NationStates Jolt Archive

Impressions then are meaningless. I would contend that its either a result of the particular actors/models being favored in movies and magazine covers.

And thus, the media is the agent of the 'peer pressure' conspiracy.

Impressions then are meaningless. I would contend that its either a result of the particular actors/models being favored in movies and magazine covers.
How is that a contention? ...you are supplying reasoning not an arguement for a statisticaly significant "ideal"

The basic point is changed quite a bit if you say *all*, rather than *most*.

*Most* men would not be as attracted to, say, Jeneane Garafolo as they would to, say, Denise Richards. That does not, in any way, suggest that there are not men who think the opposite.

*Most* men would not go looking for an A-cup girl, but that does not mean that there are no men who like small-breasted women.

In fact, I am firmly in the 'opposite' camp, on both matters.

Jeneane Garofolo is, in my opinion, FAR more attractive than Denise Richards - especially in "Mystery Men", "The Truth About Cats And Dogs" and "Romy and Michelle"... but one only has to look at the 'stars' that get daily websearches to find out who is more 'popular', generally... and it is more likely to be a Paris Hilton/Britney Spears 'type' than a Jeneane Garofolo 'type'.

Blondes are supposed to be more attractive because they tend to have lighter skin, lighter skin means that if you're sick, it will show more. If you've got darker hair and skin tone, then when you're ill, you can hide it. Not only that, but after childbirth, the hair and skin darken, if you have a blonder person, then it's preceived that they haven't gone through childbirth, thus would be younger and more fertile and all that.

As for the big hips thing, it's not a matter of the size of the hips so much as a hip to waist ratio. 1:0.7 is supposed to be ideal. Again, this implies proper health for childbearing and that a woman is young and fertile enough to produce offspring.

&c.

How is that a contention? ...you are supplying reasoning not an arguement for a statisticaly significant "ideal"

Because you wish to present your impression as fact. Which makes it meaningless because it is indeed an impression and is more likely to be wrong than it is to be correct.

Jeneane Garofolo is, in my opinion, FAR more attractive than Denise Richards - especially in "Mystery Men", "The Truth About Cats And Dogs" and "Romy and Michelle"... but one only has to look at the 'stars' that get daily websearches to find out who is more 'popular', generally... and it is more likely to be a Paris Hilton/Britney Spears 'type' than a Jeneane Garofolo 'type'.

Hehe, sounds like you and I share some of the same taste in women, when I'm looking. The funny thing is, my boyfriend and I share some of the same tastes as well (although he's attracted to me, and I don't find myself particularly attractive).

Because you wish to present your impression as fact. Which makes it meaningless because it is indeed an impression and is more likely to be wrong than it is to be correct.
I in no way tried to present it as fact ... in fact I worded it percicly so it would not be taken as such ... key things like saying "impression" IN the origional statement and then brainstorming from there

I am sorry if you dident understand that, I will endevor to make it more clear for you in the future

And thus, the media is the agent of the 'peer pressure' conspiracy.

Which so far it has not been shown that it has any notable affect on men's tastes. And if it were to be shown to have an affect on what men answer in polls it doesn't then necessarily translate to their actual desires because the polls could simply be corrupted by their particular favorite celebrity. And then only applies to whatever % of men decided to go with X hair color. And that percentage likely won’t be large enough, or concerned enough, about that particular hair color to allow it to control their choice in women.

Indeed the classical explanation for blonde being preferred, if it is, is explained via relative rarity.

The basic point is changed quite a bit if you say *all*, rather than *most*.

*Most* men would not be as attracted to, say, Jeneane Garafolo as they would to, say, Denise Richards. That does not, in any way, suggest that there are not men who think the opposite.

*Most* men would not go looking for an A-cup girl, but that does not mean that there are no men who like small-breasted women.

The basic point is changed not at all whether the world is all or if the word is most. Seeing as you apparently didn't read past the first sentence.

I in no way tried to present it as fact ... in fact I worded it percicly so it would not be taken as such ... key things like saying "impression" IN the origional statement and then brainstorming from there

I am sorry if you dident understand that, I will endevor to make it more clear for you in the future

Yes you used the word impression. And then proceeded in your next post to act as if your impression was correct. That makes it meaningless becuase no argument can be based upon your personal impression that is likely to be wrong.

Which so far it has not been shown that it has any notable affect on men's tastes. And if it were to be shown to have an affect on what men answer in polls it doesn't then necessarily translate to their actual desires because the polls could simply be corrupted by their particular favorite celebrity. And then only applies to whatever % of men decided to go with X hair color. And that percentage likely won’t be large enough, or concerned enough, about that particular hair color to allow it to control their choice in women.

Indeed the classical explanation for blonde being preferred, if it is, is explained via relative rarity.
Ok my turn to play devils advocate

Do you have any proof of that "rarity" especialy in light of the ability of being non natural blonds (you did not even bother to make it clear that it was your opinion ...yet you criticize me on it) not saying you are wrong but if we are to submit to bruden of proof ...

Yes you used the word impression. And then proceeded in your next post to act as if your impression was correct. That makes it meaningless becuase no argument can be based upon your personal impression that is likely to be wrong.
How is it likly to be wrong? (lack of upholding proof is not proof in falicy) ... again brainstorming off my impression ... natural lead in for the arguement and clearly bassed off that impression and opinion

but as you say lets not pollute the arguement

Why shouldent we ... a chunk of your arguement was based on your percieved use of that word , a very important word in a lot of these arguements .

A chunk of my argument is not based on it at all. Seeing as my argument is against the statements made back on page 5 (at 40 posts per page) regarding the perceived affect of the purported ideal physical beauty that girls going through puberty are exposed to. Which for that matter is virtually all girls.

A chunk of my argument is not based on it at all. Seeing as my argument is against the statements made back on page 5 (at 40 posts per page) regarding the perceived affect of the purported ideal physical beauty that girls going through puberty are exposed to. Which for that matter is virtually all girls.Sorry the quoted contended arguement not the whole of your arguement you were trying to disprove an absolute which we did not make ... I would call "all" an key word in your descriptor of an absolute

Ok my turn to play devils advocate

Do you have any proof of that "rarity" especialy in light of the ability of being non natural blonds (you did not even bother to make it clear that it was your opinion ...yet you criticize me on it) not saying you are wrong but if we are to submit to bruden of proof ...

Note the use of the words "the classical explination", not my explination. I personally contend that the reason for hair color preference is "whatever the hell it is" and don't much care what it is.

Note the use of the words "the classical explination", not my explination. I personally contend that the reason for hair color preference is "whatever the hell it is" and don't much care what it is.
Ok any proof that it is the "classical explination" or is it your opinion on the clasical explination :rolleyes: (this prooving proof can go as far as you want it too)

Sorry the quoted contended arguement not the whole of your arguement you were trying to disprove an absolute which we did not make ... I would call "all" an key word in your descriptor of an absolute

Let us pretend that it is a key word. It wouldn't matter much seeing as this entire thread is dealing with stereotypes and the use of the word 'all' would automatically be assumed the same as the word 'most.' Especially when it was being used interchangeably with the word 'most' in the post in question.

Sorry the quoted contended arguement

Is not dependnt on whether the word all or most is used. Period.

Is not dependnt on whether the word all or most is used. Period.
It is if you are arguing absolutes

Ok any proof that it is the "classical explination" or is it your opinion on the clasical explination :rolleyes: (this prooving proof can go as far as you want it too)

Other than that Humanity as a whole has tended throughout history to always find preferenace for rarity in almost all things? Hm.

Meanwhile it was offered as an alternative to the other suggested explination. Frankly I don't end up caring which is correct because I noted it doesn't end up mattering to me. The effect is to small because the personal taste varies far to much.

It is if you are arguing absolutes
:rolleyes:

Either get your ass in gear and realize that absolutes are not being argued or I will happily write this off as intention to incite and wander off to a different thread.

I doubt she thinks that, but lets face it, the media puts forth the impression that the ideal woman supposedly favoured by males is blonde, slightly tanned and has blue eyes and large breasts. Which is totally wrong, as I prefer dark hair, white skin, green eyes and medium/proportionate breasts.
Yeah, of course I meant by the media etc.

Fuck, I hate when people take my words out of context.

Without the common crazy enemy of Feminist Cat Women posting incendiary crap, this thread sucks!

Unfortunately yours is a view shared by enough people to mean that we still live in a world full of poverty,oppression and injustice. Hope that makes you happy :)


So believing that we should earn things is a negative character trait? If the guy gets into harvard because of affirmative action, did he get in on merit or as a quota filler? If you make inherently unequal people equal that is the true inequity. I had a friend that got into a prestigious college, when he went to finalize his scholarships he found out he got in cause he was black... except he wasn't, he'd accidentally bubbled the wrong race on his application, he only learned he got in as a quota after they found out he was white, the funny part was they could still use him to fulfill the quota.

I am a masculist. I long for the day when men are treated as equals to women. This does not mean that I am anti-feminist. Women deserve the same treatment in the workforce and everywhere else. But I look around and see the next generation being brought up in a world where men are sexist, macho pigs who are only one short evolutionairy step away from monkeys, where you cannot show weakness or emotion. Men cannot, by definition, be in abusive relationships unless they are the abuser. They cannot be abused mentally or physically, cannot be vicitms of rape. If the men who suffer from these kinds of situations, and there are more of them than we think, if they ever came forward, they would be condemned as weak and would be dispised by society. There are few role models for young boys, and an verwhelming number of Archie Bunkers and Al Bundys. Both feminists and masculists, women and men, should strive for a day when we are equal in every way. Women and men should help each other, not push eachother apart.

What do other people think? Am I the only masculist out there? Tell me your opinions, and give us all some hope for the future.
You're a feminist:)

Ok, masculist, whatever.

I agree. Completely. As a feminist.

I am very Male progressive. One of the biggest mistakes we made in the last century was allowing women to progress at the expense of men. Now I am not saying woman should not have progressed, only that we as men need to grow our nuts back
Um...how did women's progress come at the expense of men? Seriously. This whole idea of "if you let these people have rights, we'll lose ours" is a little silly. Like the idea that if women had the vote, it would 'cancel out' men's votes.

I am a masculist. I long for the day when men are treated as equals to women. This does not mean that I am anti-feminist. Women deserve the same treatment in the workforce and everywhere else.

What do other people think? Am I the only masculist out there? Tell me your opinions, and give us all some hope for the future.
i know this has already be pointed out, but i just can't help myself...

FEMINISM IS THE BELIEF IN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY FOR THE SEXES. FEMINISM DOES NOT MEAN GIVING WOMEN SPECIAL RIGHTS, MAKING WOMEN MORE POWERFUL, OPPRESSING MEN, BECOMING LESBIANS, DROWNING PUPPIES, EATING BABIES, OR EXPECTING EVERYBODY TO OPEN DOORS AND PICK UP CHECKS FOR YOU.

wow, ouch, talking in capslock makes my jaw hurt...

i know this has already be pointed out, but i just can't help myself...

FEMINISM IS THE BELIEF IN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY FOR THE SEXES. FEMINISM DOES NOT MEAN GIVING WOMEN SPECIAL RIGHTS, MAKING WOMEN MORE POWERFUL, OPPRESSING MEN, BECOMING LESBIANS, DROWNING PUPPIES, EATING BABIES, OR EXPECTING EVERYBODY TO OPEN DOORS AND PICK UP CHECKS FOR YOU.

wow, ouch, talking in capslock makes my jaw hurt...Thanks bottle. I get so sick of typing it...maybe I should just have this ready to copy and paste since it keeps coming up again and again.

Of course, say it until you're blue in the face and people will still argue it means women over men. *sigh*

i know this has already be pointed out, but i just can't help myself...

FEMINISM IS THE BELIEF IN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY FOR THE SEXES. FEMINISM DOES NOT MEAN GIVING WOMEN SPECIAL RIGHTS, MAKING WOMEN MORE POWERFUL, OPPRESSING MEN, BECOMING LESBIANS, DROWNING PUPPIES, EATING BABIES, OR EXPECTING EVERYBODY TO OPEN DOORS AND PICK UP CHECKS FOR YOU.

wow, ouch, talking in capslock makes my jaw hurt...

Yeah thats what it used to mean, and what it still should mean of course. Nowadays most people associate it with the women they lovingly refer to as feminazis. I suppose he made this thread to counteract that and maybe as a way to get back at a perceived unequal treatement of men in the media. Im sure this had been said before but reading 20 pages of the most ill informed thread on NS ? (and thats saying something), i dont think so.

Yeah thats what it used to mean, and what it still should mean of course. Nowadays most people associate it with the women they lovingly refer to as feminazis.
Most of whom do not exist (re HerPower). Feminazis are an extreme minority.

I for one don't plan to let a group of extremist (feminazis) or anyone else (anti-feminists) stop me from calling myself a feminist and have that mean EQUITY, not women over men.

Most of whom do not exist (re HerPower). Feminazis are an extreme minority.

I for one don't plan to let a group of extremist (feminazis) or anyone else (anti-feminists) stop me from calling myself a feminist and have that mean EQUITY, not women over men.

Well yeah, thats what i meant.

Thanks bottle. I get so sick of typing it...maybe I should just have this ready to copy and paste since it keeps coming up again and again.

Of course, say it until you're blue in the face and people will still argue it means women over men. *sigh*

I think people mistakingly believe that it's women that are portraying male stereotypes, but it's that there are all kinds of stereotypes on tv and some get complained about and thus not used. White males typically don't stage a rally over getting Archie Bunker or Al Bundy (by the way, Peg and Kelly Bundy were majorly exaggerated stereotypes as well) off the air. Like all rights, if the "oppressed" people don't care it won't change. I complain about shows like "The King of Queens" where the guy is an idiot, but I watch and laugh so I'm kind of why they do it. Positive stereotypes are frequently less funny. Remember the good old days when we had "The Cosby Show".

I think people mistakingly believe that it's women that are portraying male stereotypes, but it's that there are all kinds of stereotypes on tv and some get complained about and thus not used. White males typically don't stage a rally over getting Archie Bunker or Al Bundy (by the way, Peg and Kelly Bundy were majorly exaggerated stereotypes as well) off the air. Like all rights, if the "oppressed" people don't care it won't change. I complain about shows like "The King of Queens" where the guy is an idiot, but I watch and laugh so I'm kind of why they do it. Positive stereotypes are frequently less funny. Remember the good old days when we had "The Cosby Show".Thank you. Good point. It isn't as though feminists are running around trying to make men look like idiots. But they also aren't the only ones responsible for making sure those portrayals aren't as common as they are. Men need to complain about it too...but part of the male stereotype is the ability to 'laugh it off', and not care. Men need to break free of stereotypical (and sometimes harmful) gender roles too. Which is what feminists would like all genders to do.

Thank you. Good point. It isn't as though feminists are running around trying to make men look like idiots. But they also aren't the only ones responsible for making sure those portrayals aren't as common as they are. Men need to complain about it too...but part of the male stereotype is the ability to 'laugh it off', and not care. Men need to break free of stereotypical (and sometimes harmful) gender roles too. Which is what feminists would like all genders to do.

Its not always a stereotype, sometimes we just dont care. Easier to get annoyed by feminazis though.

Without the common crazy enemy of Feminist Cat Women posting incendiary crap, this thread sucks!

http://www.the-gateway.net/fun/thread-sucks-kid.jpg

Thank you. Good point. It isn't as though feminists are running around trying to make men look like idiots. But they also aren't the only ones responsible for making sure those portrayals aren't as common as they are. Men need to complain about it too...but part of the male stereotype is the ability to 'laugh it off', and not care. Men need to break free of stereotypical (and sometimes harmful) gender roles too. Which is what feminists would like all genders to do.

Personally I don't consider myself a feminist because I think the very name implies that I'm only concerned with the female pursuasion. I don't like lifting up any group on the shoulders of another group(not saying feminism does this). It was wrong when the black race did it to white people in northern africa thousands of years ago. It was wrong when white people did it to everyone hundreds of years ago. And it's wrong now when any group does it to any other group and it goes in pretty much every direction these days. Consider comedy in general to be an exception to the following: people should not ever be lauded for holding up negative stereotypes of an gender, race, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. We have a bit of a tendency to accept it when minorities voice their issues with a majority in a way that amounts to stereotype instead of just addressing the actual issues at hand. This is just as wrong as the KKK calling black people, niggers, or religious fanatics calling women going into or working at a clinic, whores. We should try to destroy negative stereotypes wherever possible.

Unless it's against rich people, go ahead and hang those bastards.

Ok my turn to play devils advocate

Do you have any proof of that "rarity" especialy in light of the ability of being non natural blonds (you did not even bother to make it clear that it was your opinion ...yet you criticize me on it) not saying you are wrong but if we are to submit to bruden of proof ...

The allele for blonde hair is recessive. This makes blond hair less common then most hair colours(not always the case, but there are less blonds). People are always attracted to what is rare, people just naturaly want what is hard to obtain.

Um...how did women's progress come at the expense of men? Seriously. This whole idea of "if you let these people have rights, we'll lose ours" is a little silly. Like the idea that if women had the vote, it would 'cancel out' men's votes.

Well first let me state that I am all for equal rights. However your argument is flawed. The more people voting the less influence each individual vote has, therefore women voting gave men voting less power. Also on another technical point most rights given take rights away, eg the equal pay matter takes away males right (not really a right but you see my point?) to be paid more for the same work... again I'm all for it, just pointing out the flaw in that argument.

The allele for blonde hair is recessive. This makes blond hair less common then most hair colours(not always the case, but there are less blonds). People are always attracted to what is rare, people just naturaly want what is hard to obtain.



Well first let me state that I am all for equal rights. However your argument is flawed. The more people voting the less influence each individual vote has, therefore women voting gave men voting less power. Also on another technical point most rights given take rights away, eg the equal pay matter takes away males right (not really a right but you see my point?) to be paid more for the same work... again I'm all for it, just pointing out the flaw in that argument.
Again I specificaly put in quotes todays abilities to bleach ones hair to any color of wish but I see your in nature arguement ... I was just rattling his chain anyways was not trying too hard with that one :p

Its all too easy in this politically correct world to use the -ist argument to avoid facing the truth.

Of course there are sexist and racist idiots out there who need to reevaluate their assessment of life, but just because you get passed up for a job may just be because you are a lazy, rubbish worker, not because of the colour of your skin or your gender. Im really sick of seeing people taking companies and people to court accusing them of -ist discrimination. Its cheap. :headbang:

Personally I don't consider myself a feminist because I think the very name implies that I'm only concerned with the female pursuasion.
Again, I refuse to change the name. I don't see the point. In a lot of cases, it is women's rights that I focus on, because still, in most parts of the world, women's rights are sorely neglected compared to men's. So I am very feminist in terms of international issues. HOWEVER, when it comes to my own country, or the industrialised west in general, I tend to talk more about gender equity meaning gender stereotypes. So, I am a feminist when it comes to female genital mutilation or honour killings. Absolutely I am focused on the women who are directly affected by this violence, a tad bit more than the children and men (who are also affected). Back at home, I fight harmful stereotypes that force men, women and transgendered people into gender roles. Gender equity here is more about attitudes now, I think. In other places in the world, it is still a lot more immediate.

So a feminist working for gender equity I will remain:).

Again, I refuse to change the name. I don't see the point. In a lot of cases, it is women's rights that I focus on, because still, in most parts of the world, women's rights are sorely neglected compared to men's. So I am very feminist in terms of international issues. HOWEVER, when it comes to my own country, or the industrialised west in general, I tend to talk more about gender equity meaning gender stereotypes. So, I am a feminist when it comes to female genital mutilation or honour killings. Absolutely I am focused on the women who are directly affected by this violence, a tad bit more than the children and men (who are also affected). Back at home, I fight harmful stereotypes that force men, women and transgendered people into gender roles. Gender equity here is more about attitudes now, I think. In other places in the world, it is still a lot more immediate.

So a feminist working for gender equity I will remain:).

We must also notice that Jocabia's direct relation of the term "feminist" to mean women can be construed as ruling out the idea that men can be feminine. Society has constructed plenty of gender roles for people of certain biological sexes, but that does not mean that everyone fits neatly into them. It is wrong to assume that "feminine" only applies to women.

Its all too easy in this politically correct world to use the -ist argument to avoid facing the truth.

Of course there are sexist and racist idiots out there who need to reevaluate their assessment of life, but just because you get passed up for a job may just be because you are a lazy, rubbish worker, not because of the colour of your skin or your gender. Im really sick of seeing people taking companies and people to court accusing them of -ist discrimination. Its cheap. :headbang:
Uh-huh. What about the people who actually ARE discriminated against? Hopefully you have enough faith in your judicial system or your human rights tribunals to see the difference between being fired for incompetence, and being fired for being of 'x' group. If you do not have that faith, I suggest you work to improve the system.

Getting passed up for a job, by the way, is about the hardest discrimination to prove before a human rights tribunal. Unless someone comes right out and says, "I'm not hiring you because you're black, chinese, female, handicapped etc" AND you manage to have a witness who will back you up, it isn't likely you'll be able to prove discrimination. Discrimination is an attitude, a way of thinking that affects one's actions. Changing those attitudes is key, but every once and a while, a little law needs to be there to provide some teeth on the issue.

We must also notice that Jocabia's direct relation of the term "feminist" to mean women can be construed as ruling out the idea that men can be feminine. Society has constructed plenty of gender roles for people of certain biological sexes, but that does not mean that everyone fits neatly into them. It is wrong to assume that "feminine" only applies to women.
That's the biggest problem I think people have with the term feminist. Men don't want to be called feminists, because as you said, the term is confused with feminine. I really admire men who challenge that stereotype and call themselves feminists, and aren't afraid to educate the ignorant as to what that term means. This whole thread, and the term masculist I think is a way to not seem, 'sissy' and still work for gender equity. It's ironic that someone who wants to work for gender equity would not be comfortable with the word feminist.

Some might say, well then, call yourself a masculist! Again, why? The term began as feminism, so why go and change it now? All you would be doing is bowing into the stereotype that terms considered 'feminine' are weak, and terms considered 'masculine' are strong. Our whole language is frought with gender flaws, but we work around them. I don't care what some feminazis (but more often than not, anti-feminists) have done to twist the meaning of feminism. To me, and to most feminists, male, female and transgendered, it means gender EQUITY. Period.

Edit: welcome back dem! i missed ya!

Edit: welcome back dem! i missed ya!

Thanks! I missed you guys (and gals hehe) too! =)

We must also notice that Jocabia's direct relation of the term "feminist" to mean women can be construed as ruling out the idea that men can be feminine. Society has constructed plenty of gender roles for people of certain biological sexes, but that does not mean that everyone fits neatly into them. It is wrong to assume that "feminine" only applies to women.

Feminine - of or relating to females.

There are other meanings but feminism is focused on bringing about equal rights for women. I don't think they intend or intended for those rights to be at the expense of men and I don't associate the term with anything bad other than it's focused on women's rights and not on equal rights for anyone and everyone, though, obviously, not against them.

I certainly wouldn't call myself anything as goofy as a masculist.

Feminine - of or relating to females.

The word "feminine" is used in common language to refer to certain traits and behaviors that society very wrongly attributes only to those of the female biological sex. What we must remember is that gender roles are a social construct. Some men are often more feminine (in the sense that the word is commonly used) than some women.

There are other meanings but feminism is focused on bringing about equal rights for women. I don't think they intend or intended for those rights to be at the expense of men and I don't associate the term with anything bad other than it's focused on women's rights and not on equal rights for anyone and everyone, though, obviously, not against them.

The problem is that you are wrong. It is impossible to work for gender equity without working for that for *all* genders.

Feminine - of or relating to females.

There are other meanings but feminism is focused on bringing about equal rights for women. I don't think they intend or intended for those rights to be at the expense of men and I don't associate the term with anything bad other than it's focused on women's rights and not on equal rights for anyone and everyone, though, obviously, not against them.

I certainly wouldn't call myself anything as goofy as a masculist.

No offense, but you can't go making up definitions for a word just because it has the same root as another. Feminism != feminine.

Again, here is the accepted, dictionary definition:
Main Entry: fem·i·nism

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Definition

the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state:

EQUALITY, EQUITY of the sexes. It began with women because women were the ones who were less equal of the sexes, and in much of the world, this is still the case (though certainly transgendered folks are more persecuted even than women). However, both of these definitions talk about all the sexes, not just focusing on women. By definition, feminism also believes that men and transgendered people should have the same rights, power and opportunities as WOMEN.

By the way, Jocabia, I know you are not against equity of the sexes, you're just not wild about the term feminism itself. So, we're just arguing semantics, but in this case I think it's important not to go changing things just because it 'feels' like a 'feminine only' word. Changing it would not be challenging gender stereotypes, it would be conforming to them.

That's the biggest problem I think people have with the term feminist. Men don't want to be called feminists, because as you said, the term is confused with feminine. I really admire men who challenge that stereotype and call themselves feminists, and aren't afraid to educate the ignorant as to what that term means. This whole thread, and the term masculist I think is a way to not seem, 'sissy' and still work for gender equity. It's ironic that someone who wants to work for gender equity would not be comfortable with the word feminist.

Some might say, well then, call yourself a masculist! Again, why? The term began as feminism, so why go and change it now? All you would be doing is bowing into the stereotype that terms considered 'feminine' are weak, and terms considered 'masculine' are strong. Our whole language is frought with gender flaws, but we work around them. I don't care what some feminazis (but more often than not, anti-feminists) have done to twist the meaning of feminism. To me, and to most feminists, male, female and transgendered, it means gender EQUITY. Period.

Edit: welcome back dem! i missed ya!

My problem with the term feminist is that feminism was directly focused on equal rights for women, thus the term. I am for equal rights for women, but I'm not focused on them. Nor are you. I don't think you're a feminist, either, in my opinion. I don't have a term for it, humanist, maybe.

I think you're really pressing when a man doesn't want to be called feminine. It's not because it's weak it's because he's a man and wants to be considered one. Calling a woman masculine isn't really kosher either, now is it? Is that because women hate to be seen as strong (assuming your association above of masculine = strong)? If anything I associate (probably wrongly) feminine with a lot of desirable qualities (caring, emotional, open, etc) and masculine with a lot of undesirable qualities (brash, brutish, crass, etc.). Come on, when you picture a masculine woman, you picture her grabbing her crotch and swearing and fighting, don't you? Come on, you can admit it. :p

No offense, but you can't go making up definitions for a word just because it has the same root as another. Feminism != feminine.

Again, here is the accepted, dictionary definition:




EQUALITY, EQUITY of the sexes. It began with women because women were the ones who were less equal of the sexes, and in much of the world, this is still the case (though certainly transgendered folks are more persecuted even than women). However, both of these definitions talk about all the sexes, not just focusing on women. By definition, feminism also believes that men and transgendered people should have the same rights, power and opportunities as WOMEN.

I didn't make up the definition of the word or define it all actually. I pointed to the root and I didn't make it up. You show two instances of a large feminist organization standing up for an instance where men's rights were being trampled in the first ten years of the feminist movement and I'll buy that it's about equality of the sexes and not specifically focused on women's equality. You can argue that for women to be equal, men must be too, but they were specifically focused on situations where women were being treated as less than equals. Hell, find me one instance in the first ten years of the feminist movement. Now, I know that feminism has since moved in two directions since then where a small, but vocal, minority is no longer really pushing for equality and where the majority are actually concerned with equal rights for both sexes, but neither was the focus of feminism when it first came into being.

My problem with the term feminist is that feminism was directly focused on equal rights for women, thus the term. I am for equal rights for women, but I'm not focused on them. Nor are you. I don't think you're a feminist, either, in my opinion. I don't have a term for it, humanist, maybe.
The problem with humanist is that it has radically different connotations that just equity of the sexes. No other terms really fit. Also, plenty of terms started out rather specifically. Soldier used to only mean men:).

I think you're really pressing when a man doesn't want to be called feminine. It's not because it's weak it's because he's a man and wants to be considered one. Calling a woman masculine isn't really kosher either, now is it? Is that because women hate to be seen as strong (assuming your association above of masculine = strong)? If anything I associate (probably wrongly) feminine with a lot of desirable qualities (caring, emotional, open, etc) and masculine with a lot of undesirable qualities (brash, brutish, crass, etc.). Come on, when you picture a masculine woman, you picture her grabbing her crotch and swearing and fighting, don't you? Come on, you can admit it. :p
Yes, that is how I might picture a 'masculine' woman. But now you admit...a 'feminine' man would probably be swishy and gay, right?

We have to call ourselves something...and I see all my politics through the lense of feminism. Racism? See it as a feminist. How? Well, a group that is discriminated against still has gender imbalances of power within itself, so even though the group as a whole is being disadvantaged, the women are usually MORE disadvantaged than the men. (and the children even more so...but to what extent probably differs based on their gender).

Now, that would never mean that I think a man should be 'put down' so that a woman could prosper. All the sexes should be able to get ahead without disadvantaging the others.

My problem with the term feminist is that feminism was directly focused on equal rights for women, thus the term. I am for equal rights for women, but I'm not focused on them. Nor are you. I don't think you're a feminist, either, in my opinion. I don't have a term for it, humanist, maybe.

"Christian" originally referred only to Jews who believed that Christ was the Messiah, but I don't object to using that term to describe myself now - as a person who has never been Jewish.

I think you're really pressing when a man doesn't want to be called feminine. It's not because it's weak it's because he's a man and wants to be considered one. Calling a woman masculine isn't really kosher either, now is it? Is that because women hate to be seen as strong (assuming your association above of masculine = strong)? If anything I associate (probably wrongly) feminine with a lot of desirable qualities (caring, emotional, open, etc) and masculine with a lot of undesirable qualities (brash, brutish, crass, etc.). Come on, when you picture a masculine woman, you picture her grabbing her crotch and swearing and fighting, don't you? Come on, you can admit it. :p

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling a man, woman, or transgendered person masculine or feminine. In truth, we all have some qualities of both.

I didn't make up the definition of the word or define it all actually. I pointed to the root and I didn't make it up. You show two instances of a large feminist organization standing up for an instance where men's rights were being trampled in the first ten years of the feminist movement and I'll buy that it's about equality of the sexes and not specifically focused on women's equality.
You would first have to give me an example of where men's rights were being trampled on IN FAVOUR of women's rights. I'll wait for your response.

You can argue that for women to be equal, men must be too, but they were specifically focused on situations where women were being treated as less than equals. Hell, find me one instance in the first ten years of the feminist movement. Now, I know that feminism has since moved in two directions since then where a small, but vocal, minority is no longer really pushing for equality and where the majority are actually concerned with equal rights for both sexes, but neither was the focus of feminism when it first came into being.
Of course it was focused on women first, because men were in power, and overall, had more opportunities than women did. Again, if you can show me where men are being disadvantaged in favour of women sometime since the beginning of feminism, I'd be quite surprised.

I can give you a modern day example of this though, and let you know first that it's an issue I take very seriously and have gotten into a lot of trouble over. A man can not take the time a woman gets for Maternity leave (32 weeks), even if she decides to go back to work immediately. He can only get Parental leave (20 weeks). This is blatant sexism.

But...that's really one of the only issues I've encountered where men are being discriminated against in favour of women.

You would first have to give me an example of where men's rights were being trampled on IN FAVOUR of women's rights. I'll wait for your response.


Of course it was focused on women first, because men were in power, and overall, had more opportunities than women did. Again, if you can show me where men are being disadvantaged in favour of women sometime since the beginning of feminism, I'd be quite surprised.

I can give you a modern day example of this though, and let you know first that it's an issue I take very seriously and have gotten into a lot of trouble over. A man can not take the time a woman gets for Maternity leave (32 weeks), even if she decides to go back to work immediately. He can only get Parental leave (20 weeks). This is blatant sexism.

But...that's really one of the only issues I've encountered where men are being discriminated against in favour of women.


I can with the quota hiring system(AA) ... but that was an issue with an application rather then the movement itself

You would first have to give me an example of where men's rights were being trampled on IN FAVOUR of women's rights. I'll wait for your response.


Of course it was focused on women first, because men were in power, and overall, had more opportunities than women did. Again, if you can show me where men are being disadvantaged in favour of women sometime since the beginning of feminism, I'd be quite surprised.

I can give you a modern day example of this though, and let you know first that it's an issue I take very seriously and have gotten into a lot of trouble over. A man can not take the time a woman gets for Maternity leave (32 weeks), even if she decides to go back to work immediately. He can only get Parental leave (20 weeks). This is blatant sexism.

But...that's really one of the only issues I've encountered where men are being discriminated against in favour of women.

As an example, how about custody rights of children. Rather than the courts giving custody of the child half the time to one parent, then half to the other, or just giving sole custody to one parent irrespective of gender, the woman almost invariably gets custody. There are a few organisations capaigning to get this changed in the UK, they're all men's groups.

As an example, how about custody rights of children. Rather than the courts giving custody of the child half the time to one parent, then half to the other, or just giving sole custody to one parent irrespective of gender, the woman almost invariably gets custody. There are a few organisations capaigning to get this changed in the UK, they're all men's groups.
Sorry, but this is one of those often-quoted, rarely substantiated claims. Find me some evidence first that this actually happens, because in the many discussions we've had on this forum on this same topic (of custody), so far I have only seen overwhelming evidence that the children's best interests supercede gender.

Edit: In fact, ask Whispering Legs about this, as a lawyer and a single father, I think he could enlighten you as to the process, at least in the US.

As an example, how about custody rights of children. Rather than the courts giving custody of the child half the time to one parent, then half to the other, or just giving sole custody to one parent irrespective of gender, the woman almost invariably gets custody. There are a few organisations capaigning to get this changed in the UK, they're all men's groups.

I'm not in the UK, but I speak out against similar trends in the US. A friend of mine actually ended up living with her father despite her mother getting custody. This was good, as he was a much better parent, but he never got child support and such since he didn't technically have custody.

I'm not in the UK, but I speak out against similar trends in the US. A friend of mine actually ended up living with her father despite her mother getting custody. This was good, as he was a much better parent, but he never got child support and such since he didn't technically have custody.
The courts can make mistakes, but how would you define a 'better parent'? Can you qualify the more 'loving' of the two? The court has to look at factors such as the children's wishes, but also weigh in income, ability to raise the child (so a female doctor working 90 hours a week probably isn't the best choice if the father has a job more conducive to child-rearing) and so on. Custody is not given based solely on gender.

Sorry, but this is one of those often-quoted, rarely substantiated claims. Find me some evidence first that this actually happens, because in the many discussions we've had on this forum on this same topic (of custody), so far I have only seen overwhelming evidence that the children's best interests supercede gender.

Edit: In fact, ask Whispering Legs about this, as a lawyer and a single father, I think he could enlighten you as to the process, at least in the US.

For the most part, they do - but I think there is till a big push "traditionally" that children should be with their mother unless she is completely unable to be a parent.

The courts can make mistakes, but how would you define a 'better parent'? Can you qualify the more 'loving' of the two? The court has to look at factors such as the children's wishes, but also weigh in income, ability to raise the child (so a female doctor working 90 hours a week probably isn't the best choice if the father has a job more conducive to child-rearing) and so on. Custody is not given based solely on gender.

The mother is bipolar and incredibly selfish - pretty much incapable of putting others' needs (like her childrens') in front of her own. I love her to death, but she never should have tried to be a parent - it just isn't in her.

Sorry, but this is one of those often-quoted, rarely substantiated claims. Find me some evidence first that this actually happens, because in the many discussions we've had on this forum on this same topic (of custody), so far I have only seen overwhelming evidence that the children's best interests supercede gender.

Edit: In fact, ask Whispering Legs about this, as a lawyer and a single father, I think he could enlighten you as to the process, at least in the US.
I just curious on this and started looking for some info


There are: 11,268,000 total U.S. custodial mothers and 2,907,000 total U.S. custodial fathers
--Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991

I dont have the newest cencus yet ... looking

also some intresting info here
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/stats.htm (they do a fairly good job at where they pull the stats from)

Push each other away?! I would never push a women away, can't have sex if they are pushed away.

For the most part, they do - but I think there is till a big push "traditionally" that children should be with their mother unless she is completely unable to be a parent.
Again I question that, but let's just say for a moment it is true. Why would that be? Gender roles still dictate that the man should be the main breadwinner (again, I'm talking stereotypes here) and so (traditionally), men would be working more dangerous or tiring jobs, with longer hours. The woman (traditionally) would be able to raise the children at home, with child support. However, this is not the case anymore, as many women are choosing careers as well. You take a couple, with children who decide to get divorced. The mother is a doctor working those crazy hours I mentioned. The father is a landscaper who has his own business and is home regularly for the kids. Who is going to get custody? Barring abuse or other outstanding circumstances, the man probably will.

The mother is bipolar and incredibly selfish - pretty much incapable of putting others' needs (like her childrens') in front of her own. I love her to death, but she never should have tried to be a parent - it just isn't in her.
Again, was the court able to determine this? Is she medically diagnosed as bipolar, and even if so, that does not necessarily mean she would be a bad mother. However, since I don't really know the details of the case, and since I'm no lawyer, I'm going to stay out of this example from now on:).

Again, was the court able to determine this? Is she medically diagnosed as bipolar, and even if so, that does not necessarily mean she would be a bad mother. However, since I don't really know the details of the case, and since I'm no lawyer, I'm going to stay out of this example from now on:).

The way I understand it, she was given custody of the children without the court really looking into anything. The father didn't want a big fight, so he didn't fight the decision.

I just curious on this and started looking for some info



The problem is, statistics don't tell you the whole story.

Of the 138 parents who were awarded sole custody, 91 percent were mothers and 9 percent were fathers.

Looking at these stats, and yours, it would seem that women are getting preferential treatment. But let's look at that. How many of the mothers were homemakers, and how many of the fathers were working jobs with extremely long hours? Mothers still tend to have a deeper relationship with their children than men do, and this is something that feminists want to change. Men should be bonding with their kids too. How many of the men were so stressed out from the divorce, or for whatever other reason did not WANT custody? I know many cases where the man just didn't feel capable of raising his kids, and opted for visitation rights rather than custody. Again, this is a problem we want to change.

Point being, the stats alone do not prove discrimination. There are societal factors at play here, just as there are in situations where men occupy an overwhelming majority of certain kinds of jobs, and women OTHER kinds of jobs. It isn't necessarily discrimination in the LAW, it is a problem with gender roles.

And yes, feminists are working damn hard to dispell the stereotypes and free all sexes from these gender roles.

The problem is, statistics don't tell you the whole story.



Looking at these stats, and yours, it would seem that women are getting preferential treatment. But let's look at that. How many of the mothers were homemakers, and how many of the fathers were working jobs with extremely long hours? Mothers still tend to have a deeper relationship with their children than men do, and this is something that feminists want to change. Men should be bonding with their kids too. How many of the men were so stressed out from the divorce, or for whatever other reason did not WANT custody? I know many cases where the man just didn't feel capable of raising his kids, and opted for visitation rights rather than custody. Again, this is a problem we want to change.

Point being, the stats alone do not prove discrimination. There are societal factors at play here, just as there are in situations where men occupy an overwhelming majority of certain kinds of jobs, and women OTHER kinds of jobs. It isn't necessarily discrimination in the LAW, it is a problem with gender roles.

And yes, feminists are working damn hard to dispell the stereotypes and free all sexes from these gender roles.

I understand

And that probably makes up part of the difference but I have a feeling this probably does not make up that big of difference ... not in the current world

The way I understand it, she was given custody of the children without the court really looking into anything. The father didn't want a big fight, so he didn't fight the decision.
While other fathers fight tooth and nail and get custody, even if it isn't in the best interests of the kids. You can't fault the courts for that...it happens in all kinds of cases. Those with more money, energy and stamina will often win. Sad, but true.

Edit: (which is why I want to do pro bono legal work in the future...stick it to those rich, aggressive bastards of ALL genders!:))

in 8 cases I know of personally, in 7 the mothers have custody and 4 fathers are still fighting, in one case she moves very often to keep him away and she has been arrested for prostitution, on the other hand he has remarried and has a lovely wife and another baby girl. in the other case the mother has 50% custody and suicidal tendancies, even having informed people that she will take the children with her.
I can only say from my experience the system is biased.

in 8 cases I know of personally, in 7 the mothers have custody and 4 fathers are still fighting, in one case she moves very often to keep him away and she has been arrested for prostitution, on the other hand he has remarried and has a lovely wife and another baby girl. in the other case the mother has 50% custody and suicidal tendancies, even having informed people that she will take the children with her.
I can only say from my experience the system is biased.
Yes yes, anecdotal evidence is always nice, but rarely useful. I can say that in my experience, men cheat on women more than the other way around. That doesn't make it true overall.

I understand

And that probably makes up part of the difference but I have a feeling this probably does not make up that big of difference ... not in the current world
Don't give up, my friend:). Just make sure you resist gender roles yourself, and you'll improve the world once person at a time. If you have kids, get to know them, feel confident taking care of them, love them and treat them with respect and respect their differences without forcing gender roles on them. I think a lot of parents are doing this, and it makes for a whole generation of people for whom gender roles are abstract and antiquated notions.

Don't give up, my friend:). Just make sure you resist gender roles yourself, and you'll improve the world once person at a time. If you have kids, get to know them, feel confident taking care of them, love them and treat them with respect and respect their differences without forcing gender roles on them. I think a lot of parents are doing this, and it makes for a whole generation of people for whom gender roles are abstract and antiquated notions.
No kids yet :) Dirt poor 22 year old collage studant double mastering ... I dont have time for these things you call kids :D

No kids yet :) Dirt poor 22 year old collage studant double mastering ... I dont have time for these things you call kids :D
Trust me...no one has time for them. Or money. But somehow folks still decide to go ahead with it!

Trust me...no one has time for them. Or money. But somehow folks still decide to go ahead with it!
True but I am working on overiding that impulse :p

Yes yes, anecdotal evidence is always nice, but rarely useful. I can say that in my experience, men cheat on women more than the other way around. That doesn't make it true overall.
I my experience more women cheat.
The numbers show more kids end up with thier mothers than fathers, not just in my experience where the fathers are as good a parent as the mother, but in national stats.
I am trying to show that these fathers were ruled against because they were the fathers.

The problem is, statistics don't tell you the whole story.

No, but we must be sure to consider them, and not discount them outright as being explained away. There are quite a few older people in the judiciary, with older views on gender roles.

True but I am working on overiding that impulse :p

And what an impulse it is. I don't know if it is psychology, hormones, or what, but every time I see a kid, I feel the urge to be pregnant. Intellectually I know I'm not at a place where I can do it yet, but I think I'm going to scare the hell out of my boyfriend when I get to the place in my life where I'm ready for kids.

And what an impulse it is. I don't know if it is psychology, hormones, or what, but every time I see a kid, I feel the urge to be pregnant. Intellectually I know I'm not at a place where I can do it yet, but I think I'm going to scare the hell out of my boyfriend when I get to the place in my life where I'm ready for kids.
The impulse to have sex at the drop of the hat even if protection dont happen to be around (and maybe should have been "situation" instead of impulse with what I was origionaly thinking)

No, but we must be sure to consider them, and not discount them outright as being explained away. There are quite a few older people in the judiciary, with older views on gender roles.
Mmhmm...indeed. But there are plenty who aren't. Again, unless you want to start breaking up the stats judge by judge, you aren't going to get a good picture here, and unless you can provide a law that states a bias, you can't prove the discrimination is in the courts themselves, and not just in the minds of the decision makers. That kind of discrimination is hard to fight, but feminists ARE fighting it. So again, this is an issue not with the laws themselves, but in attitudes, or the application of the laws (in some cases), and the stats themselves don't necessarily prove that discrimination even exists.

I my experience more women cheat.
The numbers show more kids end up with thier mothers than fathers, not just in my experience where the fathers are as good a parent as the mother, but in national stats.
I am trying to show that these fathers were ruled against because they were the fathers.
I understand that this is what you are trying to do. I am trying to show you why you can not possibly do that based solely on the statistics. Again, show me a law that discriminates against men in favour of women.

Mmhmm...indeed. But there are plenty who aren't. Again, unless you want to start breaking up the stats judge by judge, you aren't going to get a good picture here, and unless you can provide a law that states a bias, you can't prove the discrimination is in the courts themselves, and not just in the minds of the decision makers. That kind of discrimination is hard to fight, but feminists ARE fighting it. So again, this is an issue not with the laws themselves, but in attitudes, or the application of the laws (in some cases), and the stats themselves don't necessarily prove that discrimination even exists.
By Statistical theory you cant 100 percent prove ANYTHING with stats :D simple regression and Confidence levels only put it at a probability not a certianty

The impulse to have sex at the drop of the hat even if protection dont happen to be around (and maybe should have been "situation" instead of impulse with what I was origionaly thinking)

Oh. LOL. And here I was thinking I had actually found a guy with the same "baby impulse" that myself and several of my female friends have described.

The problem with humanist is that it has radically different connotations that just equity of the sexes. No other terms really fit. Also, plenty of terms started out rather specifically. Soldier used to only mean men:).


Yes, that is how I might picture a 'masculine' woman. But now you admit...a 'feminine' man would probably be swishy and gay, right?

We have to call ourselves something...and I see all my politics through the lense of feminism. Racism? See it as a feminist. How? Well, a group that is discriminated against still has gender imbalances of power within itself, so even though the group as a whole is being disadvantaged, the women are usually MORE disadvantaged than the men. (and the children even more so...but to what extent probably differs based on their gender).

Now, that would never mean that I think a man should be 'put down' so that a woman could prosper. All the sexes should be able to get ahead without disadvantaging the others.

It might have been that when the term soldier was coined all soldiers were men but that wasn't the point of the term. It was, as Dem pointed out, true that the initial Christians were Jews (in fact, Christ actually said in the bible that he was sent to convert Jews and only Jews. Oh, someone going to read that and go into a fit.). Also, I'd imagine by the time the term became an English word it there were a hell of a lot more than converted Jews. At any rate, Jew wasn't the point of the term, Christ was. The term Christian is a perfect example, because it was coined to mean follower of Christ and, thus used Christ as its root. Feminism used the root word feminine because it was focused on equal rights for women. It could have just as easily called womanism or something similar but someone somewhere decided feminism sounded better and it stuck for better or for worse. I prefer a term that is more gender neutral for the same reason why we don't call them firemen anymore, but instead, firefighters, et all.

By Statistical theory you cant 100 percent prove ANYTHING with stats :D simple regression and Confidence levels only put it at a probability not a certianty
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"....stats are only useful to a certain extent, and like all information, we need to be aware of the biases behind them. (including the way they are gathered)

Mmhmm...indeed. But there are plenty who aren't. Again, unless you want to start breaking up the stats judge by judge, you aren't going to get a good picture here, and unless you can provide a law that states a bias, you can't prove the discrimination is in the courts themselves, and not just in the minds of the decision makers. That kind of discrimination is hard to fight, but feminists ARE fighting it. So again, this is an issue not with the laws themselves, but in attitudes, or the application of the laws (in some cases), and the stats themselves don't necessarily prove that discrimination even exists.

I wasn't stating that we weren't fighting it, only that we can't sweep it under the rug and say "It just plain isn't happening!" It is the attitudes that we really must fight, because they are what the possible judicial "traditions" are based on.

I prefer a term that is more gender neutral for the same reason why we don't call them firemen anymore, but instead, firefighters, et all.
Then suggest a term:).

Oh. LOL. And here I was thinking I had actually found a guy with the same "baby impulse" that myself and several of my female friends have described.
Nope sorry not sure about having kids at all (I want kids but I am scared with my past how things will work out for them)

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"....stats are only useful to a certain extent, and like all information, we need to be aware of the biases behind them. (including the way they are gathered)
Gathering for any respectible survey can only be one way ... random and large (40 +) :D (I understand the issues ... networking is a statistics major in my collage ... I have 8 stats classes under my belt) :)

I wasn't stating that we weren't fighting it, only that we can't sweep it under the rug and say "It just plain isn't happening!" It is the attitudes that we really must fight, because they are what the possible judicial "traditions" are based on.
I know you weren't saying that. I threw it in so that someone didn't pounce and say, "well I haven't seen feminists marching to stop this bias against men" or something like that. Because it isn't enshrined in law, feminists attack the underlying stereotypes that influence gender discrimination, not the issue itself.

No one is saying it isn't happening. I'm saying, however, that I don't believe it is happening to a large extent because of bias (though I don't deny there are likely cases of this being the deciding factor), but RATHER because of gender roles themselves (men working long hours, not bonding as much with the kids and so on). This skews things in favour of the women, but that isn't necessarily the wrong decision. What is wrong is that there is still such a gender imbalance in terms of raising the children. Men will start to get custody more often, and on more even terms when childrearing becomes more evenly shared.

I'm not sure if that is clear enough....but I'll be back after lunch to pursue this very wonderful conversation:).

It might have been that when the term soldier was coined all soldiers were men but that wasn't the point of the term. It was, as Dem pointed out, true that the initial Christians were Jews (in fact, Christ actually said in the bible that he was sent to convert Jews and only Jews. Oh, someone going to read that and go into a fit.). Also, I'd imagine by the time the term became an English word it there were a hell of a lot more than converted Jews. At any rate, Jew wasn't the point of the term, Christ was. The term Christian is a perfect example, because it was coined to mean follower of Christ and, thus used Christ as its root. Feminism used the root word feminine because it was focused on equal rights for women. It could have just as easily called womanism or something similar but someone somewhere decided feminism sounded better and it stuck for better or for worse. I prefer a term that is more gender neutral for the same reason why we don't call them firemen anymore, but instead, firefighters, et all.

Fine, use a different term. It is the thought behind it that matters, not the particular term used for it.

If anything I associate (probably wrongly) feminine with a lot of desirable qualities (caring, emotional, open, etc) and masculine with a lot of undesirable qualities (brash, brutish, crass, etc.). Come on, when you picture a masculine woman, you picture her grabbing her crotch and swearing and fighting, don't you? Come on, you can admit it. :p
That's because with the help of the feminist movement, positive traits previously seen as masculine (assertive, confident, etc.) are now seen as unisex. However, traditionally feminine traits (caring, emotional, open, etc) are not really seen as unisex yet. A someone mentioned before, modern young men have learned (or rather, been conditioned [and i don't mean that negatively]) to be attracted to confident, assertive women. Men have not benefited from such a shift, as young women typically are not attracted to passive men.

Fine, use a different term. It is the thought behind it that matters, not the particular term used for it.
I'm still waiting for that alternative term:). One that isn't too clumsy and PC like "individual wishing gender equity for all genders".

That's because with the help of the feminist movement, positive traits previously seen as masculine (assertive, confident, etc.) are now seen as unisex. However, traditionally feminine traits (caring, emotional, open, etc) are not really seen as unisex yet. A someone mentioned before, modern young men have learned (or rather, been conditioned [and i don't mean that negatively]) to be attracted to confident, assertive women. Men have not benefited from such a shift, as young women typically are not attracted to passive men.
Depends on what you mean by passive. Passive, as in don't go out and start fights or passive as in totally dependent on mommy? Someone said this in another thread, but the extremes of either gender role are seen as undesireable. Overly agressive, promiscuous men are not really desireable either...

I think confidence IS attractive in all genders. Passivity does not necessarily mean a lack of confidence.

I'm still waiting for that alternative term:). One that isn't too clumsy and PC like "individual wishing gender equity for all genders".
Humanist even it its current deffinition seems fairly close

That's because with the help of the feminist movement, positive traits previously seen as masculine (assertive, confident, etc.) are now seen as unisex. However, traditionally feminine traits (caring, emotional, open, etc) are not really seen as unisex yet. A someone mentioned before, modern young men have learned (or rather, been conditioned [and i don't mean that negatively]) to be attracted to confident, assertive women. Men have not benefited from such a shift, as young women typically are not attracted to passive men.

I think the reason that some traits have become unisex is because they are equally likely to occur in men and women these days. I think when an equal portion of women start grabbing their crotches, spitting and fighting then those will be considered unisex as well. Ignore caring because I shouldn't have said that, but when an equal portion of men start becoming the primary caregiver to children (a shift I believe is occurring), begin sharing on an emotional level and begin driving badly (sorry, I couldn't resist) then those will begin to be considered unisex traits.

You missed a step in your assertion. I assume you were trying to say that men are being conditioned to be passive and this is why we have not benefitted from the shift. Women become more assertive and confident does not directly translate to men becoming more passive, if that's what you were trying to say. I think you'd have to show where societally we are encouraging men to be passive before people would agree with the assertion. I think that we are conditioning or would like to condition women to be more confident and assertive and I think most people would let that assertion go.

Then suggest a term:).

Damn!

Equality Advocates?

Fairness Inducists?

Jocabians?

Humanist even it its current deffinition seems fairly close
Aye, but there is the connotation that humanists are all secular, and frankly, it doesn't focus on gender issues, but rather a wide range of human values. I am anti-racist, I am anti-poverty, I am pro-human rights and all that...but I look at all these issues through the lens of gender, once because I am a gendered being, and two, because the power imbalances between genders within these issues is DIFFERENT, creating a dynamic that gets lost in simply humanism or humanitarianism.

Aye, but there is the connotation that humanists are all secular, and frankly, it doesn't focus on gender issues, but rather a wide range of human values. I am anti-racist, I am anti-poverty, I am pro-human rights and all that...but I look at all these issues through the lens of gender, once because I am a gendered being, and two, because the power imbalances between genders within these issues is DIFFERENT, creating a dynamic that gets lost in simply humanism or humanitarianism.
So humanist is a broader term ... it does not make it incorrect :fluffle:

Damn!

Equality Advocates?

Fairness Inducists?

Jocabians?
Hehehee...but seriously...even just labelling us as equitists, you only broaden the spectrum to include all issues humans face. When someone asks what you drive, do you say, "a vehicle"? Is that specific enough? Does that give the information the person was looking for? Our language can be as specific or vague as we wish. When I deal with poverty issues, I do so within a framework of gender, race, economic and civil status, and other various factors, but at the heart of the issue, I'm still looking at poverty. The same goes with gender.

So humanist is a broader term ... it does not make it incorrect :fluffle:
Yes it does. Just as calling myself a bipedal mammal doesn't necessarily give you much information about species.

Hehehee...but seriously...even just labelling us as equitists, you only broaden the spectrum to include all issues humans face. When someone asks what you drive, do you say, "a vehicle"? Is that specific enough? Does that give the information the person was looking for? Our language can be as specific or vague as we wish. When I deal with poverty issues, I do so within a framework of gender, race, economic and civil status, and other various factors, but at the heart of the issue, I'm still looking at poverty. The same goes with gender.
but you are working on opening the deffinition of feminism up to all genders ... who is to say that is not turning it into "a vehicle" as well?

but you are working on opening the deffinition of feminism up to all genders ... who is to say that is not turning it into "a vehicle" as well?
I do:). Because the definition of feminism says equity between the sexes. Not just between men and women, but the sexes. We don't need to change the definition to include transgendered people, because the definition doesn't limit us to male and female only.

Edit: (and it's not like there are a million different sexes out there...though it certainly does vary from the traditionally recognised 2)

I am the American Tough Guy. My motto is Patriotism, Chauvinism and the Strenuous Life.

Women who desire metrosexuals and other types of girly men do so out of ignorance. When faced with a real man, they respond first with anger. The same way a hungry kitten hisses at it's new owner. Later the first flickers of desire for a real man begins, she eases her guard...expressing not anger but annoyance with his machismo. She then tries to bond with the (insert any country) Tough Guy through competitive play. A grudging admiration quickly turns into a rapture of femininity. True joy cannot be found in the weak arms of a male who claims to be not that much different than a girl.

Depends on what you mean by passive. Passive, as in don't go out and start fights or passive as in totally dependent on mommy?

I don't see how passivity is related to mommy. That's dependence you're thinking of. I mean for example that men who are loud tend to be more successful with women than relatively quiet men.

You missed a step in your assertion. I assume you were trying to say that men are being conditioned to be passive and this is why we have not benefitted from the shift.
No I was not saying that.

I don't see how passivity is related to mommy. That's dependence you're thinking of. I mean for example that men who are loud tend to be more successful with women than relatively quiet men.
Hmmmm...not in my experience...loud men tend to annoy women I know. But there's loud, and there's LOUD, so it's hard to say which one you mean:). Again, I think it goes back to confidence (not arrogance). Confident people are attractive. Self-conscious people with low self-esteems are not...or at least, only to those who want to be abusive in their relationships.

I am the American Tough Guy. My motto is Patriotism, Chauvinism and the Strenuous Life.

Women who desire metrosexuals and other types of girly men do so out of ignorance. When faced with a real man, they respond first with anger. The same way a hungry kitten hisses at it's new owner. Later the first flickers of desire for a real man begins, she eases her guard...expressing not anger but annoyance with his machismo. She then tries to bond with the (insert any country) Tough Guy through competitive play. A grudging admiration quickly turns into a rapture of femininity. True joy cannot be found in the weak arms of a male who claims to be not that much different than a girl.
Beautiful! I'll take it as satire whether it is or not!

Is it just me or are their very few examples of individual instances of people who are a victim of stereotyping. Maybe I'm not very observent but when I'm going about my daily business very few women confront me about being a "stereotypical man".

I think people really need to focus more on their own lives instead of being all concerned about how society feels about them or their country. Our daily lives and relationships in the present are what really matters, not what people on forums feel or what the media says, or what Men are from Mars Women are from Venus says. You want to be from Mars? Fine. You want to be from Venus, that's fine too? Why shouldn't it be and who's to tell you otherwise?

For crissakes people! Even if Life isn't too short, *enjoy it*! Stop getting all riled up just because so and so said such and such and the next time you do, look in the mirror and ask the person who matters "IS IT TRUE?"

And if it is ask "DO I CARE?"

If the answer is yes to both, do something about it. If the answer is no to either, screw the people who said so and just be you! Enjoy your life! It's the people who confront you about you who are having the issue not you! You'll resolve your own issues on your own time! Thank them for their concern and then tell them that you'll handle it!

but you are working on opening the deffinition of feminism up to all genders ... who is to say that is not turning it into "a vehicle" as well?

Right. And if specific words breed a view of dealing with specific values, isn't it logical that feminism deals with feminine values? Wouldn't you be better saying, let's say, gender equitist as this would be general enough to actually represent what you desire it to mean and specific enough to not include other issues?

Right. And if specific words breed a view of dealing with specific values, isn't it logical that feminism deals with feminine values? Wouldn't you be better saying, let's say, gender equitist as this would be general enough to actually represent what you desire it to mean and specific enough to not include other issues?
What are feminine values?

Gender equitist...yeah sure, whatever. Good enough. Problem is, people with think you are being ridiculously PC, and get all confused:). Eventually it might be in vogue, but until then, I'll keep using feminism.

What are feminine values?

Gender equitist...yeah sure, whatever. Good enough. Problem is, people with think you are being ridiculously PC, and get all confused:). Eventually it might be in vogue, but until then, I'll keep using feminism.

Yeah, forget I said feminine values. I was trying to read a proposal and reply at the same time. I meant to say female equality. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Oh, and what if I want to call myself a feminist meaning seeking equality for women and only that. Are you my cadillac branding by making synomous with car (assuming vehicle = equitist and car = gender equitist).

What are feminine values?

Gender equitist...yeah sure, whatever. Good enough. Problem is, people with think you are being ridiculously PC, and get all confused:). Eventually it might be in vogue, but until then, I'll keep using feminism.

By the by, I was just kidding. I don't like to be considered part of any particular group. I'm me, defined as person behind the Jocabia name. Gender equitist is ridculously PC and that's why I chose it. People like labels because it's easier than actually considering what people believe.

EDIT: Oh, and, hey, thanks for not showing up to the personal freedoms thread. I created it mostly to further hash out what we started on your other thread.

Yeah, forget I said feminine values. I was trying to read a proposal and reply at the same time. I meant to say female equality. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Oh, and what if I want to call myself a feminist meaning seeking equality for women and only that. Are you my cadillac branding by making synomous with car (assuming vehicle = equitist and car = gender equitist).
Well, I suppose there are women out there who call themselves feminists and mean women first, men last. There are people out there calling themselves Chrisitans or Muslims or whatever that stretch and twist and destroy the basic value systems of the beliefs they claim to hold. Again, I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because some people are fanatics. Feminism is a workeable, recognizable, and adequate word until another one becomes more common. Doesn't matter if I call myself a snappydigaligist, I'd still be fighting for gender equity, but I'd be doing a lot of explaining that might get tiresome:).

Ok...enough semantics.

Ah, whatever, I'm always up for some antics.

Beautiful! I'll take it as satire whether it is or not!

Sinuhue,

That is a perfect example of "Later the first flickers of desire for a real man begins, she eases her guard...expressing not anger but annoyance with his machismo."

It's all true baby!

By the by, I was just kidding. I don't like to be considered part of any particular group. I'm me, defined as person behind the Jocabia name. Gender equitist is ridculously PC and that's why I chose it. People like labels because it's easier than actually considering what people believe.

EDIT: Oh, and, hey, thanks for not showing up to the personal freedoms thread. I created it mostly to further hash out what we started on your other thread.
Labels have limited usefulness. But I kind of like calling myself a feminist because it seems to really irritate people:).

Labels have limited usefulness. But I kind of like calling myself a feminist because it seems to really irritate people:).

See that's a reason I can live with. That's the same reason I ride my bike in the street. (kidding, actually, I'd prefer not to hit a child going forty miles an hour)

>>" Men rule the world, so if they messed it up for themselves, too bad. "<<

Glad to hear that you retracted that thought, because it's very inaccurate.

Men most certainly do NOT rule this world. Granted, there are some rather backward, uncivilized places where men rule with an iron fist, but, surprise!, there are matrilinial societies where the reverse is also true.

The truth, however, is that, when it comes down to it, WOMEN rule this world. Women have the ONE thing that men want most of all and are unable to attain without the assistance of a woman. True, there are men who would take by force what they cannot take by any other means, but for the VAST majority of men, it's no fun unless the woman is willing. This means that everything a man does in this life is geared toward impressing the ladies enough to get past their defenses (which are formidable indeed), and into their pants. Why else do men go after the cars, the money, and the power? If those things had no attractive power to women, they would go straight to the bottom of the list of things to aquire.

Moreover, women, once they have ensnared their man, generally run the show. Women dictate what happens and what doesn't, what gets bought and what doesn't, and women thereby control the world. Basically, if a man wants to get some (and what man doesn't?), he has to play by the woman's rules, or he's cut off. It's that simple. Women rule the world through the men they control. They reap all the benefits, and deal with few of the hassles that come with power. Women are the true power behind the throne. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY think that Bill Clinton was the President of the US?

Think about it.

I'm still waiting for that alternative term:). One that isn't too clumsy and PC like "individual wishing gender equity for all genders".


Equitist, maybe that would work?

Sinuhue,

That is a perfect example of "Later the first flickers of desire for a real man begins, she eases her guard...expressing not anger but annoyance with his machismo."

It's all true baby!
OOh...you sneaky devil, igniting those flames (see this is me in the 'trying to bond' mode) of desire...I have this sudden urge to leave my husband and my children for you, the REAL man...

>>" Men rule the world, so if they messed it up for themselves, too bad. "<<

Glad to hear that you retracted that thought, because it's very inaccurate.

Men most certainly do NOT rule this world. Granted, there are some rather backward, uncivilized places where men rule with an iron fist, but, surprise!, there are matrilinial societies where the reverse is also true.
First of all, name a matrilinial society still in existance.

Second...I think whoever used that first quote did so in the past tense. You want to get picky though, then look at who holds the most political power globally. It's still men. Just saying...

The truth, however, is that, when it comes down to it, WOMEN rule this world. Women have the ONE thing that men want most of all and are unable to attain without the assistance of a woman. Yeah yeah, we rule with our reproductive allure. Whatever.

Oh wait...this is satire too...

...and even if not, it's quite funny!

Equitist, maybe that would work?
Considered, and dismissed earlier as being too vague.

>>" Men rule the world, so if they messed it up for themselves, too bad. "<<

Glad to hear that you retracted that thought, because it's very inaccurate.

Men most certainly do NOT rule this world. Granted, there are some rather backward, uncivilized places where men rule with an iron fist, but, surprise!, there are matrilinial societies where the reverse is also true.

The truth, however, is that, when it comes down to it, WOMEN rule this world. Women have the ONE thing that men want most of all and are unable to attain without the assistance of a woman. True, there are men who would take by force what they cannot take by any other means, but for the VAST majority of men, it's no fun unless the woman is willing. This means that everything a man does in this life is geared toward impressing the ladies enough to get past their defenses (which are formidable indeed), and into their pants. Why else do men go after the cars, the money, and the power? If those things had no attractive power to women, they would go straight to the bottom of the list of things to aquire.

Moreover, women, once they have ensnared their man, generally run the show. Women dictate what happens and what doesn't, what gets bought and what doesn't, and women thereby control the world. Basically, if a man wants to get some (and what man doesn't?), he has to play by the woman's rules, or he's cut off. It's that simple. Women rule the world through the men they control. They reap all the benefits, and deal with few of the hassles that come with power. Women are the true power behind the throne. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY think that Bill Clinton was the President of the US?

Think about it.


I hate to say it, but you're right, however it is only because (at least in my experience) we as men have a need to make the woman in our life happy at almost any cost, were that not the case there would most likely be male domination of all "manly" fields like business (I personally think business and marketing are for liars and pansies, but to each his own) and medicine. In my experience, that being the only experience I can speak from, women do run the show, but they do so in a very subtle manner, not by flat out denying sex or what have ye, but by simply being the woman you love and, occasionally, capitalising on your desire to make her happy. The girl I love has, as far as I can tell, no feeluings for me, but I still love her more than anything else and, as a consequence of loving her, I occasionally allow myself to be influenced by my heart instead of listening to my head. Also a woman need not be actively seductive, it is amazing how erotic a single hand on an arm can be, the fire of just touching or being touched by the woman you love is more arousing than anything else I can think of, short of sex, which requires arousal already so I guess that wouldn't really count.

Considered, and dismissed earlier as being too vague.


oh I didn't see it. Must have missed it somehow.

HMM, how about equalitarian then?(if it's already been offered I most likely didn't see it, I'm skimming these posts to see what I missed overnight.) My last suggestion is that we call ourselves simply, Human, that represents the true equality of our species, not defined by gender or race or religion, but by merely being human and existing that we are all equal under the eyes of God (or Shiva or Allah or whatever you call your deity, I could care less, I'm christian, you might not be, oh well, variety's the spice of being human, not just the spice of life)

The girl I love has, as far as I can tell, no feeluings for me, but I still love her more than anything else.
That's kind of sad really...perhaps you should turn your attention to someone who returns your affection?

Men can be manipulative too. Who cares. Point being, relationships need to be give and take on both sides. Hehehehee...and in both ends, as far as I'm concerned...Jocabia, you KNOW what I'm talking about! :eek:

HMM, how about equalitarian then?(if it's already been offered I most likely didn't see it, I'm skimming these posts to see what I missed overnight.) My last suggestion is that we call ourselves simply, Human, that represents the true equality of our species, not defined by gender or race or religion, but by merely being human and existing that we are all equal under the eyes of God (or Shiva or Allah or whatever you call your deity, I could care less, I'm christian, you might not be, oh well, variety's the spice of being human, not just the spice of life)
Well, I'm already a human. And a woman. And a Native. And a Canadian. And a mother, and a sister and a daughter and a wife and a teacher and a reader and a writer and....

Cripes, we already label ourselves in a million different ways...what's one more?

That's because with the help of the feminist movement, positive traits previously seen as masculine (assertive, confident, etc.) are now seen as unisex. However, traditionally feminine traits (caring, emotional, open, etc) are not really seen as unisex yet. A someone mentioned before, modern young men have learned (or rather, been conditioned [and i don't mean that negatively]) to be attracted to confident, assertive women. Men have not benefited from such a shift, as young women typically are not attracted to passive men.

And, as was also pointed out, that is an incredibly sexist thing to say.

That's kind of sad really...perhaps you should turn your attention to someone who returns your affection?

Men can be manipulative too. Who cares. Point being, relationships need to be give and take on both sides. Hehehehee...and in both ends, as far as I'm concerned...Jocabia, you KNOW what I'm talking about! :eek:


I tried, I still love her, however, I have the real advantage in this equation; in the end I always get what I desire, even if it takes my whole life, I will get the girl, but this is neither here nor there, you are correct about the necessity of give and take the catch is women are very good at manipulating my emotions. I consider myself to be old fashioned in that I am one of two people I know with a sense of honor, and that I live by the old sense of morals that says a man who hits a woman is beneath contempt, because of this I am rather easy to manipulate; I feel guilty when I think I have caused emotional pain to a woman, or anyone for that matter, women just get the better part of the deal, in that I try to do anything to make it up to them and assuage my guilt. An honorable mans conscience is sharper than the sharpest tongue and deadlier than any weapon, it can cause him to act irrationaly, even when, as is the case with me, he is commonly the picture of reason and cold logic, it is a sad thing when a man would give his all for someone and that feeling is not reciprocated, it is even sadder when that man knows it and can't stop it, or even wish to stop it because his conscience demands he make recompense for any insult, percieved by the insulted or not, so I stay loyal to a woman who doesn't love me and I try to understand.

Yeah, forget I said feminine values. I was trying to read a proposal and reply at the same time. I meant to say female equality. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Oh, and what if I want to call myself a feminist meaning seeking equality for women and only that. Are you my cadillac branding by making synomous with car (assuming vehicle = equitist and car = gender equitist).

It is impossible to fight for female equity without simultaneously fighting for male equity.

I hate these forums, I've spent the last hour posting under my brothers screenname without realising it. Sorry everyone I'm the same person as hammers slammers, in this case at least, please do not be confused.

First of all, name a matrilinial society still in existance.

There are some tribes in Indonesia that are still matrilinial.

There are some tribes in Indonesia that are still matrilinial.
And the women rule with an 'iron fist' as was mentioned by the poster who first brought it up?

Matrilineal means things are passed down through the mother's line...like names and inheritance. It does not necessarily mean that the women control the political sphere. My people are matrilineal, but the chief was always a man. Matriarchy is another thing, and I think that's what the original poster was hinting at. So perhaps we should ask him to name a matriarchy, where women WOULD rule with an 'iron fist'.

It makes more sense for names to be passed maternally...

I mean, if a woman pops out a kid, you know it's hers... you don't know if it's her partner's.

And, as was also pointed out, that is an incredibly sexist thing to say.

As asked before: how is that sexist? There are assertive and confident men and women out there and we're fine with that. There are also considerate and caring women out there but if a man goes overboard with these traits he is often seen as over emotional. As far as i can see simmingpool said nothing about his attitudes to these various personality types and from my experience they tend to be true. Sinuhue has said several times in this thread that men are conditioned to be loud and brash and women quiet and considerate. So how is what swimminpool said sexist?

And, as was also pointed out, that is an incredibly sexist thing to say.


While sexist, it is all too true in my experience, when I am sensitive it is percieved as weakness... right up until I crush the first guy to try and beat up on the alleged queer, funny isn't it, an extremely strong, rather large, obviously male, definitely heterosexual, is attacked because he is seen as a sensitive, weak, effeminate, "queer", but is told that women want a sensitive man who can empathize with them, then when I wail on the guy who attacks me the girls all act like I'm some testoterone addled, psychotic, ogrish thing who's only out for sex. I love lifes little ironies, especially when they involve thinking the six foot tall, two hundred pound, heavily muscled guy, is actually about five foot six and ninety five pounds, then realising that he's so large he just propelled you across the room with one punch, sure he didn't go through a wall or anything or break any bones(how he did that I will never know)but he traveled a good ten feet backwards and about five feet downwards and I didn't even hit him all that hard. I can bench well over my body weight and regularly curl about 75 to 80 pounds, so I thought I should maybe pull my punches, well I apparently didn't pull quite enough and he was really hurtin for a while, my hand hurt like hell too, but it was funny as hell when they got the teacher and he asked why I attacked somebody who'd never done anything to me, then when I explained, they finally saw me, not what they expected to see. I just laughed.

It is impossible to fight for female equity without simultaneously fighting for male equity.

It is possible to only be concerned with issues that demonstrate women being treated as less than equal while not addressing similar issues that demonstrate men as less than equal at the same time. Feminism in its initial inception, for obvious reasons, was concerned with areas where women were treated as less than equal.

And the women rule with an 'iron fist' as was mentioned by the poster who first brought it up?

Matrilineal means things are passed down through the mother's line...like names and inheritance. It does not necessarily mean that the women control the political sphere. My people are matrilineal, but the chief was always a man. Matriarchy is another thing, and I think that's what the original poster was hinting at. So perhaps we should ask him to name a matriarchy, where women WOULD rule with an 'iron fist'.

Well, from what I've been told, they don't rule with an iron fist, but they are in charge in everyday matters.

It is possible to only be concerned with issues that demonstrate women being treated as less than equal while not addressing similar issues that demonstrate men as less than equal at the same time. Feminism in its initial inception, for obvious reasons, was concerned with areas where women were treated as less than equal.


You are correct, sir!!

As asked before: how is that sexist? There are assertive and confident men and women out there and we're fine with that. There are also considerate and caring women out there but if a man goes overboard with these traits he is often seen as over emotional. As far as i can see simmingpool said nothing about his attitudes to these various personality types and from my experience they tend to be true. Sinuhue has said several times in this thread that men are conditioned to be loud and brash and women quiet and considerate. So how is what swimminpool said sexist?

Maybe *you* have a problem with men who are more considerate and caring than the stereotype, but to state that women as a whole have not "learned" to be attracted to them is stereotypical in and of itself and is pretty much utter bullshit.

While sexist, it is all too true in my experience, when I am sensitive it is percieved as weakness... right up until I crush the first guy to try and beat up on the alleged queer, funny isn't it, an extremely strong, rather large, obviously male, definitely heterosexual, is attacked because he is seen as a sensitive, weak, effeminate, "queer", but is told that women want a sensitive man who can empathize with them, then when I wail on the guy who attacks me the girls all act like I'm some testoterone addled, psychotic, ogrish thing who's only out for sex. I love lifes little ironies, especially when they involve thinking the six foot tall, two hundred pound, heavily muscled guy, is actually about five foot six and ninety five pounds, then realising that he's so large he just propelled you across the room with one punch, sure he didn't go through a wall or anything or break any bones(how he did that I will never know)but he traveled a good ten feet backwards and about five feet downwards and I didn't even hit him all that hard. I can bench well over my body weight and regularly curl about 75 to 80 pounds, so I thought I should maybe pull my punches, well I apparently didn't pull quite enough and he was really hurtin for a while, my hand hurt like hell too, but it was funny as hell when they got the teacher and he asked why I attacked somebody who'd never done anything to me, then when I explained, they finally saw me, not what they expected to see. I just laughed.

...sounds like another man was the one stereotyping you in this story.

As asked before: how is that sexist? There are assertive and confident men and women out there and we're fine with that. There are also considerate and caring women out there but if a man goes overboard with these traits he is often seen as over emotional. As far as i can see simmingpool said nothing about his attitudes to these various personality types and from my experience they tend to be true. Sinuhue has said several times in this thread that men are conditioned to be loud and brash and women quiet and considerate. So how is what swimminpool said sexist?

The fact that the opinion exists is sexist, my philosophy is that I can be as sensitive as I want, secure in the knowledge that any percieved femeninity is just that, percieved, if they attack me because of that, well just read my last post and you'll get the general idea.

It is possible to only be concerned with issues that demonstrate women being treated as less than equal while not addressing similar issues that demonstrate men as less than equal at the same time.

...which would not be fighting for equity, and thus would not be feminism.

It is possible to only be concerned with issues that demonstrate women being treated as less than equal while not addressing similar issues that demonstrate men as less than equal at the same time.
Again, I've yet to see an example of where men are treated as less than equal (other than the Maternity pay one which I have said, IS being fought over). So, just because there is no action on that front doesn't mean feminists are focusing ONLY on women...just that there are no biases in the law against men. Societal biases, like stereotypes ARE being dealt with on all fronts, and I believe that is what Dem meant...you can't try to change gender roles just for women, and forget about the men.

That's kind of sad really...perhaps you should turn your attention to someone who returns your affection?

Men can be manipulative too. Who cares. Point being, relationships need to be give and take on both sides. Hehehehee...and in both ends, as far as I'm concerned...Jocabia, you KNOW what I'm talking about! :eek:

Stop it. I'm at work. Can't you see me working? WORK, WORK, WORK.

Well, from what I've been told, they don't rule with an iron fist, but they are in charge in everyday matters.
Do they have a code of laws? Do women benefit more than men?

...which would not be fighting for equity, and thus would not be feminism.

Feminism was initially focused on improving conditions for women. To suggest otherwise is ignoring the facts.

Stop it. I'm at work. Can't you see me working? WORK, WORK, WORK.
So am I. Admit you are hooked and give into the debate! MUAHHAAAA!

Feminism was initially focused on improving conditions for women. To suggest otherwise is ignoring the facts.
No one has ever denied that. What we deny is that feminism is only about women. Deny it vehemently in fact!

...sounds like another man was the one stereotyping you in this story.

Except for the girls who thought I was some kind of freak who shouldn't be trusted, you are completely correct. The point was that the stereotype exists and is perpetuated by everyone, regardless of gender. I guess I really should have said I was Bi in that post, but saying I'm straight got the point across much better than saying bi-sexual ever would have. I'm bi but they could have cared less, all they wanted was a target, when the target fought back harder than they thought it could, they looked for another target.

As far as it being more acceptable for women to cry and whine, but men having to keep a stiff upper lip, I hate whiny women just as much. Maybe more so, because they embarass me.

Feminism was initially focused on improving conditions for women. To suggest otherwise is ignoring the facts.

Of course it was, women were treated as lesser beings, so the obvious and most pressing problems were related to women's issues.

If I am attempting to feed the hungry, and I feed those who have gone without nourishment the longest first, does that mean that I am not working to make sure that everyone else gets fed?

If I am attempting to wash my clothes, and I wash the dirtiest first, does that mean I don't want *all* of my clothes to get washed?

Of course it was, women were treated as lesser beings, so the obvious and most pressing problems were related to women's issues.

If I am attempting to feed the hungry, and I feed those who have gone without nourishment the longest first, does that mean that I am not working to make sure that everyone else gets fed?

If I am attempting to wash my clothes, and I wash the dirtiest first, does that mean I don't want *all* of my clothes to get washed?

That's deep man, I'm gonna remember that one.

Maybe *you* have a problem with men who are more considerate and caring than the stereotype, but to state that women as a whole have not "learned" to be attracted to them is stereotypical in and of itself and is pretty much utter bullshit.

Jeez, how hard did you try to misunderstand me there? If anything i am of the more passive guys so of course i dont have a problem with them, but some people do, the amount of times i've been called "queer" because of that is not funny. I never said women cant be attracted to passive guys, but in my experience, confident ones are more likely to get women.

Again, I've yet to see an example of where men are treated as less than equal (other than the Maternity pay one which I have said, IS being fought over). So, just because there is no action on that front doesn't mean feminists are focusing ONLY on women...just that there are no biases in the law against men. Societal biases, like stereotypes ARE being dealt with on all fronts, and I believe that is what Dem meant...you can't try to change gender roles just for women, and forget about the men.

I think it's difficult because a lot of "male" issues are sort of impossible to make equal. A woman decides if she wants an abortion or not, but a male gets to make no such decision as to whether to have his child born. Obviously, I understand why this is, but it's certainly not equality. Also, women have no requirement to inform a man that she is pregnant with their child. Again, the reasons for this are obvious, but it's hardly equal. Women can give a child up for adoption without the knowledge or approval of the father. This is probably an issue that will come to a head in the near future actually. Women can decide to get an abortion or give a child up for adoption and thus absolve themselve of the legal responsibility to financially care for the child, but men have no such choice. I as a man can't say I believe in abortion therefore I will not care for this child if it is born. Or I want this child to be adopted and whether you do put it up for adoption or not, I'm not paying for it. If the mother keeps it and shows I'm the father, I'm paying. Period. One more time, the reasons behind this are patently obvious, but it's still not equal.

No one is fighting for the fact that if a woman hugs a child there is no problem, but if a man hugs a child he runs the risk of being accused of improper touching. Who do you think most people are more likely to hire, a male babysitter or a female babysitter, particularly if the babysitter is an adult and has no children? Do you think it's possible that people would think it less likely that Michael Jackson is a molestor if he were female?

Do I think there is gross male inequality? Nope. Not at all. Mostly I think that any inequality that exists centers around reproductive rights and it's nature's fault.

Now as far as what you and Dem both said about you can't have female equality without male equality, I agree. But I don't think the initial feminists cared how societal roles affected men so much as making sure women were treated better and were given the same rights as men. If men had lost rights during that period, I sincerely doubt feminists would have been up in arms.

Jeez, how hard did you try to misunderstand me there?

You are stating a stereotype that is not universally held as if it were universally held - what exactly was I supposed to think?

If anything i am of the more passive guys so of course i dont have a problem with them, but some people do, the amount of times i've been called "queer" because of that is not funny.

(a) Why is "queer" an insult to you?

(b) How many *guys* v. *girls* have called you that.

I never said women cant be attracted to passive guys, but in my experience, confident ones are more likely to get women.

It sounds to me like you are personally insecure, which may be the problem moreso than your personality.

There are shallow women, there are shallow men, but to state that one gender is more shallow than the other is sexist.

So am I. Admit you are hooked and give into the debate! MUAHHAAAA!

I was more concerned about the both ends comments.

I was more concerned about the both ends comments.
Concerned...or intrigued? *wiggles eyebrows*

Of course it was, women were treated as lesser beings, so the obvious and most pressing problems were related to women's issues.

If I am attempting to feed the hungry, and I feed those who have gone without nourishment the longest first, does that mean that I am not working to make sure that everyone else gets fed?

If I am attempting to wash my clothes, and I wash the dirtiest first, does that mean I don't want *all* of my clothes to get washed?

Yeah, I gotta give you that one too.

However, what if I called washing clothes, washing blues? What might that suggest?

Moreover, women, once they have ensnared their man, generally run the show. Women dictate what happens and what doesn't, what gets bought and what doesn't, and women thereby control the world. Basically, if a man wants to get some (and what man doesn't?), he has to play by the woman's rules, or he's cut off. It's that simple. Women rule the world through the men they control. They reap all the benefits, and deal with few of the hassles that come with power. Women are the true power behind the throne. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY think that Bill Clinton was the President of the US?

Think about it.
I think you're very much overestimating how much power sex has over men. Your post also seems to run on the flawed assumption that women don't want sex.

And, as was also pointed out, that is an incredibly sexist thing to say.
Notice that I said "traditionally seen as feminine traits". I didn't say "these traits are feminine".

I also said that typically women are not attracted to passive men. I'm not saying that there are no women who like passivity, and I can't back up my claims with any "statistics". I can only back them up with my personal, subjective observation of the world, and that would suggest that assertiveness is more attractive to most women.

but to state that one gender is more shallow than the other is sexist.
He said nothing of the sort, and neither did I.

However, what if I called washing clothes, washing blues? What might that suggest?
That you be singing some low down, dirty blues while doing the laundry that I may want to hear some day...

Jeez, how hard did you try to misunderstand me there? If anything i am of the more passive guys so of course i dont have a problem with them, but some people do, the amount of times i've been called "queer" because of that is not funny. I never said women cant be attracted to passive guys, but in my experience, confident ones are more likely to get women.

My friend there is a difference between confidence and sensitivity, I am very confident in myself, which allows me to be so sensetive, however a person without my level of self confidence but with my level of sensitivity is not nearly so able at most anything, not just women but life in general. A sensitive man is one who listens to his emotions, a confident man is one who listens to his emotions and is able to act on them regardless of consequences or reprocussions because he is doing what he thinks is right and has the force to back it up.

I think it's difficult because a lot of "male" issues are sort of impossible to make equal. A woman decides if she wants an abortion or not, but a male gets to make no such decision as to whether to have his child born. Obviously, I understand why this is, but it's certainly not equality. Also, women have no requirement to inform a man that she is pregnant with their child. Again, the reasons for this are obvious, but it's hardly equal. Women can give a child up for adoption without the knowledge or approval of the father. This is probably an issue that will come to a head in the near future actually. Women can decide to get an abortion or give a child up for adoption and thus absolve themselve of the legal responsibility to financially care for the child, but men have no such choice. I as a man can't say I believe in abortion therefore I will not care for this child if it is born. Or I want this child to be adopted and whether you do put it up for adoption or not, I'm not paying for it. If the mother keeps it and shows I'm the father, I'm paying. Period. One more time, the reasons behind this are patently obvious, but it's still not equal.

Note that Sinehue and I both use the term "equity", rather than "equality". There are points of difference based on basic biological differences that we are not going to make "equal". However, we attempt to make the "equitable". For instance, in this case, I am in favor of men having access to a "paper abortion" in which he could give up all rights and responsibilities if the woman chooses to continue her pregnancy. As it is, men are often required to pay child support for children they did not want, but women can decide they do not want a pregnancy and end it. Access to a "paper abortion" would made the situation equitable.

No one is fighting for the fact that if a woman hugs a child there is no problem, but if a man hugs a child he runs the risk of being accused of improper touching. Who do you think most people are more likely to hire, a male babysitter or a female babysitter, particularly if the babysitter is an adult and has no children? Do you think it's possible that people would think it less likely that Michael Jackson is a molestor if he were female?

I have never heard anyone assume that any man hugging a child is improperly touching them. However, if such a statement were ever made in my presence, I would be quick to dispel it. My babysitters were both male and female, and I would hire either. I don't think Micheal Jackson is a molester so much as a very sick man who thinks he is still a child and needs to get help (and probably shouldn't be around children as an adult figure).

I tried, I still love her, however, I have the real advantage in this equation; in the end I always get what I desire, even if it takes my whole life, I will get the girl, but this is neither here nor there, you are correct about the necessity of give and take the catch is women are very good at manipulating my emotions. I consider myself to be old fashioned in that I am one of two people I know with a sense of honor, and that I live by the old sense of morals that says a man who hits a woman is beneath contempt, because of this I am rather easy to manipulate; I feel guilty when I think I have caused emotional pain to a woman, or anyone for that matter, women just get the better part of the deal, in that I try to do anything to make it up to them and assuage my guilt. An honorable mans conscience is sharper than the sharpest tongue and deadlier than any weapon, it can cause him to act irrationaly, even when, as is the case with me, he is commonly the picture of reason and cold logic, it is a sad thing when a man would give his all for someone and that feeling is not reciprocated, it is even sadder when that man knows it and can't stop it, or even wish to stop it because his conscience demands he make recompense for any insult, percieved by the insulted or not, so I stay loyal to a woman who doesn't love me and I try to understand.

Chasing a woman who has no feelings for you is disrespectful. Sounds like she's made herself clear to you and you've chosen not to respect that she's not interested. I have a female friend, let's call her Sinuhue. And I have a male friend, let's call him Jocabia. Sinuhue has made it clear that she's not interested. Never fails, though. Every once in while Jocabia declares his love for her and then acts all crushed that she doesn't want him. Then Sinuhue has to feel all guilty and whatnot. It's emotional blackmail and it's not respecting the woman's right to choose not to be with you.


Note: I really do have two friends where this keeps happening and I think the guy is a complete dick for not letting it go and moving on.

That's the biggest problem I think people have with the term feminist. Men don't want to be called feminists, because as you said, the term is confused with feminine. I really admire men who challenge that stereotype and call themselves feminists, and aren't afraid to educate the ignorant as to what that term means. This whole thread, and the term masculist I think is a way to not seem, 'sissy' and still work for gender equity. It's ironic that someone who wants to work for gender equity would not be comfortable with the word feminist.

Some might say, well then, call yourself a masculist! Again, why? The term began as feminism, so why go and change it now? All you would be doing is bowing into the stereotype that terms considered 'feminine' are weak, and terms considered 'masculine' are strong. Our whole language is frought with gender flaws, but we work around them. I don't care what some feminazis (but more often than not, anti-feminists) have done to twist the meaning of feminism. To me, and to most feminists, male, female and transgendered, it means gender EQUITY. Period.

Edit: welcome back dem! i missed ya!

I have claimed to be a feminist several times on the forum.

Theoretically, 'Masculist' would carry the same connotation - but, as a man, I can quite clearly see that women are (in general) still recieving unfair treatment.

Thus - I chose to apply the title 'Feminist' to myself, because the trend I would hope to see encouraged is the increase in rights, etc. to females, until both genders are treated equally.

To call myself a 'Masculist' would trivialise the fact that women often ARE discriminated against.

Yeah, I gotta give you that one too.

However, what if I called washing clothes, washing blues? What might that suggest?

If you washed all clothes and not just the blue ones? Only that you have a different name for it than me, for some reason.

Now as far as what you and Dem both said about you can't have female equality without male equality, I agree. But I don't think the initial feminists cared how societal roles affected men so much as making sure women were treated better and were given the same rights as men. If men had lost rights during that period, I sincerely doubt feminists would have been up in arms.
Well there's no way of knowing, is there?

By the way, blaming feminism for not acting on issues that never existed is fruitless. It's like blaming the civil rights movement for not championing the rights of whites.

You are stating a stereotype that is not universally held as if it were universally held - what exactly was I supposed to think?



There are also considerate and caring women out there but if a man goes overboard with these traits he is often seen as over emotional. As far as i can see simmingpool said nothing about his attitudes to these various personality types and from my experience they tend to be true


Notice the use of the words "often" and "tend to", of course i dont think any of this stuff applies to everyone, this whole thread deals in gross generalisations.



(a) Why is "queer" an insult to you?

(b) How many *guys* v. *girls* have called you that.

I take things in the spirit they are intended. I dont think theres anything wrong with being gay but its obviously meant as an insult.

Probably about twice as many guys as girls.



It sounds to me like you are personally insecure, which may be the problem moreso than your personality.

There are shallow women, there are shallow men, but to state that one gender is more shallow than the other is sexist.

I didnt say anything about being shallow! I just said in my experience women tend to prefer guys who dont show their sensitive side. And why would you call me insecure? You've read almost nothing about me. It seems to be like you take any comment about gender entirely the wrong way, but i'm probably wrong.

Notice that I said "traditionally seen as feminine traits". I didn't say "these traits are feminine".

So?

I also said that typically women are not attracted to passive men. I'm not saying that there are no women who like passivity, and I can't back up my claims with any "statistics". I can only back them up with my personal, subjective observation of the world, and that would suggest that assertiveness is more attractive to most women.

Define "passive." *People* are more attracted to confident *people*. This is a fact of life, and is gender neutral. If by "passive", you mean less confident, then you are probably right.

He said nothing of the sort, and neither did I.

The statement was that men have "learned" to like all types of women, but that women have not "learned" to like all types of men. Suggesting that someone picks their potential partners based on stereotypes is suggesting that they are shallow. Thus, the comment suggested that women are more shallow than men.

I have claimed to be a feminist several times on the forum.

Theoretically, 'Masculist' would carry the same connotation - but, as a man, I can quite clearly see that women are (in general) still recieving unfair treatment.

Thus - I chose to apply the title 'Feminist' to myself, because the trend I would hope to see encouraged is the increase in rights, etc. to females, until both genders are treated equally.

To call myself a 'Masculist' would trivialise the fact that women often ARE discriminated against.
*big kiss to you*
I guess I should have said, "most men" don't want to be called feminists, because yes, I have seen you call yourself that, and I know a number of men who are also okay with being called feminists.

And why would you call me insecure? You've read almost nothing about me. It seems to be like you take any comment about gender entirely the wrong way, but i'm probably wrong.

You seem to be complaining that women are not interested in you, and as such must not be interested in sensitive guys.

As an example, how about custody rights of children. Rather than the courts giving custody of the child half the time to one parent, then half to the other, or just giving sole custody to one parent irrespective of gender, the woman almost invariably gets custody. There are a few organisations capaigning to get this changed in the UK, they're all men's groups.

Not in my experience. Courts decide on who would be best able to support the child - taking in to account issues like work schedules, independent resources, terms of divorce settlements, drug dependency, etc.

Courts do often decide in favour of the mother, but this is usually because the mother has spent more time with the child, or has better situational reasons for being able to care for the child.

Also - of course - the statistics are skewed by the fact that many 'fathers' abandon young mothers or pregnant girlfriends, etc. Thus - mothers gain custody by default. It is then hard for a 'father' to regain that custody.

Not in my experience. Courts decide on who would be best able to support the child - taking in to account issues like work schedules, independent resources, terms of divorce settlements, drug dependency, etc.

Courts do often decide in favour of the mother, but this is usually because the mother has spent more time with the child, or has better situational reasons for being able to care for the child.

Also - of course - the statistics are skewed by the fact that many 'fathers' abandon young mothers or pregnant girlfriends, etc. Thus - mothers gain custody by default. It is then hard for a 'father' to regain that custody.
(whle I agree) to be fair the stats I quoted were all from devorce custody cases not abandonment

Note that Sinehue and I both use the term "equity", rather than "equality". There are points of difference based on basic biological differences that we are not going to make "equal". However, we attempt to make the "equitable". For instance, in this case, I am in favor of men having access to a "paper abortion" in which he could give up all rights and responsibilities if the woman chooses to continue her pregnancy. As it is, men are often required to pay child support for children they did not want, but women can decide they do not want a pregnancy and end it. Access to a "paper abortion" would made the situation equitable.

I agree with the paper abortion to a degree, but I think it will never pass. The reason is the government does not want to assume a burden that is better assumed by the father. With out the father's support, it is more likely that the child will at some point be a state burden, as their is only one parent supporting it. And if the paper abortion is denied because the state will be supporting the child then you have a right that the rich receive and the poor don't.

I have never heard anyone assume that any man hugging a child is improperly touching them. However, if such a statement were ever made in my presence, I would be quick to dispel it. My babysitters were both male and female, and I would hire either. I don't think Micheal Jackson is a molester so much as a very sick man who thinks he is still a child and needs to get help (and probably shouldn't be around children as an adult figure).

My sister-in-law is a teacher. Male teachers are not allowed to have children sit on their lap or to hug children in the school she was a TA at during college. Now, she works at a very Christian school that only has female teachers (don't ask) so I doesn't apply there. I realize it's anecdotal, but is it really very surprising an idea?

Tell you what - put up a flyer that offers babysitting services from a 15-year-old girl and another in another location that offers the same services at the same price from a 15-year-old boy. See which one gets the most replies. I bet you conduct that expiriment 9 times out of 10 the boy's flyer doesn't get a single response.

I totally agree with you about Michael Jackson. I think it's sad that he's being treated the way he is and I also think he's disturbed and needs help.

So?
It is not sexist to state facts about how society was in the past.

Define "passive." *People* are more attracted to confident *people*. This is a fact of life, and is gender neutral. If by "passive", you mean less confident, then you are probably right.

Not at all, it's all cultural conditioning. In the past, men were most attracted to passive and quiet women. And by passive I mean the opposite of brash, assertive and aggressive. Being passive does not mean lacking in confidence or self-esteem.

The statement was that men have "learned" to like all types of women, but that women have not "learned" to like all types of men. Suggesting that someone picks their potential partners based on stereotypes is suggesting that they are shallow. Thus, the comment suggested that women are more shallow than men.
Men have not "learned" (not learned, rather, culturally conditioned would be a better term to use) to be attracted to all types of women. But they are now more attracted to assertive women than they were in the past.

People don't consciously pick their partners based on stereotypes. But societal expectations of what qualities men and women should exhibit change, and these changes are subconciously reflected in people's taste in partners.

Concerned...or intrigued? *wiggles eyebrows*

Distracted *wiggles something, but it's not eyebrows*

If you washed all clothes and not just the blue ones? Only that you have a different name for it than me, for some reason.

If I called it washing blues and I started out by washing only blue clothes, it would not be unreasonable to assume I intended to only wash blue clothes even if, eventually, decided to complete the wash.

I agree with the paper abortion to a degree, but I think it will never pass. The reason is the government does not want to assume a burden that is better assumed by the father. With out the father's support, it is more likely that the child will at some point be a state burden, as their is only one parent supporting it. And if the paper abortion is denied because the state will be supporting the child then you have a right that the rich receive and the poor don't.

Ah, I missed a qualifier. A man would only have that right during the same period of time that a woman can have an elective abortion (or for ~3 months after she tells him, if she hides it from him initially). As such, the woman has time to decide if she can support a child without financial help from the father.

My sister-in-law is a teacher. Male teachers are not allowed to have children sit on their lap or to hug children in the school she was a TA at during college. Now, she works at a very Christian school that only has female teachers (don't ask) so I doesn't apply there. I realize it's anecdotal, but is it really very surprising an idea?

It is certainly an idiotic idea, just as not letting "teh gays" around children is an idiotic idea. And, as I pointed out, it is a stereotype I would be fighting tooth and nail against if I saw it in my area.

Tell you what - put up a flyer that offers babysitting services from a 15-year-old girl and another in another location that offers the same services at the same price from a 15-year-old boy. See which one gets the most replies. I bet you conduct that expiriment 9 times out of 10 the boy's flyer doesn't get a single response.

Again, a stereotype I would work to overcome. Personally, I wouldn't let *any* 15 year old take care of a child of mine until I had interviewed them to see if they seemed responsible enough. To be truthful, I would probably answer both ads and pick whichever seemed most responsible.

Well there's no way of knowing, is there?

By the way, blaming feminism for not acting on issues that never existed is fruitless. It's like blaming the civil rights movement for not championing the rights of whites.

If the Civil Rights movement had black in the title, I would probably be arguing that it was intended only to champion black rights. They avoided such a name.

You were right before, we're just arguing semantics. I'm not going to call myself a feminist or a masculist (for the same reason). I think it's divisive and would prefer a gender neutral term. As none exists, I will do what I do now. Explain my position and hope people can hear it.

Oh. LOL. And here I was thinking I had actually found a guy with the same "baby impulse" that myself and several of my female friends have described.

No - it happens. :)

I have been 'broody' before, when I ran a Laser Tag venue... often dealing with school parties, and some of the more precocious children would make me wish for offspring of my own. :)

I think perhaps males are less driven by the biological need to reproduce (in general), and more biologically driven to carry out the actions REQUIRED to reproduce (in general).

It is not sexist to state facts about how society was in the past.

We are talking about current society, no?

Not at all, it's all cultural conditioning. In the past, men were most attracted to passive and quiet women. And by passive I mean the opposite of brash, assertive and aggressive. Being passive does not mean lacking in confidence or self-esteem.

(a) All men were not attracted to such women. In much of society, a woman was told to act passive, but to actually be assertive - just in a way that didn't make it obvious she was doing so.

(b) If all the women were acting passive and quiet, who else was there to be attracted to?

Men have not "learned" (not learned, rather, culturally conditioned would be a better term to use) to be attracted to all types of women. But they are now more attracted to assertive women than they were in the past.

There are more assertive women than there were in the past.

People don't consciously pick their partners based on stereotypes. But societal expectations of what qualities men and women should exhibit change, and these changes are subconciously reflected in people's taste in partners.

And they are changing. The entire idea of gender roles is being challenged.

Of course, I would argue that the gender roles that men feel are being forced upon them are most often forced by other men who don't want to appear to be gay than by women.

Chasing a woman who has no feelings for you is disrespectful. Sounds like she's made herself clear to you and you've chosen not to respect that she's not interested. I have a female friend, let's call her Sinuhue. And I have a male friend, let's call him Jocabia. Sinuhue has made it clear that she's not interested. Never fails, though. Every once in while Jocabia declares his love for her and then acts all crushed that she doesn't want him. Then Sinuhue has to feel all guilty and whatnot. It's emotional blackmail and it's not respecting the woman's right to choose not to be with you.


Note: I really do have two friends where this keeps happening and I think the guy is a complete dick for not letting it go and moving on.


I told you people I tried, my mind and my heart cannot agree on this issue. What, do you think I'm some kind of masochist who enjoys being made to look a fool? I probably enjoy it about as much as the next guy, but you cannot just turn off your emotions, I would have done so long ago if I could, as it is, I keep trying. The main reason she won't go out with me is her mom likes me and she disagrees with her mom on just about everything as a matter of principle, we're good friends, but I love her and she doesn't seem, emphasis on seem, to love me, but I hope and until I'm dead my hope lives on, even if my hope is vain, it sustains me in a life I wish I did not have to suffer through.

...And do you think I have a 14-year-old vocabulary? Most 14-year-olds I know speak in l33z, also known as H4X0R. LOL!!!11
I'm 11 too. I felt all lonely because I thought I was the only member of that age...sorry, that is completely, totally and unnecessarily random. Ignore it.

I think the reason that some traits have become unisex is because they are equally likely to occur in men and women these days. I think when an equal portion of women start grabbing their crotches, spitting and fighting then those will be considered unisex as well.

Because, of course, all men grab their crotches, spit and fight?

Because, of course, all men grab their crotches, spit and fight?

Don't you??

:fluffle:

Ah, I missed a qualifier. A man would only have that right during the same period of time that a woman can have an elective abortion (or for ~3 months after she tells him, if she hides it from him initially). As such, the woman has time to decide if she can support a child without financial help from the father.

Yes, but what if she doesn't have the financial stability to raise the child, but has the child anyway. This isn't an uncommon occurance. Would there be a "paper adoption" also that gives the man the full nine months to decide like it does the woman? I do like the qualifier by the way. I've said similar things myself, but like I said, I don't see it EVER passing because of the whole burden to the state thing.

Imagine a poor woman who is courted and impregnated by a very rich man who gets her pregnant and then gets a paper abortion. Is it fair for the state to pay for the child? Is it fair that his offspring is condemned to poverty because we didn't think it was fair for him to have to pay for it? These types of arguments would be made against such a law. I also think that many feminists would be upset about the fact that men can further absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions.

It is certainly an idiotic idea, just as not letting "teh gays" around children is an idiotic idea. And, as I pointed out, it is a stereotype I would be fighting tooth and nail against if I saw it in my area.

Again, a stereotype I would work to overcome. Personally, I wouldn't let *any* 15 year old take care of a child of mine until I had interviewed them to see if they seemed responsible enough. To be truthful, I would probably answer both ads and pick whichever seemed most responsible.

To both of these I'd say you're the exception. People seem to be much more willing to consider a man a pervert. I'd also venture that people would be more comfortable with the idea of a lesbian school teacher than a gay male teacher.

Because, of course, all men grab their crotches, spit and fight?


The point is not that all men do so, but that more men than women exhibit those traits, and until more women do exhibit those traits they will be considered male traits.

Because, of course, all men grab their crotches, spit and fight?

EQUAL PORTION

To both of these I'd say you're the exception. People seem to be much more willing to consider a man a pervert. I'd also venture that people would be more comfortable with the idea of a lesbian school teacher than a gay male teacher.
People who think that way generally don't like homosexuals period.

People who think that way generally don't like homosexuals period.

All statements in this post can be considered to be generalizations

This is true but men are more accepting of lesbians than they are of gay men, two women at once fantasy anyone, most men find the thought of two women together erotic, most women think two guys together is okay, but not sexy.

I told you people I tried, my mind and my heart cannot agree on this issue. What, do you think I'm some kind of masochist who enjoys being made to look a fool? I probably enjoy it about as much as the next guy, but you cannot just turn off your emotions, I would have done so long ago if I could, as it is, I keep trying. The main reason she won't go out with me is her mom likes me and she disagrees with her mom on just about everything as a matter of principle, we're good friends, but I love her and she doesn't seem, emphasis on seem, to love me, but I hope and until I'm dead my hope lives on, even if my hope is vain, it sustains me in a life I wish I did not have to suffer through.

See that, you discounted her feelings by saying that she is really just trying to disagree with her mother. Or maybe she doesn't know what she wants so she just SEEMS to not love you. You also said earlier that you always get what you want and she will be yours. These are all you not respecting her ability to decide not to be with you.

If you really care for her, first, get in your head that she doesn't want you. Don't bother her about it again unless she brings it up. Don't mention it. Don't look longingly at her. Don't force your issue of not being able to deal with your emotions on to her.

(whle I agree) to be fair the stats I quoted were all from devorce custody cases not abandonment

Abandonment often features in divorce cases, though... and is not directly reflected in the statistics.

How many of the women were left with custody when a male partner left her/abandoned her?

How many of the women sought divorce because of a form of abandonment or estrangement?

The final figures only show the result, they don't show the cause.

Yes, but what if she doesn't have the financial stability to raise the child, but has the child anyway.

Then she has put herself in that situation and must figure out how to deal with it.

Would there be a "paper adoption" also that gives the man the full nine months to decide like it does the woman?

No, because a woman only has ~3 months (6 in some states) to decide to have an elective (not for medical reasons) abortion. As such, the man should only get equitable treatment, not superior treatment.

I do like the qualifier by the way. I've said similar things myself, but like I said, I don't see it EVER passing because of the whole burden to the state thing.

It is stereotypical to think that the man can support the child, but the woman cannot.

Imagine a poor woman who is courted and impregnated by a very rich man who gets her pregnant and then gets a paper abortion.

She has her options before her.

Is it fair for the state to pay for the child?

Only if the people who make up the state have decided that they will pay in such situations.

Is it fair that his offspring is condemned to poverty because we didn't think it was fair for him to have to pay for it?

The actions of human beings are not always "fair", but that does not make them illegal.

These types of arguments would be made against such a law.

And those who argue would be arguing that men should have more responsibility over their actions than women, and thus would be bigots.

I also think that many feminists would be upset about the fact that men can further absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions.

Not if they actually meet the definition supplied by Sinehue.

To both of these I'd say you're the exception. People seem to be much more willing to consider a man a pervert. I'd also venture that people would be more comfortable with the idea of a lesbian school teacher than a gay male teacher.

I may be in the minority, but that minority is fast growing.

Don't you??

:fluffle:

Not in the past few hours.... at least, not so I've noticed. :)

I wonder if this means I am not a 'man'?

People who think that way generally don't like homosexuals period.

As was pointed out, female homosexuals are not seen by most men and many women to be as "perverted" as male homosexuals. I'd venture that for every male friend you have that has kissed a man on the mouth and does not consider himself gay, you have a half dozen female friends who have full on kissed a girl on the mouth but would not consider herself gay.

EQUAL PORTION

So, fifty percent of men grab their packages, spit and fight?

See that, you discounted her feelings by saying that she is really just trying to disagree with her mother. Or maybe she doesn't know what she wants so she just SEEMS to not love you. You also said earlier that you always get what you want and she will be yours. These are all you not respecting her ability to decide not to be with you.

If you really care for her, first, get in your head that she doesn't want you. Don't bother her about it again unless she brings it up. Don't mention it. Don't look longingly at her. Don't force your issue of not being able to deal with your emotions on to her.


She brings up the subject more than I do, most commonly prefaced by "guess what?" to which I answer "What?" and she says "I'm single again, nows your chance" and by the end of the day I'm told she wasn't serious, even when those hands felt pretty serious at the time. I respect her ability to decide, but you seem to be under the impression that I would force myself on her, instead of my tried and true outlast the other guys approach. I'm always there for her, eventually she has to figure out I really am in love with her, not just trying to get laid, which seems to be the only thing on the other guys minds. I am able to deal with my emotions you fool, but there is no on\off switch for them, there is only self control and I don't have enough to stop myself from loving a woman who doesn't seem, I again emphasize the word seem, to love me. Do you have any idea what it's like being able to get almost any girl in your school, except for the one you fell in love with? It is one of the worst experiences in the world. I will be the first to admit she wouldn't win a beuty contest, but I don't want a miss america, so she's a little hefty(by this I mean about 150 pounds at approximately 5 feet 4 inches tall) but I don't think rib cages are sexy, so what if she has average sized breasts, I don't like giant ones that sag all over the place, so she's got bad teeth, so what, there are worse things to have, so she's not perfect, I'm not either, I love her, not lust after her, she's my standard of beauty and no one compares to her in my mind.

So, fifty percent of men grab their packages, spit and fight?

If a man was only half a man would that mean he grabbed his crotch spit and fought half as often? Now theres something to get you thinking.

Then she has put herself in that situation and must figure out how to deal with it.

Yes, she can deal with it by going on welfare as happens now. There is no rule against having additional children while on welfare.

No, because a woman only has ~3 months (6 in some states) to decide to have an elective (not for medical reasons) abortion. As such, the man should only get equitable treatment, not superior treatment.

Notice I said "paper adoption" the woman has the option of putting the child up for adoption. Also, what if the woman doesn't inform the man until the child is born? Does he have three months from when he knows the child is his?

It is stereotypical to think that the man can support the child, but the woman cannot.

I'm not suggesting a woman can't support a child. I'm suggesting that in the case of a woman that can't support a child alone (much like their are men that can't support a chile alond) the burden would fall to the state rather than the father who is responsible for impregnating the woman.

She has her options before her.

Yes, and one of them is to go on welfare.

Only if the people who make up the state have decided that they will pay in such situations.

What are you suggesting that if the man gets a "paper abortion" that the woman might not be eligible for welfare if she chooses to keep the child? That will go over like a lead balloon. You cannot force abortion or adoption on the poor. That is how denying welfare to pregnant mothers will be viewed.

The actions of human beings are not always "fair", but that does not make them illegal.

And those who argue would be arguing that men should have more responsibility over their actions than women, and thus would be bigots.

The claim is that men already regularly shirk their responsibilities to their children and leave them to be financed by the state or the woman('s family). It would likely be argued that this is just a legal way to do so.

Also, a perfectly fair argument is that an abortion is a medical procedure that carries with it a lot of horrible moral implications that a woman must deal with for her entire life. A man just gets to neatly sign a piece of paper and it's not his problem. Again, I reference the lead balloon.

Not if they actually meet the definition supplied by Sinehue.

I think a lot of feminists, even male feminists, would feel this solution is not equitable and would fight it and still fit Sinuhue's definition. I would be curious to get Sin's view on this. Yoohoo, Sinuhue?

I may be in the minority, but that minority is fast growing.

I agree. I'd like to think I'm part of that minority. I hope that one day people we begin to judge people on their actions and not on stereotypes.

As was pointed out, female homosexuals are not seen by most men and many women to be as "perverted" as male homosexuals. I'd venture that for every male friend you have that has kissed a man on the mouth and does not consider himself gay, you have a half dozen female friends who have full on kissed a girl on the mouth but would not consider herself gay.


I have had sex with men and I'm not gay, I'm bi. But I'm just playin devils advocate on this one, I have to agree that the number is small, but growing as homosexuality becomes more mainstream.

So, fifty percent of men grab their packages, spit and fight?

If you can't read, I'm not going to explain it to you. Equal portion always means fifty percent? It meant when proportionately as many women do those things as men, they will begin to be viewed as unisex. Everyone else here seemed to understand it, why are you being difficult?

Yes, she can deal with it by going on welfare as happens now. There is no rule against having additional children while on welfare.



And that is a good thing? Welfare is not the solution to everything, especially not when you have welfare babies in the mix. That is a very bad thing, when a mother has more children to get more welfare money, but we allow it, why do you think that is?

Yeah... women's rights are fine, but it has gone a little too far the other way.

She brings up the subject more than I do, most commonly prefaced by "guess what?" to which I answer "What?" and she says "I'm single again, nows your chance" and by the end of the day I'm told she wasn't serious, even when those hands felt pretty serious at the time. I respect her ability to decide, but you seem to be under the impression that I would force myself on her, instead of my tried and true outlast the other guys approach. I'm always there for her, eventually she has to figure out I really am in love with her, not just trying to get laid, which seems to be the only thing on the other guys minds. I am able to deal with my emotions you fool, but there is no on\off switch for them, there is only self control and I don't have enough to stop myself from loving a woman who doesn't seem, I again emphasize the word seem, to love me. Do you have any idea what it's like being able to get almost any girl in your school, except for the one you fell in love with? It is one of the worst experiences in the world. I will be the first to admit she wouldn't win a beuty contest, but I don't want a miss america, so she's a little hefty(by this I mean about 150 pounds at approximately 5 feet 4 inches tall) but I don't think rib cages are sexy, so what if she has average sized breasts, I don't like giant ones that sag all over the place, so she's got bad teeth, so what, there are worse things to have, so she's not perfect, I'm not either, I love her, not lust after her, she's my standard of beauty and no one compares to her in my mind.

Wow, fair enough. I jumped to a conclusion because I see people (men and women) do this so often. I think we're poisoned by movies to believe that if we're persistant and cute enough we can make them fall for us despite themselves. What do movies know? Movies also suggest that as a man you can do anything wrong you want if you're just cute and cuddly and apologetic then the women no matter how confident or beautiful will forgive you eventually and you will live happily ever after (e.g.,"How to Deal" or any Hugh Grant movie). I wasn't suggesting you'd force yourself on her, but forcing someone else to repeatedly deal with feelings you have but aren't reciprocated isn't fair. In this case, it sounds like she encourages you and if you're okay with it, then play on.

And that is a good thing? Welfare is not the solution to everything, especially not when you have welfare babies in the mix. That is a very bad thing, when a mother has more children to get more welfare money, but we allow it, why do you think that is?

I didn't say it was a good thing. It just is how it is. You are not going to get a law passed that does not allow poor people (read: welfare mothers) to have children. You are not going to get a law passed that does not provide the net of welfare to mothers and their babies. It's that simple.

To force mothers of welfare, that get pregnant, off welfare would be seen as uncaring and to force them to use birth control would be considered fascist. Denying welfare to newborn children who are impovershed is another no-no.

Wow, fair enough. I jumped to a conclusion because I see people (men and women) do this so often. I think we're poisoned by movies to believe that if we're persistant and cute enough we can make them fall for us despite themselves. What do movies know? Movies also suggest that as a man you can do anything wrong you want if you're just cute and cuddly and apologetic then the women no matter how confident or beautiful will forgive you eventually and you will live happily ever after (e.g.,"How to Deal" or any Hugh Grant movie). I wasn't suggesting you'd force yourself on her, but forcing someone else to repeatedly deal with feelings you have but aren't reciprocated isn't fair. In this case, it sounds like she encourages you and if you're okay with it, then play on.


I'm not what I'd call okay with it, but I tried to stop and it didn't work, so I'm stuck as I am.

I didn't say it was a good thing. It just is how it is. You are not going to get a law passed that does not allow poor people (read: welfare mothers) to have children. You are not going to get a law passed that does not provide the net of welfare to mothers and their babies. It's that simple.

To force mothers of welfare, that get pregnant, off welfare would be seen as uncaring and to force them to use birth control would be considered fascist. Denying welfare to newborn children who are impovershed is another no-no.


But welfare has very few provisions for getting people off of welfare at all, pretty much the only way I know of is if a person improves their situation by getting a job and getting off of welfare after they don't need it. Too many people get on welfare and stay on welfare, the children of those people are about five times more likely to be criminals and thats worse than poverty which has only twice the likelyhood of criminal activity, they don't treat it as the safety net it is but more like the roman bread and circuses. We can't pass a law that keeps them from getting pregnant, but we can give them prophylactics and remove benefits if they aren't used.

But welfare has very few provisions for getting people off of welfare at all, pretty much the only way I know of is if a person improves their situation by getting a job and getting off of welfare after they don't need it. Too many people get on welfare and stay on welfare, the children of those people are about five times more likely to be criminals and thats worse than poverty which has only twice the likelyhood of criminal activity, they don't treat it as the safety net it is but more like the roman bread and circuses. We can't pass a law that keeps them from getting pregnant, but we can give them prophylactics and remove benefits if they aren't used.

I think you need to be more specific about what you mean by criminal activity. Drug users? I agree that welfare isn't a great solution, but until we come up with a system that rewards people for getting up and getting to work, we will always have this problem or we will have people who are not getting adequate support. One or the other.

You will never convince me that punishing a child and not giving them adequate money for food and medicine because their parents where irresponsible is a correct course of action. Thus, you cannot remove benefits if the mother and father choose not to use prophylactics. Also, address married Catholics. There faith requires them not to use protection. So now poor people on welfare aren't allowed to have sex. Yeah, good luck getting that one through in America.

Yes, she can deal with it by going on welfare as happens now. There is no rule against having additional children while on welfare.

No, but there is a rule that states you don't get a single dime more if you do have more children while on welfare.

Notice I said "paper adoption" the woman has the option of putting the child up for adoption.

If the woman puts the child up for adoption, the man doesn't have to pay anything anyways, so it really is a moot point - there is no inequity here. Only the person with custody of the child can put it up for adoption.

Also, what if the woman doesn't inform the man until the child is born? Does he have three months from when he knows the child is his?

As I said before, if a woman waits until after the time during which she can have an abortion to tell the man, then yes, he does have that same time period.

I'm not suggesting a woman can't support a child. I'm suggesting that in the case of a woman that can't support a child alone (much like their are men that can't support a chile alond) the burden would fall to the state rather than the father who is responsible for impregnating the woman.

Only because the state has voluntarily assumed that burden.

Yes, and one of them is to go on welfare.

If you are opposed to welfare, then act against it.

What are you suggesting that if the man gets a "paper abortion" that the woman might not be eligible for welfare if she chooses to keep the child? That will go over like a lead balloon. You cannot force abortion or adoption on the poor. That is how denying welfare to pregnant mothers will be viewed.

I never said anything about denying welfare. As long as we offer it, we offer it equally.

The claim is that men already regularly shirk their responsibilities to their children and leave them to be financed by the state or the woman('s family). It would likely be argued that this is just a legal way to do so.

If it is not a woman's responsibility to continue a pregnancy and take care of the child, then it is not a man's responsibility to financially support a child. It takes two to tango here.

Also, a perfectly fair argument is that an abortion is a medical procedure that carries with it a lot of horrible moral implications that a woman must deal with for her entire life. A man just gets to neatly sign a piece of paper and it's not his problem. Again, I reference the lead balloon.

You don't think signing the paper carries horrible moral implications? Hell, you have listed them quite nicely.

I think a lot of feminists, even male feminists, would feel this solution is not equitable and would fight it and still fit Sinuhue's definition. I would be curious to get Sin's view on this. Yoohoo, Sinuhue?

If they can logically argue as such, then they might have a point.

And that is a good thing? Welfare is not the solution to everything, especially not when you have welfare babies in the mix. That is a very bad thing, when a mother has more children to get more welfare money, but we allow it, why do you think that is?

Note: We don't allow it. There is no more welfare money for a woman who has a child while on welfare.

I didn't say it was a good thing. It just is how it is. You are not going to get a law passed that does not allow poor people (read: welfare mothers) to have children. You are not going to get a law passed that does not provide the net of welfare to mothers and their babies. It's that simple.

To force mothers of welfare, that get pregnant, off welfare would be seen as uncaring and to force them to use birth control would be considered fascist. Denying welfare to newborn children who are impovershed is another no-no.

Guess what? The law does it. Since the Clinton administration, women who have more children while already on welfare don't get any more money to support themselves.

If you can't read, I'm not going to explain it to you. Equal portion always means fifty percent? It meant when proportionately as many women do those things as men, they will begin to be viewed as unisex. Everyone else here seemed to understand it, why are you being difficult?

Your entire post consisted of the words "Equal portion".

Hard to see exactly how you can attribute any misunderstanding to my not being able to read, when you wrote it in such clear and explanatory terms, no?

My point is - you have seemed to be arguing against stereotypes, and then describe how a behaviour like 'grabbing your crotch' would be unisex, if more women did it - implying that it IS something that men 'do'... something of a stereotype, perhaps?

No, but there is a rule that states you don't get a single dime more if you do have more children while on welfare.

If the woman puts the child up for adoption, the man doesn't have to pay anything anyways, so it really is a moot point - there is no inequity here. Only the person with custody of the child can put it up for adoption.

As I said before, if a woman waits until after the time during which she can have an abortion to tell the man, then yes, he does have that same time period.

Only because the state has voluntarily assumed that burden.

If you are opposed to welfare, then act against it.

I never said anything about denying welfare. As long as we offer it, we offer it equally.

If it is not a woman's responsibility to continue a pregnancy and take care of the child, then it is not a man's responsibility to financially support a child. It takes two to tango here.

You don't think signing the paper carries horrible moral implications? Hell, you have listed them quite nicely.

If they can logically argue as such, then they might have a point.

Remember that I agree with you about the paper. I'm just telling you it will likely never pass. I agree with welfare, but the state doesn't like paying for other people's mistakes particularly if those people are fulling capable of funding their own mistakes.

And if you think signing a paper is equivalent to aborting a fetus, I don't know what to say. I'd guess no one will ever blow up a legal office for allowing men to sign these documents.

Your entire post consisted of the words "Equal portion".

Hard to see exactly how you can attribute any misunderstanding to my not being able to read, when you wrote it in such clear and explanatory terms, no?

My point is - you have seemed to be arguing against stereotypes, and then describe how a behaviour like 'grabbing your crotch' would be unisex, if more women did it - implying that it IS something that men 'do'... something of a stereotype, perhaps?

Um, no, one of my posts took two of the words out of the post you replied to. I would assume that if you replied to a post you read it. That appears to be an invalid assumption. Look back at the post you originally replied to and you would see that is said an equal portion as a part of a sentence.

I wasn't arguing against stereotypes. Stereotypes exist for a reason. I believe the best way to prevent them is to undermine the source of them. Teach men not to grab their crotches if it's a bad behavior and women to grab their crotches if you consider it a good behavior.

Guess what? The law does it. Since the Clinton administration, women who have more children while already on welfare don't get any more money to support themselves.

Tell that to my sister who was on welfare when she had her second child and was still on welfare for over a year afterward. I know it was supposed to do that, but it doesn't appear to have worked. And yes, it was after 1996 when the legislation passed.

I'll concede the point, however. I'll admit my surprise though. That's certainly an action I would more likely expect from a Republican (read: it doesn't seem very socially liberal).

Remember that I agree with you about the paper. I'm just telling you it will likely never pass.

It will if we get past the archaic notion that a man should be the provider - the breadwinner - and a woman should simply take care of the children.

I agree with welfare, but the state doesn't like paying for other people's mistakes particularly if those people are fulling capable of funding their own mistakes.

If they were fully capable of funding their own "mistakes", as you put it, welfare wouldn't come into it.

And if you think signing a paper is equivalent to aborting a fetus, I don't know what to say. I'd guess no one will ever blow up a legal office for allowing men to sign these documents.

I didn't say it was equivalent, just that it has its own moral problems behind it. And I would be willing to bet that there *would* be those who would protest and accost men willing to sign it for "shirking their responsibilities."

Tell that to my sister who was on welfare when she had her second child and was still on welfare for over a year afterward. I know it was supposed to do that, but it doesn't appear to have worked. And yes, it was after 1996 when the legislation passed.

"still on welfare" does not imply "getting more money". I never said that people were kicked off of welfare for having more children, just that they don't receive an increase.

I'll concede the point, however. I'll admit my surprise though. That's certainly an action I would more likely expect from a Republican (read: it doesn't seem very socially liberal).

Clinton wasn't very socially liberal. It was his stance as a very moderate Democrat - almost to the point of being more of a moderate Republican, that allowed so much to be done.

"still on welfare" does not imply "getting more money". I never said that people were kicked off of welfare for having more children, just that they don't receive an increase.



Clinton wasn't very socially liberal. It was his stance as a very moderate Democrat - almost to the point of being more of a moderate Republican, that allowed so much to be done.

Actually, I wasn't aware of the law. Yeah, allowing them to remain on welfare with no increase makes sense.

It will if we get past the archaic notion that a man should be the provider - the breadwinner - and a woman should simply take care of the children.

This isn't about men being the breadwinner. Women aren't allowed to shirk their responsibility and leave it on a man unless the men agree to it. Women are only allowed to shirk their responsibility and leave on someone who asks for it or on no one at all. So if you can get past the "archaic notion" that a child should receive support from both parents where possible then a law might past.


If they were fully capable of funding their own "mistakes", as you put it, welfare wouldn't come into it.

I was referring to when the man is capable of funding it and the woman is not or when a man is capable of caring for the child while the mother works. In either case this could keep a family off welfare that when the man is removed may end up on welfare. Similar to how some families end up on welfare when the mother dies or runs off. When signing this document puts a family on welfare, what then?

I didn't say it was equivalent, just that it has its own moral problems behind it. And I would be willing to bet that there *would* be those who would protest and accost men willing to sign it for "shirking their responsibilities."

I would say it's much more similar to putting your child up for adoption. Only in this case, your child is "adopted" by the mother.

Personally I dunno what I am other than just ME...True, males have been cast into stereotypical roles of being uncaring, childish, and certainly chaovanistic pigs. HOWEVER, women have the same problem, just slightly different in what their stereotypical role is. Women more and more often are being portrayed as sex objects, as sexual content rises in public television and media. Now, I'm not saying any of this needs to or should change. Personally, I know that I am NOT the stereotypical guy but I know many of them do exist. I also know quite a few stereotypical girls. But I also know ones that know themselves to be the opposite of the stereotype. What needs to or should change is people's outlook on themselves. And it isn't just men and women. All should be equally tolerant and accepting of themselves. These self-hating gays that go to clinics that promise to "cure" them are a prime example of people who do not accept themselves. It's really any minority that has a stereotype, some more severe than others. Not that I'm a pessimist, but somehow I don't see a day where in the media or general public, men, women, blacks, jews, gays, ANY specific sect of society will be treated and represented as equals. It's all up to the individual.


(By the way, sorry my post jumps around on subjects so much...I think much faster than I type)

This isn't about men being the breadwinner. Women aren't allowed to shirk their responsibility and leave it on a man unless the men agree to it. Women are only allowed to shirk their responsibility and leave on someone who asks for it or on no one at all. So if you can get past the "archaic notion" that a child should receive support from both parents where possible then a law might past.

*No one* is allowed to shirk their own responsibility and leave it on another.

Meanwhile, I only use "parent" to describe someone involved in raising a child. A biological parent is not necessarily truly a parent.

I was referring to when the man is capable of funding it and the woman is not or when a man is capable of caring for the child while the mother works. In either case this could keep a family off welfare that when the man is removed may end up on welfare. Similar to how some families end up on welfare when the mother dies or runs off. When signing this document puts a family on welfare, what then?

That would be an ethical and moral decision for the person signing the paper, now wouldn't it?

I would say it's much more similar to putting your child up for adoption. Only in this case, your child is "adopted" by the mother.

If you sign the paper, the child is not "your child" at all.

Yes, but what if she doesn't have the financial stability to raise the child, but has the child anyway. This isn't an uncommon occurance. Would there be a "paper adoption" also that gives the man the full nine months to decide like it does the woman? I do like the qualifier by the way. I've said similar things myself, but like I said, I don't see it EVER passing because of the whole burden to the state thing.

Imagine a poor woman who is courted and impregnated by a very rich man who gets her pregnant and then gets a paper abortion. Is it fair for the state to pay for the child? Is it fair that his offspring is condemned to poverty because we didn't think it was fair for him to have to pay for it? These types of arguments would be made against such a law. I also think that many feminists would be upset about the fact that men can further absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions.



To both of these I'd say you're the exception. People seem to be much more willing to consider a man a pervert. I'd also venture that people would be more comfortable with the idea of a lesbian school teacher than a gay male teacher.

And if a man is unable to support a child, it does not matter. He will still be forced to pay child support. He has no choice in the matter, and his financial standing is not considered important (except for the actual amount that will be paid).

If a woman is unable to afford to care for a child, she can have an abortion. If she chooses to carry the child anyways, knowing she cannot support it, then that is her decision and she (and unfortunately the child) must live with it. Since it is solely her choice, it is her responsibility.

I do not see why a woman should be allowed to absolve herself of the responsibilty of a pregnancy, but not a man.

Personally, I do not think the government should have to pay for the care of the child, but that is getting into an entirely different subject.

*No one* is allowed to shirk their own responsibility and leave it on another.

I'll reword. Currently there is no female equivalent to a man being able to sign a paper that places the responsibility for a child on the other person responsible for the conception. At the very least, you would have to allow for a woman to sign a similar piece of paper. Right now, a woman can not choose not to pay child support if she has a baby and the man wants to keep it. If she wants to put the child up for adoption and the father is known, the father has to agree, in most states (not sure exactly how many). If the father chooses to take custody of the child the mother is still financially liable. This is similar to when the father would like for the child to be adopted but the mother refuses. Unless this document is afforded both sexes, it tips the scales or at least could be argued to tip the scales.

That would be an ethical and moral decision for the person signing the paper, now wouldn't it?

I actually proposed something similar when I happened to be in the car with the US representative from my area at the time (Tim Johnson, if that matters). We were driving back from Chicago so we had about three hours to talk. I'll admit surprise at the fact that he was such a nice guy. I don't agree with his votes a lot of the time, but I'll give him that he appears to be a man of conviction. The point is that he put it something like this "the government is unlikely to shoulder a financial responsibility that can be shouldered by the person who created it". Personally, I think the government does that all the time (hello, airlines), but I think his position would be shared more than a few.

Meanwhile, I only use "parent" to describe someone involved in raising a child. A biological parent is not necessarily truly a parent.

If you sign the paper, the child is not "your child" at all.

Let's not get caught up in wording. Change your child to a child if you like and both parents to both people responsible for the conception of the child. You still didn't address the point that many people believe a child should receive financial support from both people responsible for its existence unless a suitable (read suitable to mean financially viable)alternative is okayed by the state. Currently you cannot receive welfare money for children until the state has decided that said money can't be obtained for either of the people responsible for the conception of the child unless the child was adopted and the state okayed it. The state will not okay an adoption, even by a relative, unless the people responsible for the conception of the child are deemed unfit or are deceased or that relative is financially capable of supporting the child.

Now see how much more difficult that sentence is when you decide that English isn't good enough for you. You are fully aware of what I mean by the word parent.

I'll reword. Currently there is no female equivalent to a man being able to sign a paper that places the responsibility for a child on the other person responsible for the conception.

The paper does no such thing. It simply absolves him of *his* responsibility to raise the child. If a woman does not want a child, she has the option of abortion. The entire purpose of the paper abortion is to give a man the same access.

At the very least, you would have to allow for a woman to sign a similar piece of paper.

She can, she can give the child up for adoption.

Right now, a woman can not choose not to pay child support if she has a baby and the man wants to keep it.

By law, unless the two are married, the man has no rights to the child that she does not explicitly give him.

If she wants to put the child up for adoption and the father is known, the father has to agree, in most states (not sure exactly how many).

Not in most states. In fact, the few states that have proposed such laws have had them thrown out. Meanwhile, if the father has signed a paper abortion, then he would have no rights to the child, and thus she would not need his permission - since he would have already given up legal rights.

If the father chooses to take custody of the child the mother is still financially liable. This is similar to when the father would like for the child to be adopted but the mother refuses. Unless this document is afforded both sexes, it tips the scales or at least could be argued to tip the scales.

The paper abortion is the male equivalent of a physical abortion. You are attempting to expand it to include factors it does not.

I actually proposed something similar when I happened to be in the car with the US representative from my area at the time (Tim Johnson, if that matters). We were driving back from Chicago so we had about three hours to talk. I'll admit surprise at the fact that he was such a nice guy. I don't agree with his votes a lot of the time, but I'll give him that he appears to be a man of conviction. The point is that he put it something like this "the government is unlikely to shoulder a financial responsibility that can be shouldered by the person who created it". Personally, I think the government does that all the time (hello, airlines), but I think his position would be shared more than a few.

If that is actually his viewpoint, then he should be fighting to force women to have abortions if they cannot pay. Otherwise, he is supporting gender discrimination by putting more responsibility on the man who "created it" than the woman.

You still didn't address the point that many people believe a child should receive financial support from both people responsible for its existence unless a suitable (read suitable to mean financially viable)alternative is okayed by the state.

I have yet to meet a single person who thinks that personal financial decisions should be subject to the state unless the state. In fact, most people seem to think that the state should stay the hell away from their money and let them spend it as they please.

Currently you cannot receive welfare money for children until the state has decided that said money can't be obtained for either of the people responsible for the conception of the child unless the child was adopted and the state okayed it.

This is complete bullshit. Unless a woman is married, she doesn't even have to list a father. Thus, he doesn't even have to factor into the equation.

The state will not okay an adoption, even by a relative, unless the people responsible for the conception of the child are deemed unfit or are deceased or that relative is financially capable of supporting the child.

This is also complete bullshit. Anyone can put a child up for adoption for any reason, they don't have to be deemed unfit by the state to do so.

By law, unless the two are married, the man has no rights to the child that she does not explicitly give him. Actually, I believe that a man can "prove" Paternity and therefore be granted all of the Rights that a man once married to the Mother would have, without ever having been Married to her.

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, I believe that a man can "prove" Paternity and therefore be granted all of the Rights that a man once married to the Mother would have, without ever having been Married to her.

Regards,
Gaar
i think you are right. a biological father does have a claim to a child, even if he and the child's mother were never wed.

Actually, I believe that a man can "prove" Paternity and therefore be granted all of the Rights that a man once married to the Mother would have, without ever having been Married to her.

In order to do so, he would have to gain access to the child (to take their blood), which the mother (or other legal guardian) can refuse to allow. A man cannot just up and do this, he must prove a reason for his suspicion and get a court order forcing the mother to allow it.

However, I was speaking more along the lines of those who argue that a man is "automatically" liable and responsible for the child, whether he wants it or not. This is true only if the mother chooses to list him on the birth certificate.

Hey, Dem, how about we pretend my sentences are a paragraph. Oh, wait, they were.

The point was that the paper abortion leaves a woman to raise a child with the male that spawned it not liable for expenses. There is no opposite to this. If a woman wants to give up rights to the child she must abort it before it's born, or if the father is known or a lawsuit for paternity is occurring, she must get permission to put the child up for adoption. Yes, a woman can refuse access to the child for paternity tests, but the state can override this if enough evidence exists to show paternity prior to the test. For the sake of argument, let's say the father is known, tests have proven he is the father. The mother may not give the child up for adoption without the father's consent. The mother may not absolve herself of the responsibility of the child without the father's consent. The "paper abortion" leaves the woman to raise a child without the biological father's support without her consent. This is not the equivalent of an abortion because a medical abortion does not leave the child to be raised by the biological father, in fact, in a medical abortion there is no child. There is no legal equivalent for a woman to the "paper abortion".

I've gone through the adoption laws for Alabama, Alaska and Arizona and each says that consent must be acquired from the biological father if he has been established to the satisfaction of the courts. Do I have to go through all 50 states, or is three out of three (note the alphebetical order) good enough? Or you can tell me where you got your law, in "by law", or your "most states" from. Mine was from here - http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Adoption.htm

Again this establishes that there is no legal equivalent to leaving a woman to choose between abortion, adoption and raising the child alone while the other biological parent is still alive. Men do not have to choose between "a paper abortion", adoption or raising a child alone unless women are allowed to sign the same document.

The paper abortion is the male equivalent of a physical abortion. You are attempting to expand it to include factors it does not.

Calling your "paper abortion" equivalent to abortion does not make it so. With the paper abortion, there is still a living baby. It's just that simple.

Also, saying that a paper abortion is the moral and ethical equivalent to medical abortion is like saying that a woman having a mastectomy is the equivalent of a man never having them in the first place (in this case, "either of two milk-secreting, glandular organs on the chest of a woman" not "a corresponding rudimentary gland in the male").

If that is actually his viewpoint, then he should be fighting to force women to have abortions if they cannot pay. Otherwise, he is supporting gender discrimination by putting more responsibility on the man who "created it" than the woman.

Right, forcing a woman to have a surgery that she may believe is murder is the same as asking a man to pay for his child rather than the state. Exactly the same.

This is complete bullshit. Unless a woman is married, she doesn't even have to list a father. Thus, he doesn't even have to factor into the equation.

First, she doesn't have to, doesn't mean she won't. In some states, a woman can get in trouble for not being the father of the child down or not putting the correct father down (if it can proven she knew, though, generally, it can't). A birth certificate is a legal document and committing fraud is illegal.

The fact is if the father knows he is the father and can establish a good case for paternity even before a test has been administered the state can order a paternity test. Drawing blood is treated just like search and seizure, it just needs legal justification.

This is also complete bullshit. Anyone can put a child up for adoption for any reason, they don't have to be deemed unfit by the state to do so.

You're right. I worded that terribly bad. The point I was trying to make wasn't that important and it's not worth detracting from the overall point.
I was trying to point out that the state limits who can adopt children except in extreme cases, but even then they require fiscal responsibility. Again, ignore, it's not germaine to the discussion.

Hey, Dem, how about we pretend my sentences are a paragraph. Oh, wait, they were.

Guess what? Paragraphs have more than one point in them. It is easiest to address points one at a time.

The point was that the paper abortion leaves a woman to raise a child with the male that spawned it not liable for expenses.

Not necessarily.

If a woman wants to give up rights to the child she must abort it before it's born, or if the father is known or a lawsuit for paternity is occurring, she must get permission to put the child up for adoption.

Guess you found the next step in the fight for equity.

For the sake of argument, let's say the father is known, tests have proven he is the father. The mother may not give the child up for adoption without the father's consent. The mother may not absolve herself of the responsibility of the child without the father's consent.

See above.

The "paper abortion" leaves the woman to raise a child without the biological father's support without her consent.

She consents when she decides to have the child.

I've gone through the adoption laws for Alabama, Alaska and Arizona and each says that consent must be acquired from the biological father if he has been established to the satisfaction of the courts.

"if he has been established to the satisfaction of the courts." Now that changes things, doesn't it?

Again this establishes that there is no legal equivalent to leaving a woman to choose between abortion, adoption and raising the child alone while the other biological parent is still alive. Men do not have to choose between "a paper abortion", adoption or raising a child alone unless women are allowed to sign the same document.

This is a product of the basic biological differences between men and women. Women can give birth to children - men cannot.

Calling your "paper abortion" equivalent to abortion does not make it so. With the paper abortion, there is still a living baby. It's just that simple.

No, there *might be* a living baby.

Also, saying that a paper abortion is the moral and ethical equivalent to medical abortion is like saying that a woman having a mastectomy is the equivalent of a man never having them in the first place (in this case, "either of two milk-secreting, glandular organs on the chest of a woman" not "a corresponding rudimentary gland in the male").

Look, I know it is hard for you to actually *read* posts, but I never stated it was the moral and ethical equivalent, although your analogy is completley bogus, as the man *does* give something up by signing the paper.

Right, forcing a woman to have a surgery that she may believe is murder is the same as asking a man to pay for his child rather than the state. Exactly the same.

Again, not the same, but equitable, due to the basic biological differences involved.

First, she doesn't have to, doesn't mean she won't. In some states, a woman can get in trouble for not being the father of the child down or not putting the correct father down (if it can proven she knew, though, generally, it can't). A birth certificate is a legal document and committing fraud is illegal.

Even if the father is standing there, a woman can simply state that she does not know who the father was. It is impossible to prove that she *did* know without knowing exactly who she slept with and didn't within the past nine months.

Meanwhile, access to the paper abortion is meant to counteract a woman putting a father down on the birth certificate against his will. If he signs the paper, he will not be on the birth certificate.

The fact is if the father knows he is the father and can establish a good case for paternity even before a test has been administered the state can order a paternity test. Drawing blood is treated just like search and seizure, it just needs legal justification.

This was discussed in a later post.

You seem to be complaining that women are not interested in you, and as such must not be interested in sensitive guys.

Sorry to go all the way back to this, but i just got on.

First you call me insecure then say i cant get a girl? This must be the most moderate flaming i've had, try concentrating on my arguments next time.

This argument has nought to do with me, I merely read a post similair to my thoughts and agreed with it. If you dont agree, fine, say so next time, rather than spouting this stuff.

In order to do so, he would have to gain access to the child (to take their blood), which the mother (or other legal guardian) can refuse to allow. A man cannot just up and do this, he must prove a reason for his suspicion and get a court order forcing the mother to allow it. Such a test can be Court Ordered, like you say.

However, I was speaking more along the lines of those who argue that a man is "automatically" liable and responsible for the child, whether he wants it or not. This is true only if the mother chooses to list him on the birth certificate. Understood. I was merely pointing out that your assertion was wrong...

Your point is still well made, with me at least... :D

Regards,
Gaar

Guess what? Paragraphs have more than one point in them. It is easiest to address points one at a time.



Not necessarily.



Guess you found the next step in the fight for equity.



See above.



She consents when she decides to have the child.



"if he has been established to the satisfaction of the courts." Now that changes things, doesn't it?



This is a product of the basic biological differences between men and women. Women can give birth to children - men cannot.



No, there *might be* a living baby.



Look, I know it is hard for you to actually *read* posts, but I never stated it was the moral and ethical equivalent, although your analogy is completley bogus, as the man *does* give something up by signing the paper.



Again, not the same, but equitable, due to the basic biological differences involved.



Even if the father is standing there, a woman can simply state that she does not know who the father was. It is impossible to prove that she *did* know without knowing exactly who she slept with and didn't within the past nine months.

Meanwhile, access to the paper abortion is meant to counteract a woman putting a father down on the birth certificate against his will. If he signs the paper, he will not be on the birth certificate.



This was discussed in a later post.

Ok, we're done. I don't believe for a moment that you believe forcing a woman to have a surgery that she believes is murder is equitable to a man signing a paper. Giving that I don't believe you, the discussion is pointless.

Ok, we're done. I don't believe for a moment that you believe forcing a woman to have a surgery that she believes is murder is equitable to a man signing a paper. Giving that I don't believe you, the discussion is pointless.

I never said it was.

I said that allowing a man to sign the paper, whether the woman likes it or not, is equitable to allowing a woman to have an abortion, whether the man likes it or not.

*YOU* stated that the reason for not giving a man this equitable option was that the state might have to pay for childcare. If this were really the reasoning, rather than an outdated "man as breadwinner" idea, then the state *would* be forcing women into surgeries, as they would not want to pay for childcare.

Sorry to go all the way back to this, but i just got on.

First you call me insecure then say i cant get a girl? This must be the most moderate flaming i've had, try concentrating on my arguments next time.

I was pointing out the inferences that could be made from your comments. I never said that you *can't* get a girl, but you have stated that:

(a) You are sensitive.
(b) Women go for the non-sensitive types.

Logical inference: Women don't go for you.

This argument has nought to do with me, I merely read a post similair to my thoughts and agreed with it. If you dont agree, fine, say so next time, rather than spouting this stuff.

I already pointed out that I don't agree - and that the statement itself assumed a sexist viewpoint.

I never said it was.

I said that allowing a man to sign the paper, whether the woman likes it or not, is equitable to allowing a woman to have an abortion, whether the man likes it or not.

*YOU* stated that the reason for not giving a man this equitable option was that the state might have to pay for childcare. If this were really the reasoning, rather than an outdated "man as breadwinner" idea, then the state *would* be forcing women into surgeries, as they would not want to pay for childcare.

Meh.

Your "equity" is a false one. If a men had to go through the pain of childbirth and could be stuck with an unwanted child, then you might have something.

As is, a woman's rights over her own body are what is at issue. Men have the same rights. Nothing inequitable about it.

And, for the record, I am proud to call myself a male feminist.

I never said it was.

I said that allowing a man to sign the paper, whether the woman likes it or not, is equitable to allowing a woman to have an abortion, whether the man likes it or not.

*YOU* stated that the reason for not giving a man this equitable option was that the state might have to pay for childcare. If this were really the reasoning, rather than an outdated "man as breadwinner" idea, then the state *would* be forcing women into surgeries, as they would not want to pay for childcare.

You forget. I have pointed out that in one case a child exists. That child must be considered in your "equity" and it's not. It is not legally equitable to condemn a child to poverty because the biological father didn't want to be inconvenienced.

Also, the state must be considered in your equity. Name one other instance where the state takes on a burden to account for biological inequity. *YOU* suggested that in order for the state to protect itself from taking on a burden that is more equitably placed on one or both of the people responsible for that burden that the state should FORCE abortions on women in order not to be discriminatory against men.

Meh.

Your "equity" is a false one. If a men had to go through the pain of childbirth and could be stuck with an unwanted child, then you might have something.

As is, a woman's rights over her own body are what is at issue. Men have the same rights. Nothing inequitable about it.

And, for the record, I am proud to call myself a male feminist.

Exactly.

I am a masculist. I long for the day when men are treated as equals to women. This does not mean that I am anti-feminist. Women deserve the same treatment in the workforce and everywhere else. But I look around and see the next generation being brought up in a world where men are sexist, macho pigs who are only one short evolutionairy step away from monkeys, where you cannot show weakness or emotion. Men cannot, by definition, be in abusive relationships unless they are the abuser. They cannot be abused mentally or physically, cannot be vicitms of rape. If the men who suffer from these kinds of situations, and there are more of them than we think, if they ever came forward, they would be condemned as weak and would be dispised by society. There are few role models for young boys, and an verwhelming number of Archie Bunkers and Al Bundys. Both feminists and masculists, women and men, should strive for a day when we are equal in every way. Women and men should help each other, not push eachother apart.

What do other people think? Am I the only masculist out there? Tell me your opinions, and give us all some hope for the future.

I know this goes back to the start of this thread (I've scanned some of it, but I'm not going back to read all 30+ pages), but their are two critical errors in this thinking.

1) "I long for the day when men are treated as equals to women." This is simply bass-ackwards.

2) What you describe re changing gender stereotypes is feminism. Ever read Susan Faludi's Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068812299X/103-0345811-1703011)?

Your "equity" is a false one. If a men had to go through the pain of childbirth and could be stuck with an unwanted child, then you might have something.

You are confusing equity with equality. There are basic biological differences between men and women. As such, there will be differences in treatment. That does not make it less equitable, but it does make it less equal.

As is, a woman's rights over her own body are what is at issue.

For the most part, yes. However, if that decision is completely up to the woman (and I believe it is), then the father must have the option of removing his rights and responsibilities to a child as well.

Men have the same rights. Nothing inequitable about it.

The inequity comes in when we discuss the fact that a man can be *forced* to pay for a decision made completley by the *woman*.

You forget. I have pointed out that in one case a child exists.

Which is false. In one case a child *might* exist. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, no child exists. If a man chooses to sign the paper, no child exists *for him*. It may or may not exist for the mother, at her own discretion.

That child must be considered in your "equity" and it's not.

You are confusing equity and equality.

It is not legally equitable to condemn a child to poverty because the biological father didn't want to be inconvenienced.

It is if the mother can choose to not have the child because *she* doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

Meanwhile, it is the mother who condemns the child to poverty (if it is to be condemned as such), not the father. If the mother believes that aboriton is murder, but does not want the child to be in poverty, she can give it up for adoption. Since the man has given away legal rights and responsibilities already, he has no say in this.

Also, the state must be considered in your equity. Name one other instance where the state takes on a burden to account for biological inequity.

The state is not a human being and thus does not have to be considered in any discussion of human equity.

Meanwhile, the state does not have to take the burden - it chooses to. If the people decided that welfare should not be a power of the governemnt, it would not be.

*YOU* suggested that in order for the state to protect itself from taking on a burden that is more equitably placed on one or both of the people responsible for that burden that the state should FORCE abortions on women in order not to be discriminatory against men.

You said that your reasoning was purely so that the state does not have to take on a burden. First of all, we are assuming a lot when we say that the woman would *have* to go on welfare. If that is true, then chances are she is *already* on welfare. Second of all, you are stating that it is ok to discriminate against men, and allow someone else to have control over their lives, because your state is cheap.

You are confusing equity with equality. There are basic biological differences between men and women. As such, there will be differences in treatment. That does not make it less equitable, but it does make it less equal.

No, you are making a semantic distinction of little merit -- and then violating it by trying to "make up" for a biological difference by creating a legal advantage.

For the most part, yes. However, if that decision is completely up to the woman (and I believe it is), then the father must have the option of removing his rights and responsibilities to a child as well. The inequity comes in when we discuss the fact that a man can be *forced* to pay for a decision made completley by the *woman*.

Excuse me, but the man in your scenario fathered a child. Nothing inequitable in tying rights and responsibilities to that act. The same rights and responsibilites attach to the woman. You give the father a "get out kid free card" with no reciprocity.

A man retains his rights over his own body without penalty. A woman has the same.

The inequity comes in when we discuss the fact that a man can be *forced* to pay for a decision made completley by the *woman*. Well, while I agree with you argument I don't agree with this...

No one forced him to sleep with her, and no one made him not use protection.

And yes, I realize protection isn't always affective, but that's not my point.

He DID have a choice in it all...

Regards,
Gaar

(a) All men were not attracted to such women. In much of society, a woman was told to act passive, but to actually be assertive - just in a way that didn't make it obvious she was doing so.

(b) If all the women were acting passive and quiet, who else was there to be attracted to?
(a) I never said "all men" - you couldn't say that. At no point in history has everyone been the same. I mean "most men".

(b) Probably not all women were passive, but most were. And who else? Other men (although illegal at the time)?

There are more assertive women than there were in the past.
Yes, I agree. That's because it society has changed to accept and encourage assertiveness in women.

And they are changing. The entire idea of gender roles is being challenged.

Of course, I would argue that the gender roles that men feel are being forced upon them are most often forced by other men who don't want to appear to be gay than by women.
I agree. I don't blame women for these ridiculous gender roles. It's not as bad as it was in the past.

To both of these I'd say you're the exception. People seem to be much more willing to consider a man a pervert.
I hate that too, but I would guess that it's due to the fact that in the majority of paedophile cases, the perpetrator has been male.

People who think that way generally don't like homosexuals period.
Yes, probably true, but I've noticed that homophobes tend to go after gay men much, much more than gay women.

most women think two guys together is okay, but not sexy.
What? Most women who I've heard speak on that topic say that they find the thought to be erotic, or at least beautiful.

Excuse me, but the man in your scenario fathered a child. Nothing inequitable in tying rights and responsibilities to that act. The same rights and responsibilites attach to the woman. You give the father a "get out kid free card" with no reciprocity.

A man retains his rights over his own body without penalty. A woman has the same. Sure there is...

If a Woman is able to "end" her and his responsibility on her own "whim" and a man cannot, then how is that "equitable"?

Regards,
Gaar

Sure there is...

If a Woman is able to "end" her and his responsibility on her own "whim" and a man cannot, then how is that "equitable"?

Regards,
Gaar

Go away, little troll.

No, you are making a semantic distinction of little merit -- and then violating it by trying to "make up" for a biological difference by creating a legal advantage.

I am making an obvious semantic difference - which is incredibly necessary. "Equality" would mean "men have the right to get a get their tubes tied," which makes no sense. "Equity" means that women have the right to get their tubes tied and men have the right to get a vasectomy. Of course, due to biological differences, one is much more invasive than the other.

Excuse me, but the man in your scenario fathered a child. Nothing inequitable in tying rights and responsibilities to that act. The same rights and responsibilites attach to the woman. You give the father a "get out kid free card" with no reciprocity.

The woman also has a "get out of kid free card", also with no reciprocity.

A man retains his rights over his own body without penalty. A woman has the same.

But apparently a man has less rights to his property than a woman.

I am making an obvious semantic difference - which is incredibly necessary. "Equality" would mean "men have the right to get a get their tubes tied," which makes no sense. "Equity" means that women have the right to get their tubes tied and men have the right to get a vasectomy. Of course, due to biological differences, one is much more invasive than the other.

Meh.

Equal protection under the law.

Equal opportunity.

Equity refers to things being just, fair, impartial.

Equality refers to having the same privileges, status, and rights.

Both are good things.

Equal treatment for all genders is the proper goal.

That does not mean exactly the same treatment for everyone regardless of gender.


The woman also has a "get out of kid free card", also with no reciprocity

But apparently a man has less rights to his property than a woman.

Children are property? Methinks, you've missed the mark entirely.

And when the embryo, fetus, etc. is part of the woman's body it is entirely the woman's property. Little thing called self-ownership. Men have it too.

Both an abortion and childbirth include a myriad of costs and risks that a man avoids.

Your suggestion does not treat the genders equally. Instead, it gives the male an additional privilege that a woman cannot obtain without additonal cost to herself.

Which is false. In one case a child *might* exist. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, no child exists. If a man chooses to sign the paper, no child exists *for him*. It may or may not exist for the mother, at her own discretion.

You are confusing equity and equality.

No, I am considering the child and you're not. Child support isn't to help out the mother. It's to help out the child. I'm pointing out the child and you keep trying to make this about the mother.

It is if the mother can choose to not have the child because *she* doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

If the mother chooses not to have the child, the child does not exist. If the father opts out, the child still *might* exist.

Meanwhile, it is the mother who condemns the child to poverty (if it is to be condemned as such), not the father. If the mother believes that aboriton is murder, but does not want the child to be in poverty, she can give it up for adoption. Since the man has given away legal rights and responsibilities already, he has no say in this.

Again, you consider only the mother and not the child. The state does and MUST consider the child.

You said that your reasoning was purely so that the state does not have to take on a burden. First of all, we are assuming a lot when we say that the woman would *have* to go on welfare. If that is true, then chances are she is *already* on welfare. Second of all, you are stating that it is ok to discriminate against men, and allow someone else to have control over their lives, because your state is cheap.

I'm saying nature discriminated against men and that it's not the state's job to pass laws that pretend to make up for nature. They don't. They can't. Plus, nature made up for it by not requiring men to go through child birth, by not making men go through pregnancy, etc.

Meh.

Equal protection under the law.

Equal opportunity.

Equity refers to things being just, fair, impartial.

Equality refers to having the same privileges, status, and rights.

Both are good things.

Equal treatment for all genders is the proper goal.

That does not mean exactly the same treatment for everyone regardless of gender.




Children are property? Methinks, you've missed the mark entirely.

And when the embryo, fetus, etc. is part of the woman's body it is entirely the woman's property. Little thing called self-ownership. Men have it too.

Both an abortion and childbirth include a myriad of costs and risks that a man avoids.

Your suggestion does not treat the genders equally. Instead, it gives the male an additional privilege that a woman cannot obtain without additonal cost to herself.

We seem to be saying the same thing.

i hope at some point i become independently wealthy

if i do, i will organize a college scholarship fund

I will name it the "white christian male scholarship fund"

you know why? because there are scholarships for just about everything else. In today's society, it seems the much of the time, few people want equality, and all want more than everyone. Also i think if someone did start this fund, they would be criticized for whatever reason

if you really wanted to avoid discrimination based on gender or race, then for college or job applications, just take off the section for name, race, and gender and assign a number. The decisions can be made on merit, and not worrying about having "diversity." Many attempts at 'equal' numbers have turned into reverse discrimination on white males, and im sick of it

i hope at some point i become independently wealthy

if i do, i will organize a college scholarship fund

I will name it the "white christian male scholarship fund"

you know why? because there are scholarships for just about everything else. In today's society, it seems the much of the time, few people want equality, and all want more than everyone. Also i think if someone did start this fund, they would be criticized for whatever reason

if you really wanted to avoid discrimination based on gender or race, then for college or job applications, just take off the section for name, race, and gender and assign a number. The decisions can be made on merit, and not worrying about having "diversity." Many attempts at 'equal' numbers have turned into reverse discrimination on white males, and im sick of it

Oh, you poor oppressed thing.

Here's a fluffle. :fluffle: