NationStates Jolt Archive

We regard the assertion that women are disadvantaged as The Big Lie of our time. And feminism is based on The Big Lie. There can be no greater folly or degeneracy than to provide further support, via Ministers for Women etc, to the most privileged group in our society - women - while denying the disadvantaged, suppressed and persecuted group - men - any representation at all. Feminism is about women getting something for nothing. The question of whether "feminism has gone too far" is perhaps less important than "why feminism was established at all". Feminism is an aberration, like Nazism and communism - a blight on our society.

What do you think about this quote?

In what ways are men disadvantaged?
In what ways are women disadvantaged?

In what ways are women priviledged?
In what ways are men priviledged?


You never know - we may find that what is a priviledge to one person is a disadvantage to another.


Let's get some lists going and do some comparisons. You never know, we might get a rational discussion going on here.

But it'll probably be more emotional knee jerk responses about 'feminazis' or 'male domination'.

Feminism just came about so that the ugly chicks could succeed like the good looking ones.

Knee jerk response number one.

Feminism just came about so that the ugly chicks could succeed like the good looking ones.
Thank you Mr. Limbaugh.

Women shouldn't vote. The bloodiest century in the human history, (the twentieth) also conicides with the rise in political power of women. Coincidence? I think not.

Also, look at the mess that society is in now because chicks have a say in things. The US has gone from being the greatest nation in the history of the world ever, to panty-waste central. I remember back in the nineties reading the newspaper in the diner during breakfast and I came across an article about how it in now desirable for men to "cry" about their feelings and realtionships and shit. I almost puked my steak and eggs up right then.

If you want to know whats wrong with the goddamned world just take a look at Oprah, and reflect that all her zombie viewers are allowed to vote.

Knee-jerk response number two.

Knee-jerk response number 3:

I have a hat!

I hate sounding like a mysogonist, but if women want equality then they can put the lid down on the toilet all by themselves.

Knee-jerk response number two.

You must be a woman.

Women shouldn't vote. The bloodiest history in the human history, (the twentieth) also conicides with the rise in political power of women. Coincidence? I think not.

All people who eat will eventually die. Coincidence? I think not?

:confused:

Feminism is crap. Men and women deserve equal rights, not women deserve more. What I hate most about the feminazis though is their support for the genocide known as abortion. I can't stand the fact that anyone wants to continue a holocaust of children.

I hate sounding like a mysogonist, but if women want equality then they can put the lid down on the toilet all by themselves.

(Maybe everyone should put the seat and lid down on the toilet to be polite?)

Feminism is crap. Men and women deserve equal rights, not women deserve more.

Funny, that's exactly what feminists say.

What I hate most about the feminazis though is their support for the genocide known as abortion.

Knee-jerk response number, what, 4? 5?

I can't stand the fact that anyone wants to continue a holocaust of children.

Define child.

Define child.
An undifferentiated mass of unthinking, unfeeling stem cells.

Okay, I'll start out:

Women's disadvantages:

- Of 1.3 billion people living in poverty, 70% are women.
- Two thirds of illiterate adults are women.
- There is still a gap in earnings between men and women in every country on Earth.
- Only two countries have equal representation in government: Rwanda and Wales.
(Joni Seager, Atlas of Women, The Women's Press, 2003)

Some problems women around the world face:

- 79 million girls who would otherwise be expected to be alive are ‘missing’ from various populations, mostly in Asia, as a result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect. (this is not just because of 'women's choice'...many of these abortions are encouraged by all members of the family, as male children are thought to be more desireable)
- Rape and other forms of sexual violence are increasing. Estimates of the proportion of rapes reported to authorities vary — from less than 3 per cent in South Africa to about 16 per cent in the US.
-Two million girls between the ages of 5 and 15 are introduced into the commercial sex market each year.
-An estimated 4 million women and girls are bought and sold worldwide each year, either into marriage, prostitution or slavery. (this is not equating marriage with slavery...it is counting the marriages where money passes hands in the form of a dowry...slavery is a different category all together.)
-At least 130 million women have undergone female genital mutilation or cutting; another 2 million are at risk each year.
- So-called ‘honour’ killings take the lives of thousands of young women every year, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa and parts of South Asia.1
(New internationalist, issue 373)

A bit of advice from a woman who is probably quite a bit older than most of you.. If you ever want to get a date in your life with an intelligent woman..I suggest you keep some of those thoughts to yourself.. ;)

Feminism is crap. Men and women deserve equal rights, not women deserve more. What I hate most about the feminazis though is their support for the genocide known as abortion. I can't stand the fact that anyone wants to continue a holocaust of children.

4get abortion, whether ur for that or against that is another debate.

You must be a woman.
Such amazing deductive powers...considering I list my gender under my location.

Women expect Men to: pay for dates/dinner/her 1000th pair of shoes/their new wardrobe, open the doors for them, and play stupid grab ass games with them. I believe it can be summed up with this from the Almighty Maddox
Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#MARATHON)

(Maybe everyone should put the seat and lid down on the toilet to be polite?)

Sure. And my girlfriend should open the door for me. What I meant, is that many (NOT ALL. better just clear that up right now.) feminists ask for special rights, not equal rights. I didn't mean to say that that was the one case.

The great achievement of mankind (as in, males) was in convincing women that their role is somehow inferior to their own. It is natural for women to stay home taking care of the family. Thats why they have breasts, to feed the babies. What isnt natural is for this to be considered an inferior thing to going out and working.

As to how men and women are discriminated against today, Here is one example of how men are discriminated against:

In a custody dispute, the courts pretend to be fair and balanced but give the woman physical custody of the children in over 90% of cases, regardless of how good a parent the father is.

You must be a woman.
By the way, you must be a woman too.

Feminism is crap. Men and women deserve equal rights, not women deserve more. What I hate most about the feminazis though is their support for the genocide known as abortion. I can't stand the fact that anyone wants to continue a holocaust of children.
You are equating feminism with female supremacy...not the same thing, but you have a dictionary at your fingertips to check that out if you choose...

You also blame women for abortion, which is amusing, considering the large number of abortions carried out with the consent and encouragement of husband who do not want female children.

An undifferentiated mass of unthinking, unfeeling stem cells.
Please, let's not get into an abortion debate here...that belongs on a separate thread.

Feminism was rooted in a good concept, but quickly degenerated into crazy feminazism. (As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh, who coined the term feminazi, I do agree with him here.) I believe that each sex should be treated equally, but feminism has just gotten out of hand. The ideology was originally social growth, but then turned into a malignant tumor. I guess you could call me an isosexist, to construct my own neologism.

Sure. And my girlfriend should open the door for me. What I meant, is that many (NOT ALL. better just clear that up right now.) feminists ask for special rights, not equal rights. I didn't mean to say that that was the one case.
What special rights do "most feminists" ask for? We can make this a good conversation if we get specific.

Okay, to be fair, Sinuhue, you might also want to point out some areas where woman have advantages (if any) or men's disadvantages (if any).

Some men's rights groups do have valid points about how difficult it is for fathers to get access to their children (especially young children) following a divorce case.

Men do have lower life expectancies, higher suicide rates, and are less likely to seek medical help or therapy if they need it. Men are more likely to smoke and drink than women, although that gap has been closing in the last decade.

An undifferentiated mass of unthinking, unfeeling stem cells.

Ah, ok then. =)

You are equating feminism with female supremacy...not the same thing, but you have a dictionary at your fingertips to check that out if you choose...

You also blame women for abortion, which is amusing, considering the large number of abortions carried out with the consent and encouragement of husband who do not want female children.

I don't blame women for the genocide of abortion, I blame evil feminazi groups like NOW for it. I know many awesome pro-life women.

I see no women or really dumb women in a lot of your futures..lol :D

The great achievement of mankind (as in, males) was in convincing women that their role is somehow inferior to their own. It is natural for women to stay home taking care of the family. Thats why they have breasts, to feed the babies. What isnt natural is for this to be considered an inferior thing to going out and working.

As to how men and women are discriminated against today, Here is one example of how men are discriminated against:

In a custody dispute, the courts pretend to be fair and balanced but give the woman physical custody of the children in over 90% of cases, regardless of how good a parent the father is.

Your percentage includes shared custodies, where both the mother and father have access to the children.

Your percentage includes shared custodies, where both the mother and father have access to the children.

That is pretty much common practice now. In fact it is the "norm"

Your percentage includes shared custodies, where both the mother and father have access to the children.

Yes, that is why I said "physical custody". In those cases, both parents have custody on paper, but physical custody (where the children live) is still given to the mother. The father gets to see the children occasionally (weekends and hollidays max). The woman is the one who actually raises them. Custody on paper is rather useless if you do not have physical custody.

Feminism just came about so that the ugly chicks could succeed like the good looking ones.

no... you're thinking of lesbianism. hehe

What special rights do "most feminists" ask for? We can make this a good conversation if we get specific.

Arrgh. I wish I hadn't used 'special rights.' Something you'll find with me is I'll sometimes use words too strong for the situation. I guess I was more bitching at society about the whole 'ladies first' unspoken societal rules.

Men do have lower life expectancies, higher suicide rates,
Higher SUCESSFUL suicide rates. That's because we use more fatal ways to knock ourselves off most of the time. Women try more often.

Feminism was rooted in a good concept, but quickly degenerated into crazy feminazism. (As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh, who coined the term feminazi, I do agree with him here.) I believe that each sex should be treated equally, but feminism has just gotten out of hand. The ideology was originally social growth, but then turned into a malignant tumor. I guess you could call me an isosexist, to construct my own neologism.
Every group has its radicals...you shouldn't judge the majority by the extreme minority. I don't judge religions by their fundamentalist members, nor do I judge a whole group by the ridiculous few. Unfortunately, feminists often get painted with the same brush, though they are as diverse as any group. There are many more down-to-earth feminists than there are 'feminazis'.

Arrgh. I wish I hadn't used 'special rights.' Something you'll find with me is I'll sometimes use words too strong for the situation. I guess I was more bitching at society about the whole 'ladies first' unspoken societal rules.

Such "ladies first" rules are part and parcel of the discrimination women have been under. "Gender roles" are a joke, really.

Are there some women who want equality only in the areas that help them? Of course! Every human being wants what they view as being best for themselves. But there are those of us who feel that what is best for us is true equality.

Yes, that is why I said "physical custody". In those cases, both parents have custody on paper, but physical custody (where the children live) is still given to the mother. The father gets to see the children occasionally (weekends and hollidays max). The woman is the one who actually raises them. Custody on paper is rather useless if you do not have physical custody.

Hmmm, maybe still in some countries, but certainly not here in Canada. The test is "In the best interest of the child" a father can fight and win physical custody just as easy as the mother. In most cases whoever was the primary care giver before the separation retains physical custody. Lets not forget this about the best interest of the child, it's not really a woman's right or men's right's issue. Most parents except very selfish ones know that.

I would imagine many failed suicide "attempts" are simply cries for help.

It would not be too hard at all to kill yourself... just grab your average kitchen knife and...

Yes, that is why I said "physical custody". In those cases, both parents have custody on paper, but physical custody (where the children live) is still given to the mother. The father gets to see the children occasionally (weekends and hollidays max). The woman is the one who actually raises them. Custody on paper is rather useless if you do not have physical custody.
A lot of that is due to traditional family structure, where the woman stays at home and the man works. Ideally, the child would live with the most competent parent who has the most free time. Many men work hours not conducive to child-rearing...though it doesn't factor them out of their children's lives.

Hmmm, maybe still in some countries, but certainly not here in Canada. The test is "In the best interest of the child" a father can fight and win physical custody just as easy as the mother. In most cases whoever was the primary care giver before the separation retains physical custody. Lets not forget this about the best interest of the child, it's not really a woman's right or men's right's issue. Most parents except very selfish ones know that.

Thats the test in the US and UK as well, but in reality women still end up getting them 90% of the time. I cant say about Canada, but you may want to ask divorced people, because I dont doubt its the same.

A lot of that is due to traditional family structure, where the woman stays at home and the man works. Ideally, the child would live with the most competent parent who has the most free time. Many men work hours not conducive to child-rearing...though it doesn't factor them out of their children's lives.

Divorced women have to work too.

Women are too emotional. They turn everything into feelings and crap. That's why society is going down the shitter and that's why they shouldn't vote.

Just take women in the millitary. It's a proven fact that intorducing women reduces combat effectiveness, (not to mention that women do not have the requisite skills to make adaequate combat pilots due to a difference in brain structure) nevertheless the women's lobby pushes for the integration of women into the combat arms because they feel exclusion is "unfair."

A rational person - that is one not governed by "feelings" and empathy - would realize that as we asking people to put themselves in harms way, our first responsibility is to ensure the highest rate of effectiveness possible, and if that means no women, then so be it.

It's all Oprah. And those men who pay lip service to feminism only do so because they can't get a date, and are trying to impress chicks.

Such "ladies first" rules are part and parcel of the discrimination women have been under. "Gender roles" are a joke, really.

Are there some women who want equality only in the areas that help them? Of course! Every human being wants what they view as being best for themselves. But there are those of us who feel that what is best for us is true equality.

Like me.

I'm bad at getting my opinions across most of the time, but that's what I'm trying to say. I wasn't meaning to be a 'Grr. Women should do all the work. Get me a beer. *meaty belch*' sort of guy.

Men will always put up with it for the T+A, that's the great thing. :)
It has been showed many times, by many scientists, that women excel in certain tasks, where men dominate in others. Humans are codependent for both sexes. That's the reason were not a bunch of wankers. If we didn't need the other, all we'd want is our right (or left, depending on you) hand. Women excel in social dominated tasks, such as teaching, raising kids, medical provisions, etc. Men, on the other hand, compared to women, relatively suck with social things. That's why women are deemed the "mother/caregiver." However, men are much better at hunting, certain forms of applied science, mechanical and electrical engineering, and have at you. That's the reason why there are more male scientists, inventors, engineers, and such. From my perspective, 13/20 of my female college room mates are enrolled in the nursing field.

If you've read maureen dowd's latest column in the times you might see that perhaps feminism is a self correcting issue.

Arrgh. I wish I hadn't used 'special rights.' Something you'll find with me is I'll sometimes use words too strong for the situation. I guess I was more bitching at society about the whole 'ladies first' unspoken societal rules.
Those unspoken rules you speak of are very powerful...and yet they can be so contradictory. I'm not just talking about the West, where women have come much closer to true equality than their sisters in the rest of the world. I mean for all women, we are given strange messages...be polite, be a 'lady', nurture, love, be venerated, but also: be silent, be passive, be weak, be a virgin and a whore. Men too receive mixed signals, and they can be very damaging to a boy's psyche: no sissy stuff...be aggressive, be promiscuous and so on. Feminism asks us to recognise these rules and try to deal with them. Feminism needs to include men in order to do any real good...it can't be about one gender over another. Men's issues must go hand in hand with women's issues. It isn't a case of the rights of one take away the rights of the other...giving women the vote did not cancel out the vote of men (though my grandfather used to complain about that very thing!)

Women are too emotional. They turn everything into feelings and crap. That's why society is going down the shitter and that's why they shouldn't vote.

Just take women in the millitary. It's a proven fact that intorducing women reduces combat effectiveness, (not to mention that women do not have the requisite skills to make adaequate combat pilots due to a difference in brain structure) nevertheless the women's lobby pushes for the integration of women into the combat arms because they feel exclusion is "unfair."

A rational person - that is one not governed by "feelings" and empathy - would realize that as we asking people to put themselves in harms way, our first responsibility is to ensure the highest rate of effectiveness possible, and if that means no women, then so be it.

It's all Oprah. And those men who pay lip service to feminism only do so because they can't get a date, and are trying to impress chicks.

You really piss me off, even more than the felame supremisists. Just because you're a self-serving domeneering asshole doesn't mean every man is. Honestly, guys like you are the ones who started the feminist movement in the first place.

Every group has its radicals...you shouldn't judge the majority by the extreme minority. I don't judge religions by their fundamentalist members, nor do I judge a whole group by the ridiculous few. Unfortunately, feminists often get painted with the same brush, though they are as diverse as any group. There are many more down-to-earth feminists than there are 'feminazis'.
Very good point. It's just the ones that say "If you hold the door for me you're a patronising chauvinist pig!" when I'm just trying to be freaking polite that I dilike. If there feminists who actually want equal treatment of the sexes, then I fully support them. They have just been drowned out by the radicals, which happens a lot. I think they should rename themselves to isosexists, to say that they want to have equal treatment of the sexes. The very word femisim may connote that females want better treatment than males.

An undifferentiated mass of unthinking, unfeeling stem cells.

human nonetheless

i'm not necessarily against choice, but you've got to face it: if you don't kill it, it will very likely be a viable human being. so stop referring to the fetus/embryo as if it's a piece of wood.

;)

Women expect Men to: pay for dates/dinner/her 1000th pair of shoes/their new wardrobe, open the doors for them, and play stupid grab ass games with them. I believe it can be summed up with this from the Almighty Maddox
Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#MARATHON)
Perhaps paying for everything is the only way you can get a woman to go out with you. I've never had a problem paying me own way or treating a guy.

Yes, that is why I said "physical custody". In those cases, both parents have custody on paper, but physical custody (where the children live) is still given to the mother. The father gets to see the children occasionally (weekends and hollidays max). The woman is the one who actually raises them. Custody on paper is rather useless if you do not have physical custody.

Actually, even if women have 'sole custody', the fathers are supposed to be granted access rights (of the sort mentioned above) and decision making rights. Shared custody means just that -- shared custody. It usually means that the child spends the school year with one parent and holidays with another. Or they alternate years. Or the child moves to live with the other parent at a certain age. There are all kinds of arrangements.

In one ex-couple I know, the youngest child lives with his mom on the west coast and the oldest child lives with his dad on the east coast. For holidays the two families meet.

Back when I worked in health care/social services, I knew a single father with sole custody of both his sons - born of separate mothers. Given that he was on social assistance, it wasn't because he had lots of money either.

This graph is from data 15 years old, but it shows custody decisions from the US in 1989/1990. Father's rights to access their children has been gaining ground - I think its safe to say that joint custody is more frequent than shown. However, even 15 years ago, joint custody was more prevalent than LazyHippies claims.

State Father Mother Joint Category

Montana 8.1/8.4 47.8/46.4 43.3/44.0 High
Kansas 7.8/6.8 50.1/47.2 39.5/43.6
Connecticut 5.3/5.3 58.7/58.1 35.8/36.4
Idaho 9.8/10.4 57.9/55.3 31.9/33.2
Rhode Island NA/5.4 NA/62.2 NA/31.7
Alaska NA/14.2 NA/63.1 NA/19.5 Medium
Vermont NA/10.6 NA/71.4 NA/17.1
Illinois 8.7/9.2 77.4/75.4 13.7/15.1
Wyoming 11.0/9.5 73.0/74.4 14.1/15.1
Missouri 10.4/11.0 74.4/73.1 14.0/14.8
Oregon 10.7/12.6 74.1/71.7 14.9/14.0
Michigan 9.5/11.2 76.4/73.9 12.5/14.2
Virginia NA/11.6 NA/70.9 NA/13.8
Pennsylvania 10.5/10.0 78.6/76.7 9.4/10.1 Low
Utah 10.5/9.7 79.3/81.1 10.1/9.0
Tennessee 11.1/11.3 78.9/78.9 8.1/8.6
Alabama 9.7/10.7 79.5/80.2 9.3/8.6
New Hampshire 12.2/11.0 79.9/80.4 6.6/7.1
Nebraska NA/12.2 NA/81.3 NA/4.1

Table 1. Physical Custody Awarded (percent), 1989/1990

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.htm

EDIT: Darn it, it won't do a decent table. Suggestions to fix, anyone?

Ahh, feminism, another topic that I absolutely refuse to touch...

Women are too emotional. They turn everything into feelings and crap. That's why society is going down the shitter and that's why they shouldn't vote.

Of course, I know more women who vote rationally than men... Most men I know either don't vote, are single-issue voters, or let a political party decide who they will vote for.

Just take women in the millitary. It's a proven fact that intorducing women reduces combat effectiveness, (not to mention that women do not have the requisite skills to make adaequate combat pilots due to a difference in brain structure) nevertheless the women's lobby pushes for the integration of women into the combat arms because they feel exclusion is "unfair."

Sources?

There is nothing in the female brain that keeps women from being adequate combat pilots, nor is there anything about including women that inherently reduces combat effectiveness.

Women expect Men to: pay for dates/dinner/her 1000th pair of shoes/their new wardrobe, open the doors for them, and play stupid grab ass games with them. I believe it can be summed up with this from the Almighty Maddox
Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#MARATHON)
Perhaps paying for everything is the only way you can get a woman to go out with you. I've never had a problem paying my own way or treating a guy.
Maddox is an ass.

Men will always put up with it for the T+A, that's the great thing. :)
It has been showed many times, by many scientists, that women excel in certain tasks, where men dominate in others. Humans are codependent for both sexes. That's the reason were not a bunch of wankers. If we didn't need the other, all we'd want is our right (or left, depending on you) hand. Women excel in social dominated tasks, such as teaching, raising kids, medical provisions, etc. Men, on the other hand, compared to women, relatively suck with social things. That's why women are deemed the "mother/caregiver." However, men are much better at hunting, certain forms of applied science, mechanical and electrical engineering, and have at you. That's the reason why there are more male scientists, inventors, engineers, and such. From my perspective, 13/20 of my female college room mates are enrolled in the nursing field.

Yeah, but I think that even though people might be better suited to different tasks, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to do them.

Thats the test in the US and UK as well, but in reality women still end up getting them 90% of the time. I cant say about Canada, but you may want to ask divorced people, because I dont doubt its the same.
Provide stats to back up that extremely high average...I think it is a little overblown.

You are also forgetting that in the majority of the world, the man gets the children, not the mother. The mother forfeits all rights to her own children if her husband leaves her or she leaves him. No matter what country we ARE discussing, the rules should favour the child above all...not one gender over another.

Speaking for myself, I've never been on a date where I didn't pay my own way.

I personally think gender is a social construct. I've read that in some societies, genders other than male and female exist.

Men will always put up with it for the T+A, that's the great thing. :)
It has been showed many times, by many scientists, that women excel in certain tasks, where men dominate in others. Humans are codependent for both sexes. That's the reason were not a bunch of wankers. If we didn't need the other, all we'd want is our right (or left, depending on you) hand. Women excel in social dominated tasks, such as teaching, raising kids, medical provisions, etc. Men, on the other hand, compared to women, relatively suck with social things. That's why women are deemed the "mother/caregiver." However, men are much better at hunting, certain forms of applied science, mechanical and electrical engineering, and have at you. That's the reason why there are more male scientists, inventors, engineers, and such. From my perspective, 13/20 of my female college room mates are enrolled in the nursing field.

Most of this is untrue as well. First of all, what has been shown that men and women tend to excel at certain tasks. There is not, however, a single task at which all women are better than men or vice versa.

And the true reason that there are more male scientists/inventors/etc. is that women were told (although it was not true) for years that girls were not supposed to go into such fields. In truth, female scientists/engineers etc. are now highly sought after. As a scientist and an engineer, I can point out that the ability to multi-task (statistically better in women) is a very important trait in both fields.

You really piss me off, even more than the felame supremisists. Just because you're a self-serving domeneering asshole doesn't mean every man is. Honestly, guys like you are the ones who started the feminist movement in the first place.

I would imagine that he's right though... "insensitive" or not (i hate political correctness... you can't tell the truth.. have to pussy-foot around everything for fear of offending someone), i would certainly tend to believe someone who has command experience in the military (assuming General LeMay was a general).

That said, the service of women in our armed forces is to be thanked and reverently commended.

I personally think gender is a social construct. I've read that in some societies, genders other than male and female exist.
Gender is a social construct. That is what it is by definition, though it is also a grammatical entity. Sex is a biological concpet.

Women are too emotional. They turn everything into feelings and crap. That's why society is going down the shitter and that's why they shouldn't vote.

Just take women in the millitary. It's a proven fact that intorducing women reduces combat effectiveness, (not to mention that women do not have the requisite skills to make adaequate combat pilots due to a difference in brain structure) nevertheless the women's lobby pushes for the integration of women into the combat arms because they feel exclusion is "unfair."

A rational person - that is one not governed by "feelings" and empathy - would realize that as we asking people to put themselves in harms way, our first responsibility is to ensure the highest rate of effectiveness possible, and if that means no women, then so be it.

It's all Oprah. And those men who pay lip service to feminism only do so because they can't get a date, and are trying to impress chicks.
I'm taking this as satire, whether it is or not, because it's just funny.

I personally think gender is a social construct. I've read that in some societies, genders other than male and female exist.

Sorry, gender isn't only a social construct. Just check your pants. Biologically, there are two sexes. Socially, I can only imagine three as actual roles, of man, woman, and asexual.

Gender is a social construct. That is what it is by definition, though it is also a grammatical entity. Sex is a biological concpet.

Huh. I didn't know that. Cool.

Women are too emotional. They turn everything into feelings and crap. That's why society is going down the shitter and that's why they shouldn't vote.

Just take women in the millitary. It's a proven fact that intorducing women reduces combat effectiveness, (not to mention that women do not have the requisite skills to make adaequate combat pilots due to a difference in brain structure) nevertheless the women's lobby pushes for the integration of women into the combat arms because they feel exclusion is "unfair."

A rational person - that is one not governed by "feelings" and empathy - would realize that as we asking people to put themselves in harms way, our first responsibility is to ensure the highest rate of effectiveness possible, and if that means no women, then so be it.

It's all Oprah. And those men who pay lip service to feminism only do so because they can't get a date, and are trying to impress chicks.
You're a total moron. Tell me, did you buy a submissive little Asian bride from some third world country?

Sorry, gender isn't only a social construct. Just check your pants. Biologically, there are two sexes. Socially, I can only imagine three as actual roles, of man, woman, and asexual.
Gender is social and grammatical. Sex is biological. And, socially, there are nigh infinite gender roles. There can be males, females, asexuals, hermaphrodites, androgyns, gynandromorphs, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and probably others. Transgenders often borrow terminology from biology, just to establish that. Which is why I used to blow up whenever someone used the word hermaphrodite or asexual to describe humans, but I eventually caved to the sociological argument, and now tolerate, and obviously use them.

Men will always put up with it for the T+A, that's the great thing. :)
It has been showed many times, by many scientists, that women excel in certain tasks, where men dominate in others. Humans are codependent for both sexes. That's the reason were not a bunch of wankers. If we didn't need the other, all we'd want is our right (or left, depending on you) hand. Women excel in social dominated tasks, such as teaching, raising kids, medical provisions, etc. Men, on the other hand, compared to women, relatively suck with social things. That's why women are deemed the "mother/caregiver." However, men are much better at hunting, certain forms of applied science, mechanical and electrical engineering, and have at you. That's the reason why there are more male scientists, inventors, engineers, and such. From my perspective, 13/20 of my female college room mates are enrolled in the nursing field.
That's not necessarily because they are 'genetically better' at it. Scientists have also proven you can tell everything about a person by feeling their heads...

Just look at Margaret Thatcher when you start labelling all women as loving and so on...

Also, there is a huge movement in Canada that claims because girls have been outdoing the boys in math and science recently, that the schools are now anti-male.

I am personally of the opinion that men can do most of what women do and visa versa. My husband is a better cook than I. My brother is a nurse, and a damn good one. My best friend is an electrician, and she has earned the respect of her male colleagues for her work ethic. I would go nuts if I stayed home all day with my kids, and prefer to add my income to my husband's. We are slowly breaking out of the gender-roles expected of us, but most women in the world aren't given that choice...nor are the men. That is why I think we still need to reexamine gender relationships.

Sorry, gender isn't only a social construct. Just check your pants. Biologically, there are two sexes. Socially, I can only imagine three as actual roles, of man, woman, and asexual.

Biologically, you can be XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XO, and probably more combinations, although these are the main ones I have seen.

Do also notice that you switched words. *Gender* is a social construct. *Sex* is a biological one.

And if the only roles you can imagine are man, woman, and asexual, you have little information. Much like so many things that people want to put into black and white, gender issues are shades of grey. There are varying degrees of masculinity and femininity and the very fact that we expect them to be polar opposites is a problem.

ha! I started a trend with my anti-feminism RP! God! I started my own little internet trend!


I'm so proud.

Very good point. It's just the ones that say "If you hold the door for me you're a patronising chauvinist pig!" when I'm just trying to be freaking polite that I dilike. If there feminists who actually want equal treatment of the sexes, then I fully support them. They have just been drowned out by the radicals, which happens a lot. I think they should rename themselves to isosexists, to say that they want to have equal treatment of the sexes. The very word femisim may connote that females want better treatment than males.
Sure, I have no problem with a name change...it means little really. Also, be patient...a lot of women are really unsure of their feminism, and are exploring it...sometimes they go a little overboard, but with a bit more experience, they generally even out. Any feminist I have ever known appreciates politeness...and gives it back...what's wrong with us holding the door for each other?

Women are too emotional. They turn everything into feelings and crap. That's why society is going down the shitter and that's why they shouldn't vote.

Just take women in the millitary. It's a proven fact that intorducing women reduces combat effectiveness, (not to mention that women do not have the requisite skills to make adaequate combat pilots due to a difference in brain structure) nevertheless the women's lobby pushes for the integration of women into the combat arms because they feel exclusion is "unfair."

A rational person - that is one not governed by "feelings" and empathy - would realize that as we asking people to put themselves in harms way, our first responsibility is to ensure the highest rate of effectiveness possible, and if that means no women, then so be it.

It's all Oprah. And those men who pay lip service to feminism only do so because they can't get a date, and are trying to impress chicks.

I would like to think that slack-jawed neaderthal assholes like you don't exist, but alas you do and give men a bad name. You would fit in well with the Taliban though, the whole subjugation of women thing is right up their alley. I hear wife beating is all the rage with them too, so you might fit in with that as well.

That's the reason why there are more male scientists, inventors, engineers, and such. From my perspective, 13/20 of my female college room mates are enrolled in the nursing field.

I have to disagree with that. Even though we had fewer, some of the women I knew at my science and engineering school were more brilliant than most men I knew. I think most of the reason there are more men is because of the enforcement (unconsciously? societally?) of gender roles on women - that women should be nurturers and that "math is hard for girls" (anyone remember the talking barbie that said "math is hard!" - talk about reinforcing stereotpes!)

Nope. Whatever a man can do a women can do just as well (well, except make retarded neanderthal statements like Gen. Bitter Because He Can't Get Laid, men are much better at that I sadly admit). But maybe I have that opinion because I come from a family where my mother worked just as hard and in just a challenging a field as my father, and where all three children (two boys, one girl) all are in science disciplines and doing well.

Also, there is a huge movement in Canada that claims because girls have been outdoing the boys in math and science recently, that the schools are now anti-male.

My favourite is the complaints that we now hear because women outnumber men in medical school. I point out to people that there have always been more women than men working in (modern) medicine - they just used to have all the lower paying nursing and aide jobs instead of doctor's positions. The percentages of women to men in health care hasn't changed much, its just that now women are aiming for more of the higher paying positions.

There is nothing in the female brain that keeps women from being adequate combat pilots, nor is there anything about including women that inherently reduces combat effectiveness.

Woman lack the spatial perception required to perform in air combat. A simple and well documented expertiment proves this. Ask a group of men and women to draw a bicycle from memory. Almost all the men, and almost non of the women will be able to complete this task. This is because woman do not have the necessary spatial and visual skills to do so. If you can't see how this relates to air combat - the ability to order and position things in space mentally - then you shouldn't be opining about it.

More generally, a study by the pentagon revealed that intergrated units suffer far more man days lost due to sickness, have higher drop out rates, perform more poorly on objective based exercises and lower moral than male only units. I'm sure it is on the web if you look for it.

Like most leftists, you scream about creationists - whom I also hate - ignoring science for their own ends, yet you are just as blinded when the facts don't suit you.

To be fair, some jobs are far more suited to women - like elementary school teacher.

Biologically, you can be XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XO, and probably more combinations, although these are the main ones I have seen.
No, I'm pretty sure it's limited to XX, XY, XXX, XXY, and X0. But I could be wrong.

I would imagine that he's right though... "insensitive" or not (i hate political correctness... you can't tell the truth.. have to pussy-foot around everything for fear of offending someone), i would certainly tend to believe someone who has command experience in the military (assuming General LeMay was a general).

That said, the service of women in our armed forces is to be thanked and reverently commended.
No offense, but if I called myself BIG MAMA GENERAL, would you believe everything I said about the military without asking for proof? Proof is good...it backs you up, and it furthers the discussion.

I would like to think that slack-jawed neaderthal assholes like you don't exist, but alas you do and give men a bad name. You would fit in well with the Taliban though, the whole subjugation of women thing is right up their alley. I hear wife beating is all the rage with them too, so you might fit in with that as well.


Can't get a girlfriend, can you?

*snip*

To be fair, some jobs are far more suited to women - like elementary school teacher.
Funny how all those jobs women are more 'suited' for are lower paying than the ones men are 'suited' for. Hmmmmm....

Nope. Whatever a man can do a women can do just as well (well, except make retarded neanderthal statements like Gen. Bitter Because He Can't Get Laid, men are much better at that I sadly admit).

Hey! I could make retarded neanderthal statements (about men) just as well as General Bitter there can about women....Honest...Well, if I wanted to... :D

Gender is social and grammatical. Sex is biological. And, socially, there are nigh infinite gender roles. There can be males, females, asexuals, hermaphrodites, androgyns, gynandromorphs, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and probably others. Transgenders often borrow terminology from biology, just to establish that. Which is why I used to blow up whenever someone used the word hermaphrodite or asexual to describe humans, but I eventually caved to the sociological argument, and now tolerate, and obviously use them.

Some of the ones you listed are unrelated. Homosexuals and hermaphrodites for example. Hermaphrodites (unless I'm wrong here) are people born with unspecified genitalia, while homosexuals prefer members of the same 'sex,' but with hermaphrodites and so on though it can get much more complicated.

And if the only roles you can imagine are man, woman, and asexual, you have little information.

I have almost no information. This is very much not my area of expertise. Social equality somewhat, but I dropped out of biology.

I don't see much point in debating these nutcases as they spend too much time reading Slave Girl of Gor to care, but I would like to remind them of a quote that has surprising relavance: Existence proceeds essense. Women are not born to be baby factories as sexists would have us believe.

Woman lack the spatial perception required to perform in air combat. A simple and well documented expertiment proves this. Ask a group of men and women to draw a bicycle from memory. Almost all the men, and almost non of the women will be able to complete this task. This is because woman do not have the necessary spatial and visual skills to do so. If you can't see how this relates to air combat - the ability to order and position things in space mentally - then you shouldn't be opining about it.

Your argument only means that many, not all women would lack the spatial skills necessary.

More generally, a study by the pentagon revealed that intergrated units suffer far more man days lost due to sickness, have higher drop out rates, perform more poorly on objective based exercises and lower moral than male only units. I'm sure it is on the web if you look for it.

Most likely, this is due to the fact that the armed services applies different standards to men and women, something which should not be done.

Like most leftists, you scream about creationists - whom I also hate - ignoring science for their own ends, yet you are just as blinded when the facts don't suit you.

You are misusing the facts. You have studies which demonstrate statistical tendencies and wish to extrapolate them to include the entire group, which is a very non-scientific position.

Also, I am far from qualifying as a "leftist" and I scream about anyone, including you, attempting to misuse science.

To be fair, some jobs are far more suited to women - like elementary school teacher.

Again, we are talking tendencies here, not absolutes.

I've never said (gender) is genetically better than another. Nor am I saying gender roles are good, however there was this scientific study that was on PBS or something with very young children (before kindergarten). Draw the bike in front of them. Most female subjects drew little more than 2 circles for wheels, a seat and handlebars. The male subjects would draw tires, spokes, chains, treads on the tires, gears, brakes, and the smaller details.

Yes, let's not resort to ad hominem. Let's just discuss the issues without getting personal.

Getting back to the original post, does anyone want to comment on the quote?

No, I'm pretty sure it's limited to XX, XY, XXX, XXY, and X0. But I could be wrong.

XYY is fairly common. There was a study which showed that many prisoners were XYY, although I have seen some reports that the data was a bit skewed. XYY men have a tendency to be more aggressive.

Woman lack the spatial perception required to perform in air combat. A simple and well documented expertiment proves this. Ask a group of men and women to draw a bicycle from memory. Almost all the men, and almost non of the women will be able to complete this task. This is because woman do not have the necessary spatial and visual skills to do so. If you can't see how this relates to air combat - the ability to order and position things in space mentally - then you shouldn't be opining about it.


What kind of bicycle would you like me to draw? Ten speed, mountain bike, BMX, rusty piece of crap?

Are we going to be judged on the quality of our chiaroscuro, or are you looking for a simple line drawing?

Tell you what, why don't you draw me a tree?

Woman lack the spatial perception required to perform in air combat. A simple and well documented expertiment proves this. Ask a group of men and women to draw a bicycle from memory. Almost all the men, and almost non of the women will be able to complete this task.



What do you mean They won't complete the task? Do you mean they will stop drawing it?

I've never said (gender) is genetically better than another. Nor am I saying gender roles are good, however there was this scientific study that was on PBS or something with very young children (before kindergarten). Draw the bike in front of them. Most female subjects drew little more than 2 circles for wheels, a seat and handlebars. The male subjects would draw tires, spokes, chains, treads on the tires, gears, brakes, and the smaller details.

Kids before kindergarten? Are these the same kids that draw people as stick figures? Just asking.

No offense, but if I called myself BIG MAMA GENERAL, would you believe everything I said about the military without asking for proof? Proof is good...it backs you up, and it furthers the discussion.


There is no proof that you would believe because it would support what I am saying, not your point of view. Go look up what happened to the first female navy fast jet pilot. (And for the record I can't stand swabbies). Apparently she couldn't tell the difference between the fantail bulkhead and the arrester wires. Good job for one of the top avaitrixes in the US.

In a way it's a shame, because woman - at least in some studies - seem to tolerate high g manuevers better than men. But tolerating high g is not the be all and end all of air combat, especially in light fighters.

This is one area where the brits lead the US. They at least realize that women have no place in air combat.

Like perhaps areas where men are disadvantaged....

I have a peeve in that area...

Maternity leave and parental leave. In Canada, maternity leave is 32 weeks, and parental is 20. If, for whatever reason, a couple decides that the man should stay home with the new child, he is only eligible for 20 weeks of parental leave. He can not use the maternity leave time. Now, when I had my daughters, I was up and around in a day (lucky me!), and I could have returned to work immediately. However, that would've meant my daughters could only have a parent home for 20 weeks instead of 52. That drives me nuts! Let's change it to 2 weeks Maternity leave, and if necessary, the woman can use the extended illness leave if she needs it without reducing the total leave if they decide the man should take it.

Funny, that's exactly what feminists say.



Knee-jerk response number, what, 4? 5?



Define child.

Not all feminists say that. Some advocate that women are superior.

There is no proof that you would believe because it would support what I am saying, not your point of view.
I am not closed-minded, nor do I automatically dismiss proof. However, considering proof or dismissing it is rather difficult when it is not presented. So....perhaps you would be so kind?

What do you mean They won't complete the task? Do you mean they will stop drawing it?

No they'll draw it, (it has to be from memory not by following a picture), but it will be hideously wrong. All the conecting members, i.e., the cross bar etc. will be in the wrong place. This is because thier brains cannot order spatial relationships. The problem magnifies when you go from a 2d test to a 3d test.

But don't take my word for it, try it a party sometime, the results are hillarious.

Not all feminists say that. Some advocate that women are superior.
Yes, and some men say men are superior. And some christians say they are superior, and some marxists say they are superior, and some dog trainers say they are superior and so on. Idiots abound in every group.

ha! I started a trend with my anti-feminism RP! God! I started my own little internet trend!


I'm so proud.


Hey! Hey!

I am desperate for attention!

I started the trend! Pay attention to me!




For reference in your debate, please see the thing that started it all.


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7944613#post7944613

If you like.


















Bahahaha!

I started a godamn internet trend! This is second only to sending MC Hammer back to popularity in the south side of town.

Second only to that.

ah, the general knows the experiment I'm talking about. We seem to be using the same example

This is one area where the brits lead the US. They at least realize that women have no place in air combat.

Again, the absolute fallacy of extending general trends to an entire population.

In truth, the vast majority of human beings do not meet the requirements to become a fighter pilot. By your logic (or, actually, lack thereof), human beings have no place in air combat.

Your argument only means that many, not all women would lack the spatial skills necessary.


Considering most men already lack the requisite spacial skills/intelligence to qualify as pilots, the number of women who can perform well in this role is almost infintesimal.

Yes there probably a few women out there who could make the grade, but the chances of them applying are virtually zero. If the tests were based solely on aptitude you would never see women fighter pilots.

Some of the ones you listed are unrelated. Homosexuals and hermaphrodites for example. Hermaphrodites (unless I'm wrong here) are people born with unspecified genitalia, while homosexuals prefer members of the same 'sex,' but with hermaphrodites and so on though it can get much more complicated.
Meh, I don't really remeber how transgenerists use hermaphrodite, but I am pretty sure they came up with a sociological definition. Homosexual can indeed be considered a gender aspect of society. For example, in my area of expertise, being a Japanophile, sodomy was a quite common practise in mediaeval Japan. It is highly unlikely that there were a greater percentage of biological homosexuals in Japan at that time, but it was a social concept, and thus became more common. It was similar in ancient Greece and Rome, if I recall.

XYY is fairly common. There was a study which showed that many prisoners were XYY, although I have seen some reports that the data was a bit skewed. XYY men have a tendency to be more aggressive.
Now that you mention it, I recall reading something about that a while ago.

Considering most men already lack the requisite spacial skills/intelligence to qualify as pilots, the number of women who can perform well in this role is almost infintesimal.

Yes there probably a few women out there who could make the grade, but the chances of them applying are virtually zero. If the tests were based solely on aptitude you would never see women fighter pilots.

Of course! Because women are stupid! I see now! Tell me more, oh great master!

Much like everything. I guarantee you there will be a person that is born with webbed toes, lives to be 80 and had AIDS. There will never be the probability of something to be absolute zero. There are some women born naturally better at doing certain tasks that males tend to be better at. Some men will have skills that exceed women's, contrary to what you would expect.

Thats the test in the US and UK as well, but in reality women still end up getting them 90% of the time. I cant say about Canada, but you may want to ask divorced people, because I dont doubt its the same.

I actually went through quite a custody battle with my ex.. I wanted joint custody, he wanted full custody, it was of course out of spite. I in the end got full custody because he was such an ass. However it was 50/50 at first. I was more than willing to agree to 50/50 as well. You can't let the court decide these things. You can't expect the court to parent for you. If the two people really love and care about their children they will work it out themselves with no court. That is what I wanted to do. However if you have one parent that is being an ass, that's what you get. I know a lot of single fathers. So, I don't think it's just a case of custody going to the mother these days.

General Curtis E Lemay, do you have a source for your claims?




Woman lack the spatial perception required to perform in air combat. A simple and well documented expertiment proves this. Ask a group of men and women to draw a bicycle from memory. Almost all the men, and almost non of the women will be able to complete this task. This is because woman do not have the necessary spatial and visual skills to do so. If you can't see how this relates to air combat - the ability to order and position things in space mentally - then you shouldn't be opining about it.
Maybe that is because men are more familar with bicycle's? Also, I'm no pilot, but the connection between ability to Draw and the ability to fly seems tenous at best. And yet again, we are talking about average's, not exceptions.




Funny how all those jobs women are more 'suited' for are lower paying than the ones men are 'suited' for. Hmmmmm....
I'm sure it is all a coincedence.


I would imagine that he's right though... "insensitive" or not (i hate political correctness... you can't tell the truth.. have to pussy-foot around everything for fear of offending someone), i would certainly tend to believe someone who has command experience in the military (assuming General LeMay was a general).
He's not the real Curtis Lemay

Yes, to the General...what exactly is your point with all these (as of yet, proofless) tidbits? Try to be succint and sum it up for us please.

ah, the general knows the experiment I'm talking about. We seem to be using the same example

Except that the General is talking about men and women, and not children.

I admit I have never seen a child's picture of a bicycle, drawn by a boy or a girl. But I have seen plenty of children's pictures of other things, and none of them were as detailed as the ones you cited.

In my experience, kindergarten children of either gender draw people as stick figures, houses as squares with a triangle on top, and cars as odd-shaped boxes with wheels. Why would bicycles be any different?

Actually, people, I found that site the General is referring to
Tada (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s686728.htm#transcript)

Of course! Because women are stupid! I see now! Tell me more, oh great master!

No because they lack the spatial skills. If air combat was about color or tast perception all fighter pilots would be women. (Or if it was about watching Oprah).

How many female NASCAR drivers have there been. (One and she sucked). Let me tell you, NASCAR would love to have a sucessful woman on the circuit, there just aren't any out there.

Likewise air combat.

Look, if I want a top flight novel about chick stuff, I'll ask a woman to write it. If a want a figher pilot I'll get a man. Don't blame me. Blame nature.

He's not the real Curtis Lemay

Ha ha ha. Nice.

Not all feminists say that. Some advocate that women are superior.




True that.




Damn you people! Lavish your attention upon me, damn you!

One of the major issues I'd like to deal with as a feminist (and a human being) is violence against women. Yes, men are faced with violence too, but it is generally at the hands of other men, not women. I feminism could achieve only one goal, I would want it to be: stop men on women violence (without of course simply reversing the trend).

No because they lack the spatial skills. If air combat was about color or tast perception all fighter pilots would be women. (Or if it was about watching Oprah).

What exactly is tast perception?

No because they lack the spatial skills. If air combat was about color or tast perception all fighter pilots would be women. (Or if it was about watching Oprah).

How many female NASCAR drivers have there been. (One and she sucked). Let me tell you, NASCAR would love to have a sucessful woman on the circuit, there just aren't any out there.

Likewise air combat.

Look, if I want a top flight novel about chick stuff, I'll ask a woman to write it. If a want a figher pilot I'll get a man. Don't blame me. Blame nature.


Yah! Blame nature!

Except that the General is talking about men and women, and not children.

I admit I have never seen a child's picture of a bicycle, drawn by a boy or a girl. But I have seen plenty of children's pictures of other things, and none of them were as detailed as the ones you cited.

In my experience, kindergarten children of either gender draw people as stick figures, houses as squares with a triangle on top, and cars as odd-shaped boxes with wheels. Why would bicycles be any different?


It works in the adult population too. Try it with a random sample sometime. I frequently do a cocktail parties, always with amusing results. Especially as the feminists get all pissy due to the more emotional nature of women (also making them unsuitable for air combat).

True that.




Damn you people! Lavish your attention upon me, damn you!
Either contribute to the conversation or go elsewhere.

Edit: please.

First off, I think the same tests and requirements should be given to both men and women. I believe in true equal rights. If a women can do as well as a man in flying a fighter, then let her. If a man can do the same thing, then he can.

But, about that test. I seem to remember doing a similar test in grade school. I <i>believe</i> that guys did draw better bikes than the girls. And yes, girls did ride bikes just as much as guys did(its a small country town). I say believe, because it was years and years ago, and I don't remember alot from back then. Except for Fraggle Rock. Fraggle Rock was awesome.

Actually, people, I found that site the General is referring to
Tada (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s686728.htm#transcript)

What does that have to do with drawing bicycles? Drawing isn't mentioned at all.

No because they lack the spatial skills. If air combat was about color or tast perception all fighter pilots would be women. (Or if it was about watching Oprah).

How many female NASCAR drivers have there been. (One and she sucked). Let me tell you, NASCAR would love to have a sucessful woman on the circuit, there just aren't any out there.

Likewise air combat.

Look, if I want a top flight novel about chick stuff, I'll ask a woman to write it. If a want a figher pilot I'll get a man. Don't blame me. Blame nature.

Go pound sand. Hehehe. I like that one.

It works in the adult population too. Try it with a random sample sometime. I frequently do a cocktail parties, always with amusing results. Especially as the feminists get all pissy due to the more emotional nature of women (also making them unsuitable for air combat).
Cocktail party experiments. Very scientific. Hey, I've noticed at parties that when you play Trivial Pursuit, men against women, the men usually win. Why? The men attribute it to all the tv they watch..does it make them smarter than women? No, just more up on trivia. Again, I ask you to state your point...what do you want to prove here, and does it have anything to do with feminism?

It works in the adult population too. Try it with a random sample sometime. I frequently do a cocktail parties, always with amusing results. Especially as the feminists get all pissy due to the more emotional nature of women (also making them unsuitable for air combat).

You have yet to provide a source, or account for the difference in familiarity in the study.



But, about that test. I seem to remember doing a similar test in grade school. I <i>believe</i> that guys did draw better bikes than the girls. And yes, girls did ride bikes just as much as guys did(its a small country town). I say believe, because it was years and years ago, and I don't remember alot from back then. Except for Fraggle Rock. Fraggle Rock was awesome.

I see. By the way, what is fraggle rock?

please, click edit, find in this page, type in "bicycle" without the quotes, and come back and post your findings. I believe it's the first thing that comes up

You have yet to provide a source, or account for the difference in familiarity in the study.
This is anecdotal evidence. Ask for scientific evidence, not a source.

It works in the adult population too. Try it with a random sample sometime. I frequently do a cocktail parties, always with amusing results. Especially as the feminists get all pissy due to the more emotional nature of women (also making them unsuitable for air combat).

Pissy? What does pissy sound like?

Anything like this?

"Women shouldn't vote. The bloodiest century in the human history, (the twentieth) also conicides with the rise in political power of women. Coincidence? I think not.

Also, look at the mess that society is in now because chicks have a say in things. The US has gone from being the greatest nation in the history of the world ever, to panty-waste central. I remember back in the nineties reading the newspaper in the diner during breakfast and I came across an article about how it in now desirable for men to "cry" about their feelings and realtionships and shit. I almost puked my steak and eggs up right then.

If you want to know whats wrong with the goddamned world just take a look at Oprah, and reflect that all her zombie viewers are allowed to vote.

Just asking.

I'm going to ponder a guess that our "General Curtis E Lemay" is between the ages of 12-15.. not to insult all kids that age.. but that's what I believe. That or some thing in his brain never matured. ;)

Considering most men already lack the requisite spacial skills/intelligence to qualify as pilots, the number of women who can perform well in this role is almost infintesimal.

If you wish to make a point, you are going to have to provide solid numbers and scientific proof here. I would be willing to bet that the number isn't as great as you think, especially now that the social bias that "X is a good subject for men and Y is a good subject for women" is not as institutionalized as it once was. Anyone can increase their spatial awareness.

Yes there probably a few women out there who could make the grade, but the chances of them applying are virtually zero. If the tests were based solely on aptitude you would never see women fighter pilots.

And just what are the tests based on then, oh mighty one? Do notice that there are a significant number of female astronauts - something much, much harder to get into.

It works in the adult population too. Try it with a random sample sometime. I frequently do a cocktail parties, always with amusing results. Especially as the feminists get all pissy due to the more emotional nature of women (also making them unsuitable for air combat).

Yes! because all women are exactly alike! My god! it's all falling in to place! What was I thinking that women are anywhere near our exalted level?

"X is a good subject for men and Y is a good subject for women"
Well, actually X is good for both men and women, though it is about twice as good for women as it is for men. Y is only good for men in most circumstances.

I'm going to ponder a guess that our "General Curtis E Lemay" is between the ages of 12-15.. not to insult all kids that age.. but that's what I believe. That or some thing in his brain never matured.

Let's try to keep this arguement away from people's ages.

Either contribute to the conversation or go elsewhere.

Edit: please.



My statement "True that" and my distribution of reference material was contributing to the conversation, thank you very much.






As for the comments on the general, well, when people have no good arguments, they often resort to low brow insults and the like, as was directed at him.

Something to think about, no?

I'm going to ponder a guess that our "General Curtis E Lemay" is between the ages of 12-15.. not to insult all kids that age.. but that's what I believe. That or some thing in his brain never matured. ;)



in other words, that's just cheap bullshit.

By the way Steph, nice to have you back...I guess the rumours of your demise were exaggerated:)

So far I haven't really seen any major arguments against feminism other than some feminists are extremists....I'm a bit surprised!

Let's try to keep this arguement away from people's ages.

It's relevant to maturity. I'm a parent, trust me I know..lol

Yes! because all women are exactly alike! My god! it's all falling in to place! What was I thinking that women are anywhere near our exalted level?
Well, to be fair, I think he does have a point. I can not remember the exact cases for this, but, neurologically speaking, men's brains actually do function better in certain areas than women's. Which makes perfect sense, since in tribal times, it was usually the men who went out and hunted and gathered, and the women who stayed back and took care of meals, clothing, and children. Tehrefore natural selection would've favoured women who were better at those functions and men who were better at their respective functions. I suspect that there is actually biological basis for the huge differences in female and male culture. Females are, typically, much more social and open than men, who tend to be more reticent and aloof. I am not trying to say ban women from being pilots, but I think that Gen might actually have a semi-valid point here.

Yes, to the General...what exactly is your point with all these (as of yet, proofless) tidbits? Try to be succint and sum it up for us please.

Yes, my point is, women shouldn't vote, because they don't vote rationally. As can be seen by the exisitence of female fighter pilots.

Just look at the state of society. The US was once the greates nation ever, something to be proud of. Its society was second to none (except for segregation, but that was mostly the fault of white southern women). Now I can't turn on the TV without wanting to be physically sick, and it all goes back to women getting the vote.

We have become a society of pantywaste. Jesus christ, we can't even absorb 1300 combat deaths in Iraq without excessive handwringing. Plus everything is about "dignity" and "diversity" and the goddamned children.

Look you may think a nation of left wing chocolate eating oboe players that spend their time reciting poetry about their feelings and crap is something to aspire to, but I don't. I want the old US back, where people had the "right stuff" and we went to the moon and shit like that.

And don't even get me started on the gun laws. Women again. How would you feel if men banned Oprah. (And vegetarinism and PETA - again the fault of women, for fucks sake they are only animals, not children).

It's embarrassing.

An undifferentiated mass of unthinking, unfeeling stem cells.

Sorry to get in on this thread so late but: Ding Ding correct answer!!

Seriously people do you really think that the 20th century is the bloodlyist because of women. Do you think that maybe gobalization has something to do with it? Or maybe Nukes? Oh wait I get it, women created those things along with the Nazis and Commies in their secret Antartic lair.

From a news article:
Mary Seeman, a psychiatry professor at the University of Toronto, sums it up this way: "Essentially, the biggest difference between male and female brain strategy is that males have better spatial skills. While men use hand-eye coordination, size estimates, graphs, et cetera, women tend to use words. Also, the more you practice hand-eye coordination -- and boys start this very early -- the better you get."

please, click edit, find in this page, type in "bicycle" without the quotes, and come back and post your findings. I believe it's the first thing that comes up



'iSebastian Kraemer: So there’s a curious gender division here that boys seem to be encouraged to find out how things work and girls are encouraged to find out how people work.

Narration: The girls may be able to build a tower, but, can they draw a bicycle? We asked twenty twelve year olds to give it a try. The results were surprising. Even the girls who rode bicycles were unable to draw them. The boys seemed to have a natural advantage.

Actually, I'm interested in this 'building a tower' bit. They say that girls were able to build a tower, but don't tell us anything more about that test. Why was it being left out? Why was being able to build something less important than being able to draw something?

Furthermore, why does this article refer to girls who are 'tomboys' (she’s being boisterous, refuses to wear a dress, she’s always off outside, disappearing up a tree, stuck at the bottom of a ditch as unfortunate victims of "Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia"? For something that's such a 'rare' condition, it sure seems to happen a lot.

Well, to be fair, I think he does have a point. I can not remember the exact cases for this, but, neurologically speaking, men's brains actually do function better in certain areas than women's. Which makes perfect sense, since in tribal times, it was usually the men who went out and hunted and gathered, and the women who stayed back and took care of meals, clothing, and children. Tehrefore natural selection would've favoured women who were better at those functions and men who were better at their respective functions. I suspect that there is actually biological basis for the huge differences in female and male culture. Females are, typically, much more social and open than men, who tend to be more reticent and aloof. I am not trying to say ban women from being pilots, but I think that Gen might actually have a semi-valid point here.

Notice the term "typically", which you are intelligent enough to use, but Gen has consistently left out.

Also remember that all of these traits exist along a spectrum. Women have tendencies to have brains developed more towards X and men towards Y. That doesn't mean that a thing, however, when you get onto th elevel of the individual.

'iSebastian Kraemer: So there’s a curious gender division here that boys seem to be encouraged to find out how things work and girls are encouraged to find out how people work.

Narration: The girls may be able to build a tower, but, can they draw a bicycle? We asked twenty twelve year olds to give it a try. The results were surprising. Even the girls who rode bicycles were unable to draw them. The boys seemed to have a natural advantage.

Actually, I'm interested in this 'building a tower' bit. They say that girls were able to build a tower, but don't tell us anything more about that test. Why was it being left out? Why was being able to build something less important than being able to draw something?

Furthermore, why does this article refer to girls who are 'tomboys' (she’s being boisterous, refuses to wear a dress, she’s always off outside, disappearing up a tree, stuck at the bottom of a ditch as unfortunate victims of "Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia"? For something that's such a 'rare' condition, it sure seems to happen a lot.

Not to mention that the numbers used/received are completely omitted. This site is far from scientific.

Yes, my point is, women shouldn't vote, because they don't vote rationally. As can be seen by the exisitence of female fighter pilots.

Just look at the state of society. The US was once the greates nation ever, something to be proud of. Its society was second to none (except for segregation, but that was mostly the fault of white southern women). Now I can't turn on the TV without wanting to be physically sick, and it all goes back to women getting the vote.

We have become a society of pantywaste. Jesus christ, we can't even absorb 1300 combat deaths in Iraq without excessive handwringing. Plus everything is about "dignity" and "diversity" and the goddamned children.

Look you may think a nation of left wing chocolate eating oboe players that spend their time reciting poetry about their feelings and crap is something to aspire to, but I don't. I want the old US back, where people had the "right stuff" and we went to the moon and shit like that.

And don't even get me started on the gun laws. Women again. How would you feel if men banned Oprah. (And vegetarinism and PETA - again the fault of women, for fucks sake they are only animals, not children).

It's embarrassing.

Oh no!!!! Not dreams. Not idealism. Oh no. Lets just stick to being Neanderthals, its better. That was we could beat peoples heads in with a rock and not be frowned upon. Yah lets go back to the good old stone age the way it used to be when we wore loincloths and raped captured women, so much better.

Actually, I'm interested in this 'building a tower' bit. They say that girls were able to build a tower, but don't tell us anything more about that test. Why was it being left out? Why was being able to build something less important than being able to draw something?

This was a TV news article deal, so if you never saw it, you will be missing many parts.

as for the boisterous, "tomboys" it was part of the test. To see if a tomboy has the same skills as a male, because "tomboys" are believed to produce more testosterone.

By the way Steph, nice to have you back...I guess the rumours of your demise were exaggerated:)

So far I haven't really seen any major arguments against feminism other than some feminists are extremists....I'm a bit surprised!


Me too.

I am the only one on this website.



http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7944613#post7944613


















I now realize I am much to late to join, and will stop disrupting your discussion.


Sorry about all that.

Yes, my point is, women shouldn't vote, because they don't vote rationally. As can be seen by the exisitence of female fighter pilots. *head spins*

Just look at the state of society. The US was once the greates nation ever, something to be proud of. Was this in the 40s, when you had most of the young men of the at war, with women at home doing twice the work and when you were dropping atom bombs on Japan? Was it in the late 30s, when your armed forces wern't among the 6th most powerful in the world? And when the economy was just bottoming out? Was it in the 20s, when liquor was banned and the mob had more power than the government? Was it further back, back in the time of slavery? Or back when you were wiping out the American Indians? Face it, despite all the problems of this age, American society today is at a high point.

Oh no!!!! Not dreams. Not idealism. Oh no. Lets just stick to being Neanderthals, its better. That was we could beat peoples heads in with a rock and not be frowned upon. Yah lets go back to the good old stone age the way it used to be when we wore loincloths and raped captured women, so much better.

sounds good.

I'm game.

And just what are the tests based on then, oh mighty one? Do notice that there are a significant number of female astronauts - something much, much harder to get into.

The test grew out of air combat/air gunnery aptitude test in WWII. The western allies eventually air supremacy, despite truncated training times is testament to the validity of the system (which is now considerably refined).

The gender "norming" that allows women to fly is a retrograde devolpment.

Female astronauts are mission specialists in general, not pilots, except for the likes of the Collins female, who was in any event window dressing.

Anyway, being an astonaut does not really require a high degree off air combat aptitude. A monkey could fly the shuttle, it's not a stick shift you know.

Yes, my point is, women shouldn't vote, because they don't vote rationally. As can be seen by the exisitence of female fighter pilots.
Now, look here. I was supporting you partially on the functions of women regarding things such as spatial perception, which is not even that dramatic a difference between men and women, but no-one's going to support you if you go on spouting sexist bullsh*t like this.

*head spins*

Was this in the 40s, when you had most of the young men of the at war, with women at home doing twice the work and when you were dropping atom bombs on Japan? Was it in the late 30s, when your armed forces wern't among the 6th most powerful in the world? And when the economy was just bottoming out? Was it in the 20s, when liquor was banned and the mob had more power than the government? Was it further back, back in the time of slavery? Or back when you were wiping out the American Indians? Face it, despite all the problems of this age, American society today is at a high point.



Mid seventies.

Now, look here. I was supporting you partially on the functions of women regarding things such as spatial perception, which is not even that dramatic a difference between men and women, but no-one's going to support you if you go on spouting sexist bullsh*t like this.

I think he's just going for shock value or to get attention.. :headbang:

*head spins*

Was this in the 40s, when you had most of the young men of the at war, with women at home doing twice the work and when you were dropping atom bombs on Japan? Was it in the late 30s, when your armed forces wern't among the 6th most powerful in the world? And when the economy was just bottoming out? Was it in the 20s, when liquor was banned and the mob had more power than the government? Was it further back, back in the time of slavery? Or back when you were wiping out the American Indians? Face it, despite all the problems of this age, American society today is at a high point.

All those problems you are referring to, were in large part, caused by womans sufferage, or the sufferage movement.

US society is falling apart. We just don't see it yet.

Female astronauts are mission specialists in general, not pilots, except for the likes of the Collins female, who was in any event window dressing.

Anyway, being an astonaut does not really require a high degree off air combat aptitude. A monkey could fly the shuttle, it's not a stick shift you know.

Holy shit, you are one mean ass, macho prick. Man, I read that and almost shit my pants with how blatantly evil these last few statements were. Window dressing, "...stick shift" GOOD JOB! :eek: :eek: :eek: Tears of Joy, that is so evil!

All those problems you are referring to, were in large part, caused by womans sufferage, or the sufferage movement.

US society is falling apart. We just don't see it yet.

Please look up the word "delusional" seriously, please!

Well, to be fair, I think he does have a point. I can not remember the exact cases for this, but, neurologically speaking, men's brains actually do function better in certain areas than women's. Which makes perfect sense, since in tribal times, it was usually the men who went out and hunted and gathered, and the women who stayed back and took care of meals, clothing, and children. Tehrefore natural selection would've favoured women who were better at those functions and men who were better at their respective functions. I suspect that there is actually biological basis for the huge differences in female and male culture. Females are, typically, much more social and open than men, who tend to be more reticent and aloof. I am not trying to say ban women from being pilots, but I think that Gen might actually have a semi-valid point here.

This sounds like a subject you yourself should put some research into, as it interests you, then perhaps YOU could provide some proof since the General seems unwilling to do so.

You fail to address the societally imposed cultural differences between males and females. Women in the west are being accepted into traditional 'male' jobs (slowly, but it is happening) and yet they are not allowed in other countries. Is this biology or culture? (Rhetorical) To what extent do you think science (as of yet unreferenced in this thread) should dictate what a woman or a man can or can't do?

I'm not gonna argue wheter one sex is better at something or not. I don't much care. What bothers me is that woman are able to demand special treatment. Many woman I know, if a man is ever more successful than them at anything, attributite it to sexism and are usually able to get some form of commendation. I'm not saying that most woman do it or even that a sizable amount do it. What I'm complaining about is that its even possible for a woman to use sexism as an excuse.

Mid seventies.
Fifty five years after sufferage?

All those problems you are referring to, were in large part, caused by womans sufferage, or the sufferage movement.

US society is falling apart. We just don't see it yet.
Even slavery and Native American genocide which occured decades and decades before?

Oh no!!!! Not dreams. Not idealism. Oh no. Lets just stick to being Neanderthals, its better. That was we could beat peoples heads in with a rock and not be frowned upon. Yah lets go back to the good old stone age the way it used to be when we wore loincloths and raped captured women, so much better.

Yes, lets vote on "dreams" and "idealism". The sine qua non of maturity is dealing with the universe as it is, not as we wish it to be.

More woman type thinking. :rolleyes:

Yes, my point is, women shouldn't vote, because they don't vote rationally. As can be seen by the exisitence of female fighter pilots.

You better be joking.

Just look at the state of society. The US was once the greates nation ever, something to be proud of. Its society was second to none (except for segregation, but that was mostly the fault of white southern women). Now I can't turn on the TV without wanting to be physically sick, and it all goes back to women getting the vote.

Yes, because that is all that changed between the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, i'm sure that women were the economic powerhouses of pre-civil war south. Also, Genocide, Oppresion, and World War are your idea of Great?

We have become a society of pantywaste. Jesus christ, we can't even absorb 1300 combat deaths in Iraq without excessive handwringing. Plus everything is about "dignity" and "diversity" and the goddamned children.

Yeah, who cares the Soldiers. They should just listen to orders and die when told to do so.( by the way, I'm being sarcastic). Oh, and screw the children. I mean what, there only the next generation.

Look you may think a nation of left wing chocolate eating oboe players that spend their time reciting poetry about their feelings and crap is something to aspire to, but I don't. I want the old US back, where people had the "right stuff" and we went to the moon and shit like that.
Yeah back in the day, when the Commanders of the U.S. armed forces compared it to the Al Capone, Racketeers and uses the Phrase "I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street"

Please look up the word "delusional" seriously, please!


Now see, this is what I am talking about. You have said many times that the US is a terrible evil place, in fact you think it is some form of theocracy. Did you change your mind?

This was a TV news article deal, so if you never saw it, you will be missing many parts.

as for the boisterous, "tomboys" it was part of the test. To see if a tomboy has the same skills as a male, because "tomboys" are believed to produce more testosterone.

It does say "Full Transcript".

Also, there's nothing particualarly scientific about implying that if a girl is a tomboy she must have a "very rare condition named CAH Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia".

As if there aren't millions of girls who are 'tomboys'. Geez. All 5 girls in my family were 'tomboys'. We didn't have CAH. We believe that it was an upbringing thing. In our chauvinist household, if we didn't constantly prove we could perform as well or better than our brothers, we were considered 'weak' or 'useless'. Thus, we tended to eschew all things 'sissy', since it didn't brought us derision instead of approval.

Feminism is crap. Men and women deserve equal rights, not women deserve more. What I hate most about the feminazis though is their support for the genocide known as abortion. I can't stand the fact that anyone wants to continue a holocaust of children.

Look up the meaning of the word "genocide" before you throw it around. I wouldn't go around calling everyone I didn't like a serial-killing homosexual if I didn't know what those words meant.

Fifty five years after sufferage?


Even slavery and Native American genocide which occured decades and decades before?

No, that was the fault of the Europeans.

Yes, my point is, women shouldn't vote, because they don't vote rationally. As can be seen by the exisitence of female fighter pilots.

Just look at the state of society. The US was once the greates nation ever, something to be proud of. Its society was second to none (except for segregation, but that was mostly the fault of white southern women). Now I can't turn on the TV without wanting to be physically sick, and it all goes back to women getting the vote.

We have become a society of pantywaste. Jesus christ, we can't even absorb 1300 combat deaths in Iraq without excessive handwringing. Plus everything is about "dignity" and "diversity" and the goddamned children.

Look you may think a nation of left wing chocolate eating oboe players that spend their time reciting poetry about their feelings and crap is something to aspire to, but I don't. I want the old US back, where people had the "right stuff" and we went to the moon and shit like that.

And don't even get me started on the gun laws. Women again. How would you feel if men banned Oprah. (And vegetarinism and PETA - again the fault of women, for fucks sake they are only animals, not children).

It's embarrassing.

So your points are:

1. Women shouldn't vote. They don't vote properly, based on how they fly.

2. Segregation was caused by white southern women.

3. Women are turning men into sissies.

4. Women hate guns, meat and animal abuse. Just. Women.

5. It's all because they got the vote.

This is fantastic! You have made my day...thanks for the satire, I am going to entertain my husband with it tonight!

Look you may think a nation of left wing chocolate eating oboe players that spend their time reciting poetry about their feelings and crap is something to aspire to, but I don't. I want the old US back, where people had the "right stuff" and we went to the moon and shit like that.
The moon, now what date did we go there? 1919 was it?

No, that too occured 49 years after women got the right to vote and gained the iron grip on society that they have to this day.

Now see, this is what I am talking about. You have said many times that the US is a terrible evil place, in fact you think it is some form of theocracy. Did you change your mind?

My view of the United States political situation at this moment in history is not only shared by women, but just as many men.

Stay on topic!

Yeah, who cares the Soldiers. They should just listen to orders and die when told to do so.( by the way, I'm being sarcastic). Oh, and screw the children. I mean what, there only the next generation.



It's called perspective. Something that women lack.

This sounds like a subject you yourself should put some research into, as it interests you, then perhaps YOU could provide some proof since the General seems unwilling to do so.
Eh, I would, but I don't really care all that much. I don't think that someone's sex should determine anything regarding profession. It should be based on skill and talent, et al., not sex. And it doesn't interest me all that much, what does interest me is pathogens and insects. Hells fecking yeah! What's more interesting than driver ants and filoviruses? Nothing!

No, that was the fault of the Europeans.
Just out of interest, is there anything which has been your fault? Or, the fault of white men? Or have you managed to pass the buck for every failing in history onto someone else?

Those damn europeans, forcing, simply forcing you to have slaves.

Yes, my point is, women shouldn't vote, because they don't vote rationally. As can be seen by the exisitence of female fighter pilots.

Just look at the state of society. The US was once the greates nation ever, something to be proud of. Its society was second to none (except for segregation, but that was mostly the fault of white southern women). Now I can't turn on the TV without wanting to be physically sick, and it all goes back to women getting the vote.

We have become a society of pantywaste. Jesus christ, we can't even absorb 1300 combat deaths in Iraq without excessive handwringing. Plus everything is about "dignity" and "diversity" and the goddamned children.

Look you may think a nation of left wing chocolate eating oboe players that spend their time reciting poetry about their feelings and crap is something to aspire to, but I don't. I want the old US back, where people had the "right stuff" and we went to the moon and shit like that.

And don't even get me started on the gun laws. Women again. How would you feel if men banned Oprah. (And vegetarinism and PETA - again the fault of women, for fucks sake they are only animals, not children).

It's embarrassing.
I assume your post is a joke, because nobody could really be that stupid.

So your points are:

1. Women shouldn't vote. They don't vote properly, based on how they fly.

2. Segregation was caused by white southern women.

3. Women are turning men into sissies.

4. Women hate guns, meat and animal abuse. Just. Women.

5. It's all because they got the vote.

This is fantastic! You have made my day...thanks for the satire, I am going to entertain my husband with it tonight!

Actually, my point is women shouldn't vote because they can't make good decisions. Evidence of this is that we now have female fighter pilots.

As for point four, some men do go along with this, but this is because they can't get a girlfriend so they are trying to impress chicks with their sensitivity.

Five pretty much sums it up.

It's called perspective. Something that women lack.

Wow, talk about bitter. Did your g/f dump you or some thing? I really do hope all joking aside that you're kidding. If not, I feel sorry for you. You won't go far in this world with this type of attitude. I promise you that!

Yeah back in the day, when the Commanders of the U.S. armed forces compared it to the Al Capone, Racketeers and uses the Phrase "I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street"

Smedley Butller was a pinko fifth columinst with a propensity to confabulate.

Just out of interest, is there anything which has been your fault? Or, the fault of white men? Or have you managed to pass the buck for every failing in history onto someone else?

Those damn europeans, forcing, simply forcing you to have slaves.

Of course men do bad things. That's why we have prisons and the death penalty. Nevertheless the influence of women voters has not been to the benefit of society.

Any way folks.. I suggest we stop feeding the troll. I know that is what I'm going to do. :cool:

I can die happy now, I just can't help it. That General has just totally made my day. This is so great. I can't do this anymore! I'll die laughing! Like I said last night with our tequila party: "I'm done"

Wow, talk about bitter. Did your g/f dump you or some thing? I really do hope all joking aside that you're kidding. If not, I feel sorry for you. You won't go far in this world with this type of attitude. I promise you that!
I'd have to agree, being a prick won't get one far in the world, unless one happens to be living in Saudi Arabia.

Also, as someone pointed out, The moon landing, the end of segregation, the victory over the nazi's and the Bolshevik, the invention of televisoin, penicillin, the digital computer and several other Major advancements.

Wow, talk about bitter. Did your g/f dump you or some thing? I really do hope all joking aside that you're kidding. If not, I feel sorry for you. You won't go far in this world with this type of attitude. I promise you that!

This is the type of emotional behavior I am talking about. You tell me to stay on topic, and then because you don't like what I say, you make up a failed romance for me and accuse me of being bitter.

Now is that rational?

Of course men do bad things. That's why we have prisons and the death penalty. Nevertheless the influence of women voters has not been to the benefit of society.
Can we just, I mean, just for a sense of perspective, can we name a few of the things that men have done down the years? We'll leave the whole America/European bit out, cos I'm assuming that you'll agree that prior to 1780, Amercans and Europeans were the same to all extents and purposes and the continentals only became the effeminate nancy boys that you perceive them as afterwards. So can we have two lists for the purposes of comparison, please?

Also, as someone pointed out, The moon landing, the end of segregation, the victory over the nazi's and the Bolshevik, the invention of televisoin, penicillin, the digital computer and several other Major advancements.

Don't make ahistorical claims. Christianity didn't destroy Roman society and all its benefits overnight. It's the same with womens sufferage, the effects are gradual but increasing.

Soon, the only thing on TV will be Oprah and the WE network.

Now is that rational?

There is nothing about you that I have seen in this thread that is rational actually. However, I'm done with you. I suggest others follow my lead, that would be rational.

Smedley Butller was a pinko fifth columinst with a propensity to confabulate.

I am quite certain that The United States Marine Corps did not allow either gays or Amnesiac's into it's membership in the early 20th century. I am also quite certain that they would not allow him to rise in rank to general.

This is the type of emotional behavior I am talking about. You tell me to stay on topic, and then because you don't like what I say, you make up a failed romance for me and accuse me of being bitter.

Now is that rational?
Well, quite frankly, unless there is some underlying reason for your deep seated resentment of women, then none of this is gonna be in any kind of perspective.

General LeMay
What do you think about dogs? (Canis Familiaris)

I agree with much of what you say though in some respects i think that you go a bit too far. I eat meat and am not in PETA but i couldn't imagine watching my dog die or feeling okay about it if someone were to kill or injure my dog purposefully. I'd want to tear them limb from limb.

In movies, i'd much rather see people get killed than dogs. Dogs are made for us -- they're loyal, protective, they don't talk back (much), they are affectionate and generally playful. I just want to know if you lump pets (in my case, dogs) with other animals.

Can we just, I mean, just for a sense of perspective, can we name a few of the things that men have done down the years? We'll leave the whole America/European bit out, cos I'm assuming that you'll agree that prior to 1780, Amercans and Europeans were the same to all extents and purposes and the continentals only became the effeminate nancy boys that you perceive them as afterwards. So can we have two lists for the purposes of comparison, please?

Societies which are run by men can, and have done bad things, however the infulence of women only makes things worse.

It was women, not men, through the white feathers campaign that encouraged the flower of British manhood to slaughter itself in the fields of flanders. I don't want those people, or their intellectual heirs, voting.

Don't make ahistorical claims. Christianity didn't destroy Roman society and all its benefits overnight. It's the same with womens sufferage, the effects are gradual but increasing.

Oh man, women's sufferage destroying society, jeez :D :D

Don't make ahistorical claims. Christianity didn't destroy Roman society and all its benefits overnight. It's the same with womens sufferage, the effects are gradual but increasing.
Uh, the cold war only ended 14 years ago.

General LeMay
What do you think about dogs? (Canis Familiaris)

I agree with much of what you say though in some respects i think that you go a bit too far. I eat meat and am not in PETA but i couldn't imagine watching my dog die or feeling okay about it if someone were to kill or injure my dog purposefully. I'd want to tear them limb from limb.

A fine hunting dog is valuable property. If someone killed or injured my dog purposefully you'd better believe I would put my boot in his (or her) ass.

But I'm not sentimental about it. At the end of the day you have to be able to shoot your own dog.

The test grew out of air combat/air gunnery aptitude test in WWII. The western allies eventually air supremacy, despite truncated training times is testament to the validity of the system (which is now considerably refined).

The gender "norming" that allows women to fly is a retrograde devolpment.

Provide proof that the requirements have been in any way changed to accomodate women.

1

Well, quite frankly, unless there is some underlying reason for your deep seated resentment of women, then none of this is gonna be in any kind of perspective.


I don't resent women. Actually I like them. They just shouldn't vote.

It was women, not men, through the white feathers campaign that encouraged the flower of British manhood to slaughter itself in the fields of flanders. I don't want those people, or their intellectual heirs, voting.

Ah, yet another bad thing that happened before women were given the right to vote.

Don't make ahistorical claims. Christianity didn't destroy Roman society and all its benefits overnight. It's the same with womens sufferage, the effects are gradual but increasing.

Soon, the only thing on TV will be Oprah and the WE network.
Well, I don't think anyone will deny that TV is appalling, but that's just capitalist democracy and the bottom line coming in to play. And, well, really, was it ever any better, or is it just nostalgia?

I maintain my statement before, that American society, despite its problems, is more or less at a high. Certainly there hasn't been any evidence of an 85 year decline (even a very slow decline) beginning with sufferage.

Ah, yet another bad thing that happened before women were given the right to vote.

But proof of their insidious influence, which has only been magnified by the right to vote.

Societies which are run by men can, and have done bad things, however the infulence of women only makes things worse.

It was women, not men, through the white feathers campaign that encouraged the flower of British manhood to slaughter itself in the fields of flanders. I don't want those people, or their intellectual heirs, voting.
WWI was a bit of a bust up and it led to WWII, which was even more of a bust up (although more righteous given the circumstances) however I don't see how you figure that women were responsible for it, unless you believe in a massive conspiracy involving the wife of every major world leader of the period.

Well, I don't think anyone will deny that TV is appalling, but that's just capitalist democracy and the bottom line coming in to play. And, well, really, was it ever any better, or is it just nostalgia?

I maintain my statement before, that American society, despite its problems, is more or less at a high. Certainly there hasn't been any evidence of an 85 year decline (even a very slow decline) beginning with sufferage.

Actually you point is well taken. Advertising targets women as they are more gulliable than men.

Funny, that's exactly what feminists say.



Knee-jerk response number, what, 4? 5?



Define child.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child


ok i just did, now what were you saying.

hehe... bear with me

Inscription on the Monument of a Newfoundland Dog -- Lord Byron


When some proud son of man returns to earth,

Unknown to glory, but upheld by birth,

The sculptor's art exhausts the pomp of woe,

And storied urns record who rest below:

When all is done, upon the tomb is seen,

Not what he was, but what he should have been:

But the poor dog, in life the firmest friend,

The first to welcome, foremost to defend,

Whose honest heart is still his master's own,

Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,

Unhonour'd falls, unnoticed all his worth,

Denied in heaven the soul he held on earth:

While man, vain insect! hopes to be forgiven,

And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man! thou feeble tenant of an hour,

Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power,

Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,

Degraded mass of animated dust!

Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,

Thy smiles hypocrisy, thy words deceit!

By nature vile, ennobled but by name,

Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.

Ye! who perchance behold this simple urn,

Pass on --- it honours none you wish to mourn:

To mark a friend's remains these stones arise;

I never knew but one, --- and here he lies.

WWI was a bit of a bust up and it led to WWII, which was even more of a bust up (although more righteous given the circumstances) however I don't see how you figure that women were responsible for it, unless you believe in a massive conspiracy involving the wife of every major world leader of the period.

Men voluteered to fight because women encouraged them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child

ok i just did, now what were you saying.

Actually, you proved my point.

hehe... bear with me

Inscription on the Monument of a Newfoundland Dog -- Lord Byron


When some proud son of man returns to earth,

Unknown to glory, but upheld by birth,

The sculptor's art exhausts the pomp of woe,

And storied urns record who rest below:

When all is done, upon the tomb is seen,

Not what he was, but what he should have been:

But the poor dog, in life the firmest friend,

The first to welcome, foremost to defend,

Whose honest heart is still his master's own,

Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,

Unhonour'd falls, unnoticed all his worth,

Denied in heaven the soul he held on earth:

While man, vain insect! hopes to be forgiven,

And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man! thou feeble tenant of an hour,

Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power,

Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,

Degraded mass of animated dust!

Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,

Thy smiles hypocrisy, thy words deceit!

By nature vile, ennobled but by name,

Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.

Ye! who perchance behold this simple urn,

Pass on --- it honours none you wish to mourn:

To mark a friend's remains these stones arise;

I never knew but one, --- and here he lies.


Byron was just trying to impress chicks.

But proof of their insidious influence, which has only been magnified by the right to vote.

Riigghht, World War I was so totally women's fault.

Perhaps I should respond.

I, myself am a male, however, I am not a feminist. Feminism is a load of crap. The thought that males are better then females, fake. The thought that females are better then males is as well untruthful. However if you want to think of as Women better then men, Women have two X chromosomes, we have one. Woman, and simply man. So, it's possible to think males are only half of what females are ^^; The women and men equality think hasn't gotten out of hand the, "men should be more like women" thing has. Both sexes are unique and therefore, should not try to be alike. And think about it, women must go through several problems WITH males beating them down.

Women must go through;

Menstruation
Childbirth
Sometimes Emotionally difficulties (Mood swings and so on)
According to some studies women are more likely to become overweight then men, therefore some women are more likely to have heart problems.
They're likely to be taken advantage of, or raped.

The sad thing is, most men don't to anything to help...



People continue to ask me;
Aren't you afraid women will take over the world?

The answer? No, I'm not. Women, like men have unique thoughts of their own therefore it would be just like men ruling the world,

I don't resent women. Actually I like them. They just shouldn't vote.
Or fly planes. Or spacecraft. Or do any job that a man should do.

Is it a barefoot and pregnant kind of attitude that you have there?


I don't think that any women exist in this time who are the things that you want them to be. The things (and I say things because the status to which you degrade them makes them far less than people) that you profess to like, do not exist. Devoid of drive, ambition, equality and intelligence, your women may as well be inflatable.

Men voluteered to fight because women encouraged them.
Bollocks did they. The ones who volunteered did it to escape factory life, and the rest were conscripted.

Byron was just trying to impress chicks.
I thought he was gay

The answer? No, I'm not. Women, like men have unique thoughts of their own therefore it would be just like men ruling the world,Except sexier. :D

This stuff is so freakin hilarious! I can't help it.
However, since people have brought up the whole XY stuff: Technically, the Y (male) chromosome is recessive, which technically means inferior to the X factor (female). Proof of this is heart attacks and shorter life expectancy.

Or fly planes. Or spacecraft. Or do any job that a man should do.

Is it a barefoot and pregnant kind of attitude that you have there?


I don't think that any women exist in this time who are the things that you want them to be. The things (and I say things because the status to which you degrade them makes them far less than people) that you profess to like, do not exist. Devoid of drive, ambition, equality and intelligence, your women may as well be inflatable.

I didn't say don't fly planes or fiddle around as astronauts. I said they shouldn't be involved in combat. And the fact that they air is evidence of the poor decision making skills women exercise when voting. Hence they shouldn't vote either.

I don't think kids should vote either. Doesn't mean I hate them

Hell, women should realize they just don't have what it takes for certian things. (Like voting).

For the record, I think men should be barred from certain activities too. Like elementary school teacher, because as we all know, those guys are micheal jacksons to a man.

Satisfied?

Except sexier.

Indeed.
But for now, I must be gone.

Except sexier. :D

Possibly. That would be nice though. I'm rather the type to judge a woman on tenderness and cooking ability. I Rely on sleep and get pretty angry when deprived of it, and I can't cook. My life pretty much depends of the MREs I get from work ^^; I guess I would have been a momma's boy if it weren't for the fact my mother died shortly after I was borne -Sigh- Life is so harsh -mopes-

Actually you point is well taken. Advertising targets women as they are more gulliable than men.


Riiiiiight all those car and alcohol ads featuring scantily clad women are aimed at women!

How could I have gotten it so wrong?

Feminism just came about so that the ugly chicks could succeed like the good looking ones.

And THAT, young man, is why you'll never get laid.

This stuff is so freakin hilarious! I can't help it.
However, since people have brought up the whole XY stuff: Technically, the Y (male) chromosome is recessive, which technically means inferior to the X factor (female). Proof of this is heart attacks and shorter life expectancy.
Although some say that women's hearts survive longer because of the cold, repressive conditions that they are preserved in. :D

Bollocks did they. The ones who volunteered did it to escape factory life, and the rest were conscripted.

What do you work for, minitrue?

Listen, your female history teacher may not have clued you in, but that's not how the New Armies were created. Also many professions, mining, skilled machinist (that's factory work FYI) were barred from armed service because of the need of the war industries.

The fear of white feathers was so huge, non-uniformed men had to adopt the wearing of "service" armbands to aviod being accused of cowardice in the street by the "gentler" sex.

Riiiiiight all those car and alcohol ads featuring scantily clad women are aimed at women!

How could I have gotten it so wrong?
LOL!!!!!!

Riiiiiight all those car and alcohol ads featuring scantily clad women are aimed at women!

How could I have gotten it so wrong?

Yes, because the women believe that by purchasing those products, it will make them more like bikini models. Women logic.

Go read an ad in popular mechanic, or Aviation news, if you want to see how advertising targeted at men works.

I said they shouldn't be involved in combat.

You should meet Linda, She'll prove you very, very, very wrong.

I didn't say don't fly planes or fiddle around as astronauts. I said they shouldn't be involved in combat. And the fact that they air is evidence of the poor decision making skills women exercise when voting. Hence they shouldn't vote either.

I don't think kids should vote either. Doesn't mean I hate them

Hell, women should realize they just don't have what it takes for certian things. (Like voting).

For the record, I think men should be barred from certain activities too. Like elementary school teacher, because as we all know, those guys are micheal jacksons to a man.Erm, okay.
Satisfied?
Really, really not even a little bit.

"Although some say that women's hearts survive longer because of the cold, repressive conditions that they are preserved in. "

Nice, sounds like me ex-girl, definitely :)

I didn't say don't fly planes or fiddle around as astronauts. I said they shouldn't be involved in combat. And the fact that they air is evidence of the poor decision making skills women exercise when voting. Hence they shouldn't vote either.

I don't think kids should vote either. Doesn't mean I hate them

Hell, women should realize they just don't have what it takes for certian things. (Like voting).

For the record, I think men should be barred from certain activities too. Like elementary school teacher, because as we all know, those guys are micheal jacksons to a man.I think I missed this bit of the debate. Why is it that female fighter pilots are evidence against equal voting rights?

Is the reason that you believe women are incapable of voting because they tend to vote left wing?

Schoolteachers are paedophiles? Wow, so the graffiti was true...

Yes, because the women believe that by purchasing those products, it will make them more like bikini models. Women logic.

no wait! I've got it now ---

Using scantily clad women to 'successfully' advertise to women is all part of the Gay agenda, encouraging women to become lesbians.

Or something like that.

Hey. It makes as much sense as Gen LeMay's theory.

What do you work for, minitrue?

Listen, your female history teacher may not have clued you in, but that's not how the New Armies were created. Also many professions, mining, skilled machinist (that's factory work FYI) were barred from armed service because of the need of the war industries.

The fear of white feathers was so huge, non-uniformed men had to adopt the wearing of "service" armbands to aviod being accused of cowardice in the street by the "gentler" sex.Yes, I'm the one here who's proposing a 1984 style existance.

Mining yes, but I know that women took over a lot of the skilled (less physically demanding) work in the factories, and they ended up doing it better than men (which I put down to commitment and drive for the war effort rather than any arguement about women being innately better)

Yes, because the women believe that by purchasing those products, it will make them more like bikini models. Women logic.
LOL!!

A further insight into the mind of Gen Curtis E LeMay and his opinions of women.

Yes, because the women believe that by purchasing those products, it will make them more like bikini models. Women logic.

So, the beer commericals that obviously say, "If you buy this beer, hot women with huge breasts will have sex with you" are for women. Hmm, I'm gonna watch these commercials from a different perspective now! :rolleyes: So it is all lesbian propaganda! Or maybe the commercials are saying "You, ugly girl with no breasts, can become one of these hot voluptious chicks by buying this intoxicating beverage!

So, the beer commericals that obviously say, "If you buy this beer, hot women with huge breasts will have sex with you" are for women. Hmm, I'm gonna watch these commercials from a different perspective now! :rolleyes: So it is all lesbian propaganda! Or maybe the commercials are saying "You, ugly girl with no breasts, can become one of these hot voluptious chicks by buying this intoxicating beverage!

That's pretty funny, But I think humans know better then to beleive such things. That's right, humans in general. Meaning, both genders.

Perhaps I should respond.

I, myself am a male, however, I am not a feminist. Feminism is a load of crap. The thought that males are better then females, fake. The thought that females are better then males is as well untruthful.

These statements are incompatible. If you really believe the latter two sentences, then you are a feminist.

Regarding Females getting the Vote:

Look at Nazi Germany. The Nazi government wanted a return to medieval Germany, and one of the most important agendas was the removal of women in political/civil positions and of course the removal of women suffrage. In a society where the man was supposedly dominant and woman repressed, look what happened.

Of course there were exceptions. There were the ultra-hard female nazis as there were peaceful un-nazi men. But this is a generalisation; seems to be the norm for this thread.

As for 'women not being able to make decisions due to lack of combat skills', that is one of the most assinine things I've heard in a long time. Put a soldier in the voting and I will not guarantee you, but give you a pretty safe assumption that the soldier will choose the party that has clogged the tv's more, that his mates approve of, and of course what his superiors do not order but insinutate would be best. That is because of the environment they are put in. I don't mean to say that this type of atmosphere is bad; it is well suited and indeed crafted for the battlefield.

You do not put war into a civil atmosphere. War is a combination of planning and snap decisions regarding total victory. It is only when the civil aspect interferes that there are rules in war. Otherwise, I assure you that Geneva Conventions and moral decency will go to hell. In the political field, you do not have the same luxury of simplicity. There are more underlying webs of complexity than in war.

so, do not put battlefield tactics into the political world. You'll just make an ass of yourself.

Regarding Females being Illogical to War:

Look at All Quiet on the Western Front (the novel, the movie I have not seen). Nowhere does it have ANY of the female sex encouraging the protagonist to continue the fight. It is the communal testosterone atmosphere of the men in the pub. And before saying 'the author doesnt know what he's talking about!' the author was a soldier during WW1 and wrote the story based on his experiences.

I have not researched the white feather thing you are talking about, but I will investigate this. However, I will draw from what I have read. Females do have the tendency to urge others into war more, at least in the past (not sure about the numbers today) because back then it was traditionally impossible for them to become soldiers, lest they cross dress (that already very difficult). So, to fulfil the patriotic duty they felt was their duty (a societal conditioning, I assure you, and clever political moves. Always encourage more soldiers by making them shamed to stay at home) they became bloodthirsty.

This is NOT a 'nature intended it' thing. It is simply because of the roles they were forced into.

It is to a large effect still here today. Most girls in my school would not even consider going to become a soldier. Why? Because society, through television, books, and teachers, along with the communal effect, deters them from it. I only thank god that it has stopped from deterring them from being in other fields. Seriously, most of the girls in my grade not only score higher than the guys, but understand issues better. The only ones that do not are the groupies, the make up before good sense idiots. And why is that? I'll tell you a secret: conditioning.

Look in books today, in television, even fan fiction; often the female will of COURse have a part in the heroics, but mostly minor compared to that of the male. If that was true in society then I guess all of us men would be super and swell and the women strong yet falling in love with us every time.

Oh, yeah, regarding about the men only being sensitive for attraction's sake...
That might be some part, but for some guys...many actually, this is a REAL thing. It might be unique and strange for you to hear, but there ARE straight guys who actually believe this, of gender equality and all this 'bullshit'. Do you know why? Morally decent people DO have a sense of fair play, and enlightened persons know bigotry when they see it. I believed in this stuff when I was still thinking women the spawn of all evil, and no, my mother did not do this to me; she had the stronger job of my parents.

I think that by growing up in an atmosphere where the man was not dominant, but held equal power with the woman, and in some places less for not actually giving a shit, I learned to disprove the popular myth that the woman stayed home. In fact, my mom not only had her job (and it is important, Marketing Director of Europe, Asia and Africa for a pharmaceutical company) but took care of the family. My father, as much as I love him, was often too absent-minded and often times irrational. I was amazed that other's mother's did not work.

since to judge discrimination you required a 'norm' and that norm is male even if a woman is smarter she gains an additional advantage


equality means merit

[QUOTE=Spoffin]?

Is the reason that you believe women are incapable of voting because they tend to vote left wing?

QUOTE]

in the UK woman vote right wing not left in almost every election

[QUOTE=Spoffin]?

Is the reason that you believe women are incapable of voting because they tend to vote left wing?

QUOTE]

in the UK woman vote right wing not left in almost every election

Oh yes is this true. Margaret Thatcher, Brit PM, first one and so far only one, was a hard right winger. She frightens the balls off men, anyone who meets her tends to feel afterward like they've been put in a meat grinder then wrung out and left to dry on barbed wire.

I dont know what my opinion on that quote is because it thoroughly confused me.

I do, however, know that feminism is the worst thought out movement. Well, at least in my opinion.

I am a woman and I damn well hate feminism.

There was a feminists back in like the 70s or something who fault for "lowering standards in sports" so that it was fair for both men and women.

Then she goes and talks about how women and men are equal in all aspects.

Come one people. Women and men are different. We are not equal. Yes we should get equal treatment and all but we are not the same.

Feminists. Gah.

So, have we finally beat the dead horse enough? :D

Obviously the initial quote in this thread is at least anti-feminist movement. It seems to be a “poor me” rant on the part of some sad sack with resentment issues. What else is there to say about it? As for the rest of this thread, however, here goes:As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh, who coined the term feminazi, I do agree with him here.Just an aside here, but I have said before and I say again, I dispute that any one person can be credited with the creation of this word. It's an easy perjorative term to create and I myself started using about 20 years ago without hearing it from anyone else. I am not claiming it, I am just sick of this Rush Limbaugh (whoever he is) being credited with it. From what I hear about him, it's probably beyond his creative capacity anyway ;) Women expect Men to: pay for dates/dinner/her 1000th pair of shoes/their new wardrobe, open the doors for them, and play stupid grab ass games with them. Nope/nope/nope/nope, I open the door for him most of the time, and men are just as prone to stupid games in a relationship. If you are seeing women like this all the time, then there is something wrong with your choice making ability. I have noticed in US media, though, that it seems that if a guy and a woman are dating, there is an expectation of sex in return for material goods and of material goods in return for sex. For instance - if dinner is bought then the one who pays expects something sexual from the other and if sexual favours are being granted then there is an expectation of a pretty bauble. Is this generally true? Note I did emphasise seems.Men do have lower life expectancies, higher suicide rates, and are less likely to seek medical help or therapy if they need it. Men are more likely to smoke and drink than women, although that gap has been closing in the last decade. Men do have lower life expectancies, true, but as for the rest - Men have just as many options for obtaining treatment as women. At least in Australia there are men’s health services, men’s health lines, men’s support lines – as many services now as there are for women or kids. It used not to be the case, but it is now. If they choose not to avail themselves of it, that's a choice not a discrimination problem. Men also have medical advantages too. For example, most heart research has been done on and for men. Women can have quite different symptoms of heart attack and die because they have not felt the (much promoted) pain in the left arm and so think they are not having an attack.Nope. Whatever a man can do a women can do just as well (well, except make retarded neanderthal statements like Gen. Bitter Because He Can't Get Laid, men are much better at that I sadly admit).You know you just shot yourself in the foot there, don't you? Women and men are equally good at being moronic. Let's leave it at that, shall we?More generally, a study by the pentagon revealed that intergrated units suffer far more man days lost due to sickness, have higher drop out rates, perform more poorly on objective based exercises and lower moral than male only units. I'm sure it is on the web if you look for it.Why don't you find it an post it? Then you'll have some back up instead of looking like a deluded fool.Go look up what happened to the first female navy fast jet pilot. (And for the record I can't stand swabbies). Apparently she couldn't tell the difference between the fantail bulkhead and the arrester wires. Good job for one of the top avaitrixes in the US.Sounds like she had inadequate training to me. Not that I am excusing this (which is appalling) but was she rushed through for publicity purposes? Obviously she at least, should be retrained. First off, I think the same tests and requirements should be given to both men and women. I believe in true equal rights. If a women can do as well as a man in flying a fighter, then let her. If a man can do the same thing, then he can.I agree with this. I am tired of people being given “equal rights” in the form of biased testing. It’s bullshit – all you get is the most PC person, not the best person.Yes, my point is, women shouldn't vote, because they don't vote rationally. As can be seen by the exisitence of female fighter pilots.None of the men I know could tell you much about the policies of the political parties in our last election other than the soundbites from the tv, whereas at least three women other than myself and I had frequent discussions about the policies and ramifications of voting for any of the various candidates. The men voted on soundbites and what they had always voted (regardless of changes in policy) The women voted according to the policies that suited them best. Which one sounds more rational to you?For the record, I think men should be barred from certain activities too. Like elementary school teacher, because as we all know, those guys are micheal jacksons to a man.So all men who teach children are paedophiles? I find that statement extremely offensive. It trivializes paedophillia and it demonises a group of men who are necessary to children’s development. Idiots like you are continually bemoaning the “feminisation” of boys while simultaneously denigrating one of the only groups of male role models that young boys have. Sheesh! Apart from everything else, my husband teaches kids martial arts. Are you accusing him of being a pedo? You really are young, aren’t you? Perhaps not physically, but definitely mentally.

I think that the problem here (in this discussion, that is) lies in perspective. The people who seem to be arguing against feminism are probably looking only at their immediate surroundings, which I am assuming are fairly comfortable by world standards (or they wouldn't be on the internet, they'd be trying to find food) In these societies, gender equality is a lot more significant than in other cultures and some women do seem to expect preferential treatment because they have a twat. Whereas the people who are arguing for feminism are looking at the bigger picture and glossing over their immediate surroundings (which, as I said, must be OK). In "developed countries" (I hate that term, but it gives a point of reference) I think women's rights tend to be roughly where they should be - equal to men's. We are not the same, we a different and complementary. But we should have equal access to opportunity. Not biased to either sex – EQUAL access. Obviously there are misogynists and man haters (interestingly I couldn't find a word that means "dislikes men" only people in general "misanthropist' and women :p ) in every society, but generally people can achieve regardless of gender. But globally women are in a bad way. Even in the aforementioned "developed countries" there is sex slavery and slave trading. Elsewhere it is far worse

I'm going to ponder a guess that our "General Curtis E Lemay" is between the ages of 12-15.. not to insult all kids that age.. but that's what I believe. That or some thing in his brain never matured. ;)
I hope when its revealed that hes really 11 you have the balls to admit you were wrong.

Feminism is crap. Men and women deserve equal rights, not women deserve more. What I hate most about the feminazis though is their support for the genocide known as abortion. I can't stand the fact that anyone wants to continue a holocaust of children.
1. look up the word feminism in the dictionary. it is the stance that the sexes are equal, not that women deserve more.
2. no one is killing children, silly.

Women expect Men to: pay for dates/dinner/her 1000th pair of shoes/their new wardrobe, open the doors for them, and play stupid grab ass games with them. I believe it can be summed up with this from the Almighty Maddox
Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#MARATHON)
actually, when attending a formal recently i came to realise why it is that men have traditionally held the doors for women.

as i walked through the snow and slush in my floor length dress, i had to hold it up in front of me, leaving my hands occupied when i arrived at a door. my boyfriend opened the door for me as i was unable to without shifting my dress around while still avoiding snow.

however, since i wear pants most of the time, this isn't an issue.

i would also like to point out that i don't expect my bf to hold the door for me, it's a matter of who gets to the door first, i also don't expect him to buy me anything for my wardrobe, nor do i expect him to pay for dinner.

you sir, are an idiot. as is maddox, but that's another matter entirely.

Higher SUCESSFUL suicide rates. That's because we use more fatal ways to knock ourselves off most of the time. Women try more often.
suicide attempts are cries for help.

women are more likely to ask for help than men. ask anyone who's been lost with a man who refuses to ask for directions to back that one up...

I'm sick of this crap too.

Bottom line, when you're finished using the toilet, male, female or other, you should put the seat and the cover down to avoid the spreading of germs and accidental dropping of things into the toilet.

Anyone too lazy to operate a toilet in the correct manner really shouldn't be worrying about if they are getting paid more or less than person X of either gender, 'cause you're about three bathroom breaks away from getting fired.

Now get out of my office!

I'm sick of this crap too.

Bottom line, when you're finished using the toilet, male, female or other, you should put the seat and the cover down after placing cling flim over the toilet to avoid the spreading of germs and accidental dropping of things into the toilet.

Anyone too lazy to operate a toilet in the correct manner really shouldn't be worrying about if they are getting paid more or less than person X of either gender, 'cause you're about three bathroom breaks away from getting fired.

Now get out of my office!
fixed.

Hahaha, that's mean.

What do you think about this quote?


The quote was very apt, there is no "Womens rights" movement or "Womens liberation" movement. It was all about turning women and men against each other.


Think about it, healthy families are necessary for a white child to become a healthy white adult, interrupt part of the equation (agitate wives against husbands) and the white child becomes a junkie white adult, a wigger white adult, a white trash white adult, a loser white adult, any number of things, but just not a healthy white adult.

Communism is a main driving force behind feminism for that simple reason, Communism hates the white race.



In a bit, I'll post some journal entries I had to do for my first semester of English (I got a 100% by the way on my journal).

Here, journal entry, by me. More to come.

The class discussion today was about Islam and the role of women in Islamic societies, it inevitably turned towards a general discussion on certain aspects of feminism. I believe it is known; at least it is now, that my personal view is that women should be feminine, not feminist. In the last few decades in the USA we have seen firsthand the disastrous consequences of the so-called “liberation” of women from the supposed “oppression” of the alleged “male dominated society”.

We have witnessed the gender war rage back and forth, the conflict ignited by Marxist indoctrination of the West’s women, allowed to occur because the complacency of the Western man. There have been over thirty million abortions in the United States since the 1970s, genocide on unparalleled proportions. How did this happen one might wonder? How this genocide occurred was unique and different from all previous genocides in that the intended victims were murdered by their own mothers, women who had been carefully fed a program of Marxist agitprop spoon-fed to them from day one by the mass media and popular culture.

The sort of Marxist lack of morality and ethics is something we don’t see in the Islamic nations, where the religious fervor and the deep-rooted religious values are openly hostile to any efforts of secularism and Marxism to covertly creep into their societies and popular culture. Islam has declared itself incompatible with feminism, which is nothing more than a corruption of natural gender roles anyway. In this regard Islam is superior to the so-called “Christian” West, a West which has long since fallen prey to the ideals of corruption, sapped from within by the decades of careful indoctrination of the youth into the new ideology of secularism meant to replace centuries of Christian religious tradition.

The greatest enemy of the West was not from without but rather from within. Under the guise of intellectual debate, the self-styled “enlightened” liberals of the day advanced the corrupt doctrines to the forefront of the issues that the media would report and run with. Scandalous tales and fables of male oppression became the rage of the day, as in the modern Islamic nations, all one hears about are how Muslim men brutalize their women, what fallacious trash is this? What sick and twisted agenda needs to literally invent stories to win their arguments?

As I listened to a Muslim cleric in Gaza speaking about women’s rights, he made it clear that women who are allowed to do as they wish by their husbands, they realize that their husbands simply don’t care enough about them to restrict their actions, and thus they realize that while it may at first seem pleasant to do as they wish, it pales in comparison to having a husband that cares enough about them to make sure they are well.

I suppose the main idea is that the Muslim world is not some draconian monster that wants to crash planes into buildings and beat women. Muslims are people, just like us, only they have not been subjected to the same Marxist propaganda as have we, and so their view of the world remains untainted, whilst we look at them through corrupted lenses and therefore so readily condemn them.

Here, another journal entry by me, more may come, still digging.


After having read both Gelareh Asayesh’s “Shrouded in Contradiction” and Sumbul Khan’s “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall”, and then subsequently discussing both of them in class, I have arrived at a few conclusions about Muslims and their treatment of women, and the feminist movement in general. I have decided that the politically correct view, the acceptable view, of the west, that the Muslims are backwards, is wrong, indeed not only are the Muslims not wrong but they are quite likely the only ones who are correct.

The Muslim world does not allow perversion, abomination, whoredom, and other morally disgusting practices to occur in their lands, and for this they are condemned, but why? In much of the Muslim world there is no debate about what is an acceptable manner of dress for a woman and what is not, the manner of dress is set and no room is left for lack of modesty.

We can clearly see from the massive number of teenage pregnancies and the tremendously high rate of VD, as compared to 4-5 decades ago, in the West, that our method of letting women choose their own clothing is quite superior in all regards to all others. This is utter crap (for lack of a better word), it is a lie, a fallacy, not even a half-truth but an outright lie! The western world cannot, and indeed must not proclaim moral superiority over the Muslim world.
So long as our women in the west are whoring around, and men are taking part in this, because it takes two to tango, we can never claim to be superior to a culture that teaches that women are not for sex and they are not to be leered at.

That is what the Muslim hejaab is about, protecting women from the leering looks of strange men in public. A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia stated that in the West, those who want women in the workplace, and in public in general, simply want easy access to leer and make advances towards them. The men don’t genuinely care if the women want to actually work or not, they just want easy access to harass them. This is why it becomes necessary for reasonable men to then take steps to assure women remain safe and their modesty protected.

The hejaab seems to mostly be about enforcing modesty so that women and men are protected. Men don’t have to deal with the distractions of women who might dress provocatively, and women don’t have to worry about looking their best for the public. After all, a woman in not married to the public, she is married to her husband, why should it matter how she looks to anybody except him? Why do women need to spend such a great portion of their time to look pleasing to men that are not their husband? This is what the hejaab is about, protecting women from the unwanted leers and advances of men in public.

Sounds like she had inadequate training to me. Not that I am excusing this (which is appalling) but was she rushed through for publicity purposes? Obviously she at least, should be retrained.


Oh she can't be retrained. She flew into the fantail. She's dead now.

But don't worry, she took her male RIO with her. (But hey, it's the first combat kill for an US female avaitrix.)

She also had better training than any of the other swabbies.


Also yes, men who teach elementary school are invariably pederasts. It's sad but true.

Also yes, men who teach elementary school are invariably pederasts. It's sad but true.
Pederasts?
I believe you mean paedophiles.
Would you care to actually try using proof?

Pederasts?
I believe you mean paedophiles.
Would you care to actually try using proof?
You might not want him to post proof dude, maybe he used to teach in elementary school.....

Pederasts?
I believe you mean paedophiles.
Would you care to actually try using proof?

Proof? It's self-evident clearly. Even primitive tribes recognize this. :rolleyes:

What do you think about this quote?
Anti-Feminist here, staunch Anti-Feminist.
Its crazy, I open doors for women, I stand when they enter a room, I still use the term LADY with respect, I will pull over to help a woman(yes even an ugly one), and I firmly believe that the gradual removal of women from the work force would drive wages back up tothe point where a single income could support a family--as currently due to the number of availble 'bodies' in the potential employee pool it is an employers market--if we begin removing those choices from employers they will be forced to provide a premium position or lose valuable employess( I also realize the same could be done by removing men from the pool--but then we have no experience with that, while we do have experience with limited female involvement in the work force). Now, please, tear my head off--I am a bastard and I know it.

What I don't understand is what do women not have now that men don't have (in a societal/political sense)? I mean men are the ones who are consripted during war,and are expected to provide for their family. I think feminism is just a product of people who are trapped in the past. Now we both have the same rights (and then some)

Oh she can't be retrained. She flew into the fantail. She's dead now.

But don't worry, she took her male RIO with her. (But hey, it's the first combat kill for an US female avaitrix.)

She also had better training than any of the other swabbies.


Also yes, men who teach elementary school are invariably pederasts. It's sad but true.
I have no problem with women not flying--but I wanted to be a teacher slappy and I am no shorteye.

I have no problem with women not flying--but I wanted to be a teacher slappy and I am no shorteye.

Do you want to teach elementary school?