his attackers. at the very least i would be off calling for help. same if it was a woman getting attacked. no one's asking to be ignored when they're being attacked... not that that already doesn't happen.

Indeed feminism goes on the false theory that women need nothing (not even sex) from men. They can get it all from themselves, machines, or each other (which is why modern feminism is so linked with lesbianism).

nobody needs to have someone else fullfilling their needs for them, every adult human being with sufficient physical and mental abilities is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

Feminist ideology is a plague upon the western mentality of what is good and pure.

yes, oppressing women is good and pure. having 52% of the population receiving inferior treatment is good and pure.

fuck that. here's the plan for that happening: my foot meets his balls. end of story.



now that's fucking retarded.

if i saw a man getting beaten and mugged and had the means to do something about it, i would fight off his attackers. at the very least i would be off calling for help. same if it was a woman getting attacked. no one's asking to be ignored when they're being attacked... not that that already doesn't happen.



nobody needs to have someone else fullfilling their needs for them, every adult human being with sufficient physical and mental abilities is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.



yes, oppressing women is good and pure. having 52% of the population receiving inferior treatment is good and pure.



I don't care for your liberal use of the f word, so I won't really dignify most of what you said with a reply.


But I will mention this, about 2-5% of men can withstand being kicked in the testicles and not even show pain.

I was taught this in a course in a training exercise on the proper way to check enemy bodies to make sure they're actually dead and not just faking it. You don't kick them in the crotch, you use your index finger and "thump"(flick) their eye, nobody can hold back a reaction to behind flicked in the eye. However, about 2-5% of men can maintain perfect stillness even when kicked in the testicles, they're not really sure how or why.

What if the man was wearing a cup? There goes your plan for kicking him in the testicles.

What if there were two of them, or three? What if one had a knife? See, you just can't say, "Well because I can kick them in the balls, I'm safe."

You don't know, you don't know how each given situation would work out.



I would expand on all of this, but I think you've already done my side of the argument enough help with your replies. Thank you.

Let's face it, feminism was created just so that ugly chicks could make it like the good looking ones already had.

A little quiz:To whom would you give a job? A (http://www.calpoly.edu/~jansolab/ugly.jpg) or B (http://64.239.129.76/assets/categories/girls/gallery-1078275880-msg-30172-2.jpg)

Let's face it, feminism was created just so that ugly chicks could make it like the good looking ones already had.

A little quiz:To whom would you give a job? A (http://www.calpoly.edu/~jansolab/ugly.jpg) or B (http://64.239.129.76/assets/categories/girls/gallery-1078275880-msg-30172-2.jpg)
A looks more formaly dressed ... guess depends on their qualifications and people skills

Let's face it, feminism was created just so that ugly chicks could make it like the good looking ones already had.

A little quiz:To whom would you give a job? A (http://www.calpoly.edu/~jansolab/ugly.jpg) or B (http://64.239.129.76/assets/categories/girls/gallery-1078275880-msg-30172-2.jpg)

One assumes that the one who bothered dressing for the interview, and was better qualified, would get the job.

But, then again... perhaps that's just the way I hire, because I think with the North pole of my anatomy, not my South Pole.

One assumes that the one who bothered dressing for the interview, and was better qualified, would get the job.

But, then again... perhaps that's just the way I hire, because I think with the North pole of my anatomy, not my South Pole.
Seems like we think alike lol dress crossed both our minds lol

One assumes that the one who bothered dressing for the interview, and was better qualified, would get the job.

But, then again... perhaps that's just the way I hire, because I think with the North pole of my anatomy, not my South Pole.



I'd hire woman A, because I'd worry about woman B being absent for weeks on end to get treated for dozens of STDs.


I'm sorry if that upsets the other guys theory, but if it's my business, I want it to prosper, I don't want to have some whore, granted attractive, but still a whore, sitting around doing nothing more than "looking good".

Never hire somebody just because you have some grandiose plan to get into their pants.

I therefore must agree with this gentleman, think with the north pole, not the south pole.

I'd hire woman A, because I'd worry about woman B being absent for weeks on end to get treated for dozens of STDs.


I'm sorry if that upsets the other guys theory, but if it's my business, I want it to prosper, I don't want to have some whore, granted attractive, but still a whore, sitting around doing nothing more than "looking good".

Never hire somebody just because you have some grandiose plan to get into their pants.

I therefore must agree with this gentleman, think with the north pole, not the south pole.
Though to be fair you are sort of judging B as being NOT good because she is good looking … we don’t know that either

Though to be fair you are sort of judging B as being NOT good because she is good looking … we don’t know that either



She is holding up a sign that leads me to believe she is very loose in regards to sexual morality.

She is holding up a sign that leads me to believe she is very loose in regards to sexual morality.
And what does morality have to do with work performance?

I don't care for your liberal use of the f word, so I won't really dignify most of what you said with a reply.

in otherwords, you don't know how to respond.

But I will mention this, about 2-5% of men can withstand being kicked in the testicles and not even show pain.

and? you act as though that's all i can do. if that didn't work, i'd probably be all elbows, fists and knees. if i was in actual trouble, i wouldn't refuse help, i just wouldn't sit idly by and expect someone else to fight my battles for me.

What if there were two of them, or three? What if one had a knife? See, you just can't say, "Well because I can kick them in the balls, I'm safe."

You don't know, you don't know how each given situation would work out.

yes, because every man out there can fight too... we all know that all men are stronger than all women, right?

which means that i should call on the kids who i beat at arm wrestling in a fight against a guy because they've got a pair of nuts and thus are automatically stronger and better fighters than i am.

i doubt many men would do well in a fight against three other people who are armed with knives. unless they had some sort of previous training in self defense... so asking my male friends who have no training in self defense to fight a person for me is not necessarily going to be as good as if i fought for myself... i have taken classes that deal with defending myself against attackers... but hell, if one of my friends had a third degree blackbelt, male or female, i wouldn't mind if they helped me out. i just wouldn't expect it.

She is holding up a sign that leads me to believe she is very loose in regards to sexual morality.
what does that have to do with her doing work for you?

And what does morality have to do with work performance?



Loose sexual morality means problems with customers, co-workers, etc. I know people who have wrecked work environments after having affairs with numerous customers, patients, co-workers, underlings, and bosses, etc. Things just go to heck when that starts.


An old saying goes something like this, "Don't dip the pen in the company ink." I think that's a rather apt saying.

Loose sexual morality means problems with customers, co-workers, etc. I know people who have wrecked work environments after having affairs with numerous customers, patients, co-workers, underlings, and bosses, etc. Things just go to heck when that starts.


An old saying goes something like this, "Don't dip the pen in the company ink." I think that's a rather apt saying.
So her dress at a sports (guessing game) would lead you to think she has lower morals … which then would lead you to think she would sleep around with co workers which then would create office tension.


Seems to me to be a lot to infer from a picture of a sporting event with some friends

Loose sexual morality means problems with customers, co-workers, etc. I know people who have wrecked work environments after having affairs with numerous customers, patients, co-workers, underlings, and bosses, etc. Things just go to heck when that starts.
?

yes, someone who has multiple sexual partners must have very low standards... taht's it. they'll fuck anything and anyone that moves because they have loose sexual morals.

you don't have a clue, do you?

for all you know, she was holding up that sign because she thought it was funny and it would get her put on t.v.

So her dress at a sports (guessing game) would lead you to think she has lower morals … which then would lead you to think she would sleep around with co workers which then would create office tension.


Seems to me to be a lot to infer from a picture of a sporting event with some friends



Indeed it is a lot to infer, but I'd hire somebody who is "dressed for success" (professional looking) rather than somebody who is "dressed for sex" (whore appearance) anyday of the week.

Indeed it is a lot to infer, but I'd hire somebody who is "dressed for success" (professional looking) rather than somebody who is "dressed for sex" (whore appearance) anyday of the week.
At an interview yes … then they are in the same situation but taking a photo (lets say A at a tea party) and (B at a hockey game) really the situation is not the same. A could dress the same way in a hockey game as B … and so on

I know where you are coming from but they have to be in the same situation for it to really be valid

?

yes, someone who has multiple sexual partners must have very low standards... taht's it. they'll fuck anything and anyone that moves because they have loose sexual morals.

you don't have a clue, do you?

for all you know, she was holding up that sign because she thought it was funny and it would get her put on t.v.



Somebody with multiple sexual partners has looser morals than somebody with just one. That is just a fact of life.


You can't tell me that a man who has only ever been with one woman, and a woman who has only ever been with one man, are not strict in sexual morality, while a man who has slept with over 100 women, and a woman who has been with 100 different guys, are not loose in morality.

There are certain things that society deems acceptable and unacceptable, there are certain things that the bible dictates are accetpable and unacceptable. Being ruled by sick bodily lusts, makes you a slave to your lusts, and a slave serves what he is enslaved to. But we are meant to serve none other than the Lord Himself. (This is even covered in the bible, if you can't control your lusts, you are indeed a slave)

At an interview yes … then they are in the same situation but taking a photo (lets say A at a tea party) and (B at a hockey game) really the situation is not the same. A could dress the same way in a hockey game as B … and so on

I know where you are coming from but they have to be in the same situation for it to really be valid


Yes, I agree with you, I wasn't taking that into consideration... If the woman from B, showed up to a job interview dressed like that, yes, makes sense. But she was at a sporting event, so I suppose you are correct, take the situation more into account. Yes.

i dont wanna sound sexist but 75% of the girls in my school are really weak. And on top of that they glow of that ditzy stupid girl aura. The reason why the whole men stronger thing makes sense (now it shouldnt matter) is that way back when women handled kids and men hunted. I think our current world echoes that a little

Yes, I agree with you, I wasn't taking that into consideration... If the woman from B, showed up to a job interview dressed like that, yes, makes sense. But she was at a sporting event, so I suppose you are correct, take the situation more into account. Yes.
Don’t worry had to catch myself too I was like “of course A is more professional dressed” but yeah anyways :-P

i think that every social problem in america today can be traced back to feminists. the government played us all. women wanted to work outside the home instead of raising their own children.... the gov't laughed and said sure go ahead and taxed them for doing it. now we need two incomes just to get by and women still have to cook clean and raise the kids.... GREAT i hate feminists thanks b*tches

i think that every social problem in america today can be traced back to feminists. the government played us all.

I reckon if you want people to jump on your bandwagon of hatred you should be more consistent with who you're blaming. Can't be totally the feminists fault and totally the government's fault.

Of course, if what you're trying to say is that it was a massive conspiracy between feminists and government, because 40 years ago there were so many women in politics.... [/sarcasm]

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


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

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

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

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

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

I will add to this later, but for now, i'll give you a chance to add/counter my post.
Feminism should be retired to the ashheap of history, along with slavery, the Soviet Union, and Jimmy Carter.

There are certain things that society deems acceptable and unacceptable, there are certain things that the bible dictates are accetpable and unacceptable. Being ruled by sick bodily lusts, makes you a slave to your lusts, and a slave serves what he is enslaved to. But we are meant to serve none other than the Lord Himself. (This is even covered in the bible, if you can't control your lusts, you are indeed a slave)
lol.

i somehow think a slave to a book is worse than a slave to one's own feelings.

furthremore, a person's sexual history has no bearing on whether or not they can do a job well.

Somebody with multiple sexual partners has looser morals than somebody with just one. That is just a fact of life.

You can't tell me that a man who has only ever been with one woman, and a woman who has only ever been with one man, are not strict in sexual morality, while a man who has slept with over 100 women, and a woman who has been with 100 different guys, are not loose in morality.


Sure I can. The people above who only ever have one sexual partner could just as easily engage in "immoral" conduct and be "slaves to lust." Rape occurs in marriage, and intimate partner violence is a growing problem. Only having one partner does not preclude cruelty and dishonesty

Sure I can. The people above who only ever have one sexual partner could just as easily engage in "immoral" conduct and be "slaves to lust." Rape occurs in marriage, and intimate partner violence is a growing problem. Only having one partner does not preclude cruelty and dishonesty
Plus they could be into s&m and stuff!

Ahhhh no please dont bring the bible into this. Please. Somebody with multiple sexual partners at one time as loose morals. Well different morals anyway.

i dont wanna sound sexist but 75% of the girls in my school are really weak. And on top of that they glow of that ditzy stupid girl aura. The reason why the whole men stronger thing makes sense (now it shouldnt matter) is that way back when women handled kids and men hunted. I think our current world echoes that a little

People always say that girls mature faster than boys but I have to agree, there is something wrong with most teenage girls. Why cant they ever keep a secret either, they go and bloody gossip to everyone they know after "I promise I wont tell anyone".

Do any of you even realize what feminism is or are you too involved in being misogynistic? You're basing your opinion on a small percentage of feminists rather than the movement itself. Women and men are far from equal in this world, even in the United States so there is most definitely still a place for feminism, despite troglodyte thinking such as evidenced here.

Do any of you even realize what feminism is or are you too involved in being misogynistic? You're basing your opinion on a small percentage of feminists rather than the movement itself. Women and men are far from equal in this world, even in the United States so there is most definitely still a place for feminism, despite troglodyte thinking such as evidenced here.

Wow misogynistic and troglodyte in your first post. The US really aint that great of an example, I think there are quite a few countries where women are closer to being equal.

People always say that girls mature faster than boys but I have to agree, there is something wrong with most teenage girls. Why cant they ever keep a secret either, they go and bloody gossip to everyone they know after "I promise I wont tell anyone".
yeah, my little sister is 14 and a piece of advice... if you ever want to give someone a present and want it to be a surprise, don't tell her what you got them.

geez, that kid has the biggest mouth.

but then when you consider the number of men who don't mature until thier mid to late 20s...

Sure I can. The people above who only ever have one sexual partner could just as easily engage in "immoral" conduct and be "slaves to lust." Rape occurs in marriage, and intimate partner violence is a growing problem. Only having one partner does not preclude cruelty and dishonesty



I read on some "feminist" site that "Tens of millions of rapes occur every night in America, in the bedrooms of EVERY married couple."

Their argument was that marriage was nothing more than the legalized ownership of women, making them sex slaves, etc, blah blah blah.


I don't think "Spousal rape" is as big a problem as they want us to think. Technically, under the law in my state, if you and your wife have 1-2 glasses of wine with dinner, then go have sex, you're raping each other. Since "people under the influence can't consent". It should stipulate, "People under the influence of alcohol to such a point as to prohibit the thought process to a significant degree"

(Ie. somebody too drunk to remember their own name, obviously they cannot consent and it would be rape) A husband and wife having a glass of wine before sex, obviously not rape.

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

I read on some "chauvinist" site that tens of millions of occasions of "just sex" occur every night in America, in the bedrooms of EVERY married couple."

Their argument was that marriage was nothing more than the legitimising of men's natural dominance and that there was no way that women would ever not want to have sex with their husbands.

(Ie. somebody too drunk to remember their own name, obviously they cannot consent and it would be rape) A husband and wife having a glass of wine before sex, obviously not rape.

You really need to read a bit more widely before you trivialize so pointlessly. My post was not about prevalence of spousal violence, it was about monogamy does not always equal morality.

I read on some "chauvinist" site that tens of millions of occasions of "just sex" occur every night in America, in the bedrooms of EVERY married couple."

Tens of millions in the bedrooms of every couple. Wow not only do they have more than one bedroom it seems they make good use of em :p

Very easy one. You rob your father. It hurts him, it has benefits for you. This is the real world, people gain from others losses all the time, cassinos, lawyers. I fail too see the relevance of this.
Stealing from my own father would be more hurtful to me than someone else stealing from him. Perhaps you are abberant in this respect, but I suspect you are more likely being argumentitive. I've had plently of opportunities to steal from my family and I doubt they would call the police, I dont because it would hurt me to do so, and I suspect most people are the same in that regard. Of course there are abberant exceptions, but by and large most people do not routinely steal from their family even when only 'emotional' consequences arise. Cassinos and lawyers are not emotionally interpedent on those whose interests they are opposing. The number of females not interpendent on males for their well being is somewhat limited I suspect.

t feminists still work from a female bias, thats why the word is feminist.
Exactly, that's why the term is descriptive. They are promoting well being by specialising on promoting the well being of women and promoting well being by representing the perspective of women, this is no more untoward than efforts aimed at doing the same for males, for the elderly, for the young, or universally.

Why is it that feminists are big on women's right to "choose" except when women choose to be housewives and mothers, then the feminists ridicule them as "brainwashed" as though male supremacists were even in a position to put an agenda forward to brainwash anybody
Which feminists, none that I know. In fact as a feminist I have already made a declaration in this thread that asserts a contrary position to that you are accsusing me (and millions of other people you have never met) of having...

If feminists really want equality, then if I'm walking down the street and see a woman being beaten and raped in an alley, I should keep on walking, for to intervene would be implying she needed to be rescued by a man, and wasn't capable of saving herself, weak female that she is. It would be "sexist" to help a woman, because it would be implying that a woman needed help, let alone anything, from a man.
That's not equality, if you are allergic to peanuts and someone else isnt, feeding you both peanuts is not equality. And if you really wouldnt help a man who was being beaten and raped in an alley (due to his 'equality' with you), feminism is the least of your problems.

Indeed feminism goes on the false theory that women need nothing (not even sex) from men. They can get it all from themselves, machines, or each other (which is why modern feminism is so linked with lesbianism).
Indeed as a feminist I can assure you that I do not subscribe to such a theory, I fully believe that humans need other humans. Your notion as to why 'feminism is linked with lesbianism' is false and simplistic.

I'm sorry but if I see [b]ANYBODY male or female, in dire distress, and my assistance would help them, they'll get my assistance.
So hang on it would not be equality to help women if they had equality, but it's ok to help other men, do you see yourself as superior to other men, or is it only women who have to 'go it alone' entirely if they expect to be equal?

Feminist ideology is a plague upon the western mentality of what is good and pure.
Based on your comments you dont have an opinion about feminist ideology, because if you believe feminism is as you have described, you dont know what feminism is in order to have an opinion about it.

Let's face it, feminism was created just so that ugly chicks could make it like the good looking ones already had.
Way to prove that your ignorance extends not just to feminism, but to history as well...

i think that every social problem in america today can be traced back to feminists. the government played us all. women wanted to work outside the home instead of raising their own children.... the gov't laughed and said sure go ahead and taxed them for doing it. now we need two incomes just to get by and women still have to cook clean and raise the kids.... GREAT i hate feminists thanks b*tches
Oh right, blame feminists, not the men who refused to have their turn at staying home or to help out equally (according to you) now that women are working too, and sure as heck not the goverment for turning it to their advantage, no it's the fault of feminists...not that you arent being objective or anything.... :rolleyes:

His point, is that since there are an equal amount of injustices against women, as against men, then women are not treated that much worse than men, as you claim.

And our point is that there should not be injustices against either and, as long as there are, there is still something to fight for.

But that's the point, feminists dont have a car. They only thing they can do, is crowd the friend, talk her supportively, and remove little pebbles from her path. Nevertheless, a crowd around you will just slow the friend down, not speed them up.

Yes, because feminism has never accomplished anything useful. Oh wait...

I am glad that yuo agree. But how many of yuor fellow feminists agree? Do you see "allow women to be drafted!" written on the front page of the feminist websites?

Every feminist I have ever spoken to agrees that, if there is to be a draft, women should be included. Every feminist I have ever spoken to agrees that women should not be given special treatment in placement in the armed services. In fact, the only people I have ever talked to who disagreed with either of these statements were men who were not feminists.

However what me and neo cannen are trying to make you understand, is that social opinion cannot be forced to change, no matter how marches you make, and how many books you write.

Just to make this shorter, I will point out that your example disproves your point. Marches, etc. did begin a change in overall social opinion in the black civil rights movement. No one is claiming that we can force social opinion to change, just that we can facilitate it - an idea that has been shown to be true again and again and again in history.

Yet another reason men are reluctant to allow women to be their bosses, is that it is a man's instinct to protect a woman. I am sorry if you think it's sexist, but it's in our blood, and there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop it. If a man is afraid, and he sees a woman afraid, most of the times he'll shed his fear. And it is very hard for a man to allow something he instictively wants to care for and protect, to be his boss. Yet this is whithering away too. Now tell me, what can feminists do to change anything?

You do realize that you stated in the same post that "there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop it" and that it is changing over time. Seems you proved yourself wrong.

I support the idea that all women that work in the same position as men in the workplace should get the same pay.
But I do not think we should hire women to work in high positions just because they are women. Man or women, it must be the best person for the job.
Feminist go too far!

I have never met a single feminist who would claim that *anyone* should get a job just because they are male/female/black/white/gay/straight/etc.

I have never met a single feminist who would claim that *anyone* should get a job just because they are male/female/black/white/gay/straight/etc.
Agreed (well there is that one) … the ideal is great, but most people agree quota’ing to get there really is not the solution (and often leads to the “being hired because … insert group here)
We have to change peoples attitudes

Agreed (well there is that one) … the ideal is great, but most people agree quota’ing to get there really is not the solution (and often leads to the “being hired because … insert group here)
We have to change peoples attitudes

And, when quotas WORK, that is what they are intended to do... since you can't physically change a person's mind - but you can make them ACT like you'd changed their mind.

And, eventually, the action becomes reflexive.. and maybe some people will learn through practice, rather than logic.

But, unfortunately, quotas are a flawed concept, and one that is open to abuse... but, then, maybe a flawed, abused system is better than the previous status quo. At least it gives us a DIFFERENT field to head towards equality from...?

And, when quotas WORK, that is what they are intended to do... since you can't physically change a person's mind - but you can make them ACT like you'd changed their mind.

And, eventually, the action becomes reflexive.. and maybe some people will learn through practice, rather than logic.

But, unfortunately, quotas are a flawed concept, and one that is open to abuse... but, then, maybe a flawed, abused system is better than the previous status quo. At least it gives us a DIFFERENT field to head towards equality from...?
Yeah but what happens when quota’s interfere with hiring best qualified? (and it does happen … I used to work with an electrical contractor) in fact I also worked part time for the facility that she screwed up the project for … 3 times. (in fact the only female applicant ... yeah)

Lol I know it sounds anecdotal but it happened (design electric)

That hurt when she managed to screw up the thermostats (they controlled vents in different rooms then they were located in)

Lets just say when we were done … we had to come back … and pay the contractor 1.3 million dollars because they had to tear the sheetrock off so we could get back and do it right … then re sheetrock

Yeah sorry pet peeve I know it probably doesn’t happen that often but I have ran into it

Fine, carry your own heavy luggage, defend yourself from strangers approaching you on the street late at night, haggle on your own with crooked salesmen.

Why don't you help *anyone* who is struggling to carry heavy luggage, defend anyone who looks like they need help (physically or haggling)?

I don't think women are "weak" per se, but women certainly, on average, lack the same physical strength that men have, on average.

So?

Thus if a man was trying to get into a fist fight with a woman, I would hope the woman would have enough sense to let a male friend fight off the attacker for her. And I would hope that some man would have the decency to defend her if necessary.

And I would hope that the same man would help his weak male friend should he need it as well.

If feminists really want equality, then if I'm walking down the street and see a woman being beaten and raped in an alley, I should keep on walking, for to intervene would be implying she needed to be rescued by a man, and wasn't capable of saving herself, weak female that she is. It would be "sexist" to help a woman, because it would be implying that a woman needed help, let alone anything, from a man.

Basically, this implies that you would not help a man that you saw being raped and beaten in an alley.

I'm sorry but if I see ANYBODY male or female, in dire distress, and my assistance would help them, they'll get my assistance.

Not according to what you said above. After all, if women want equality, and you would help men in dire distress, then you would help women as well.

Feminist ideology is a plague upon the western mentality of what is good and pure.

Yes, the idea that everyone should be treated equally is such a plague.

Yeah but what happens when quota’s interfere with hiring best qualified? (and it does happen … I used to work with an electrical contractor) in fact I also worked part time for the facility that she screwed up the project for … 3 times. (in fact the only female applicant ... yeah)

Lol I know it sounds anecdotal but it happened (design electric)

That hurt when she managed to screw up the thermostats (they controlled vents in different rooms then they were located in)

Lets just say when we were done … we had to come back … and pay the contractor 1.3 million dollars because they had to tear the sheetrock off so we could get back and do it right … then re sheetrock

Yeah sorry pet peeve I know it probably doesn’t happen that often but I have ran into it
I suspect this wasnt a forced quota, (and if it was, that is a seperate issue again).
So ordinarilly, what happens when cousin Ben gets the job instead of a qualified applicant? Or Stewie who coaches Mary's little league team? Or the person who is as much into Star Wars as the interviewer? The business suffers and if the mistake is big enough may even loose their place in the market to a business with more effecient hiring practises.

I suspect this wasnt a forced quota, (and if it was, that is a seperate issue again).
So ordinarilly, what happens when cousin Ben gets the job instead of a qualified applicant? Or Stewie who coaches Mary's little league team? Or the person who is as much into Star Wars as the interviewer? The business suffers and if the mistake is big enough may even loose their place in the market to a business with more effecient hiring practises.
It was forced quota … which was the problem … the quota was changed and they HAD to hire … she was the only female applicant at that time (we don’t see many) she happened to be NOT qualified while there were some really good actual journeyman out there rather then just apprentices (like she was when they hired her)

Like I said that was an example gone bad … probably not likely but the cost of hiring her over someone (well at least 3 of the other applicants) cost the company millions … that is not the only job she screwed up … just the most expensive

Yeah but what happens when quota’s interfere with hiring best qualified? (and it does happen … I used to work with an electrical contractor) in fact I also worked part time for the facility that she screwed up the project for … 3 times. (in fact the only female applicant ... yeah)

Lol I know it sounds anecdotal but it happened (design electric)

That hurt when she managed to screw up the thermostats (they controlled vents in different rooms then they were located in)

Lets just say when we were done … we had to come back … and pay the contractor 1.3 million dollars because they had to tear the sheetrock off so we could get back and do it right … then re sheetrock

Yeah sorry pet peeve I know it probably doesn’t happen that often but I have ran into it

Yes, I know it happens... and I know that it happening is wrong... but, I always find myself asking that same question - despite being flawed, isn't this system maybe BETTER than what stood here before?

It was forced quota …
Then the problem isnt a feminist problem, it's a property rights problem...you wont solve such problems blaming it's specific manifestations, and such manifestations wont occur if the problem is solved, regardless of feminism...

Then the problem isnt a feminist problem, it's a property rights problem...you wont solve such problems blaming it's specific manifestations, and such manifestations wont occur if the problem is solved, regardless of feminism...
I DIDENT ... I brought up a specific comment about QUOTA's in response to a comment about quota's ... I SPECIFICALY said that the ideals are good but the quota system needs a little work

It was forced quota … which was the problem … the quota was changed and they HAD to hire … she was the only female applicant at that time (we don’t see many) she happened to be NOT qualified while there were some really good actual journeyman out there rather then just apprentices (like she was when they hired her)

Like I said that was an example gone bad … probably not likely but the cost of hiring her over someone (well at least 3 of the other applicants) cost the company millions … that is not the only job she screwed up … just the most expensive

Now, THAT is an example of quota abuse... someone should perhaps show favour to a minority, even to the extent that you give preference to a less qualified person. (Although, ideally, I think all jobs should go to the person who can best DO them...)

But, to give a job that requires qualification, to an unqualified agent... that seems like reading the letter of the law, and ignoring the spirit.

Yes, I know it happens... and I know that it happening is wrong... but, I always find myself asking that same question - despite being flawed, isn't this system maybe BETTER than what stood here before?
Im not sure ... maybe its the stats major side of me ... I dont have any real proof that it has put qualified people in where it should be

And really only one or two personal bad experiences really not enough to go on to say it is bad nessisarly ... but the potential for abuse bothers me ... I dont know

Now, THAT is an example of quota abuse... someone should perhaps show favour to a minority, even to the extent that you give preference to a less qualified person. (Although, ideally, I think all jobs should go to the person who can best DO them...)

But, to give a job that requires qualification, to an unqualified agent... that seems like reading the letter of the law, and ignoring the spirit.
Deffinatly ... that was what I was trying to say ... was just adding some thought rather then trying to debunk quota's really but most people dident get that

Sorry

I DIDENT ... I brought up a specific comment about QUOTA's in response to a comment about quota's ... I SPECIFICALY said that the ideals are good but the quota system needs a little work
I'm specifically saying that it's not a quota system problem, if a company can be forced to hire people regardless of qualifications and job suitability, then regardless of what the rational is, property rights are not strong enough to protect the interests of involved parties, plain and simple. If property rights offered sufficient protection, what you describe cant occur, if it can occur, property rights are not strong enough, and that will remain an problem even if you sort out the quota issues, but the quota issues cant be issues if the property rights issue is solved.

Deffinatly ... that was what I was trying to say ... was just adding some thought rather then trying to debunk quota's really but most people dident get that

Sorry

I got it.

Interesting that you can join in on someone else's divergence in a thread... and then be forced to DEFEND THEIR little jaunt off-topic... :)

I got it.

Interesting that you can join in on someone else's divergence in a thread... and then be forced to DEFEND THEIR little jaunt off-topic... :)
Yeah I was like WTF (though I guess it is a centeral enough to an implementation to make it not really too bad to discuss) but I was just adding a personal experience on an abuse and then had to defend the whole position lol

Yeah I was like WTF (though I guess it is a centeral enough to an implementation to make it not really too bad to discuss) but I was just adding a personal experience on an abuse and then had to defend the whole position lol
Hang on, either you were taking part in the discussion or you were not, if you were, I dont understand your objection to people replying to what you posted, or can they only do that if they agree?

You either thought the quota scenario you mentioned was relevent to the value of feminism or you were spamming, I assumed the earlier and replyed pointing out why I thought the issues were not linked in the manner you seemed to imply.

I'm not sure what you expect to happen in a discussion, but in my experiance they usually follow a format of people replying to things said...I'm sorry if my expectation in this regard clashes with your own.... :confused:

Hang on, either you were taking part in the discussion or you were not, if you were, I dont understand your objection to people replying to what you posted, or can they only do that if they agree?

You either thought the quota scenario you mentioned was relevent to the value of feminism or you were spamming, I assumed the earlier and replyed pointing out why I thought the issues were not linked in the manner you seemed to imply.

I'm not sure what you expect to happen in a discussion, but in my experiance they usually follow a format of people replying to things said...I'm sorry if my expectation in this regard clashes with your own.... :confused:

I don't think that was it... I think it was more a case of U.T. providing a corroborating example to a post about quotas... and then being somehow assumed into the position of defending the quota issue...

That's how I saw it. *where's a little shrug smiley when you need one?*

That's how I saw it. *where's a little shrug smiley when you need one?*
I usually just pick one a random and hope for the best :sniper: :headbang: :fluffle:....


....see?

...come to think of it, that may not be the best methodology.... ;)

I usually just pick one a random and hope for the best :sniper: :headbang: :fluffle:....


....see?

...come to think of it, that may not be the best methodology.... ;)

Oh, I don't know... sniper/bang/fluffle seems to be a pretty apt response to most things.. :)

I'm specifically saying that it's not a quota system problem, if a company can be forced to hire people regardless of qualifications and job suitability, then regardless of what the rational is, property rights are not strong enough to protect the interests of involved parties, plain and simple. If property rights offered sufficient protection, what you describe cant occur, if it can occur, property rights are not strong enough, and that will remain an problem even if you sort out the quota issues, but the quota issues cant be issues if the property rights issue is solved.

What if the property rights issue *is* the quota issue?

What if the property rights issue *is* the quota issue?
Cant be or at least not under any legal system I am familiar with.

Cant be or at least not under any legal system I am familiar with.

Suppose the quota system said "You must hire at least 30% women for any given job." Now suppose that your company was in, say, mechanical engineering - a majority male profession. Chances are, you wouldn't be able to find enough qualified female applicants to make that quota. However, the quota would still stand and you would have to put some female butts in the cubicles. Thus, you would be forced to hire unqualified applicants simply on the basis of gender (exactly what we feminists are fighting *against*).

Quota systems do two things: force the hiring of applicants that are less qualified and perpetuate the idea that the group that is under quota has to have help to get the job.

Suppose the quota system said "You must hire at least 30% women for any given job." Now suppose that your company was in, say, mechanical engineering - a majority male profession. Chances are, you wouldn't be able to find enough qualified female applicants to make that quota. However, the quota would still stand and you would have to put some female butts in the cubicles. Thus, you would be forced to hire unqualified applicants simply on the basis of gender (exactly what we feminists are fighting *against*).
If such a quota is not legally unenforcable then property laws are not adequate. You cant just go telling people what to do with their property without justifying that the compelling need to do so outweighs the natural assumption that property rights wont be suspended, if property laws and rights are adequate.
Quota systems do two things: force the hiring of applicants that are less qualified and perpetuate the idea that the group that is under quota has to have help to get the job.
No Bad quota systems and people choosing to think the worst does that.

If such a quota is not legally unenforcable then property laws are not adequate. You cant just go telling people what to do with their property without justifying that the compelling need to do so outweighs the natural assumption that property rights wont be suspended, if property laws and rights are adequate.

No Bad quota systems and people choosing to think the worst does that.

Alright supply one example where a quota system has had a strong positive effect.

Alright supply one example where a quota system has had a strong positive effect.
I personally know dozens of people currently working towards either under or post graduate degrees, who wouldnt have applied to undertake a degree if not for quota systems.

From my 'spam' file - thought here was the perfect place to share it:

Finally, a man's chain letter!

This chain letter was started in hopes of bringing relief to other tired and discontented.

Unlike most chain letters, this one doesn't cost anything! Just send a copy of this letter to five of your friends who are equally tired and discontented.

Then bundle up your wife and/or girlfriend and send her to the man whose name appears at the top of the following list, and add your name

to the bottom of the list.

When your turn comes, you will receive 15,625 women. One of them is bound to be better than the one you already have.

At the writing of this letter, a friend of mine has already received
184 women, of whom four were worth keeping.

REMEMBER this chain brings luck.

One man's pit bull died, and the next day he received a Playboy playmate.

An unmarried Jewish man living with his widowed mother was able to choose between a Hooter's waitress and a Hollywood super model.

You can be lucky too, but DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN!

One man broke the chain and got his own wife back.

Let's keep it going. Just add your name to the bottom of the list below!


Bill Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

Billy Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

William Jefferson Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

W. Jefferson Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

W. Jeff Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

W. J. Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

W. Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

William J Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

Mr. Hillary Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

Mr. Slick Willie Clinton
780 3rd Ave New York, NY 10017

I personally know dozens of people currently working towards either under or post graduate degrees, who wouldnt have applied to undertake a degree if not for quota systems.

If knowing that they could get in because the school had some sort of quota was the only reason they applied, they don't deserve a degree.

If knowing that they could get in because the school had some sort of quota was the only reason they applied, they don't deserve a degree.


if they have the know hows and they get good passing grades isn't that more important?

if they have the know hows and they get good passing grades isn't that more important?

Exactly my point.

If they have the ability to earn a degree, no quota system is necessary.

If they apply somewhere just because it has a quota system that may include them, they have admitted that they cannot do this on their own merits.

if they have the know hows and they get good passing grades isn't that more important?

No. If they got in because they are of a certain race that is wrong. If they didnt have the drive to fight for their entrance rather than knowing they would get a free pass they dont deserve it.

Exactly my point.

If they have the ability to earn a degree, no quota system is necessary.

If they apply somewhere just because it has a quota system that may include them, they have admitted that they cannot do this on their own merits.


maybe it just meant they had a better chance. I wanna go to college and i worked really hard in school but there is someone who did better, let me get the crappy school they can do better