NationStates Jolt Archive

First things first:

Version 1.0 was my "What shall we do with feminism" thread. It died a few months ago after getting over 400 posts (my personal record)
I, the maker of this thread, realize that the people in the feminist movement have very different ideas, goals, and plans, and are united by the idea that women should have more power/rights than they do now.
Gender Equality means absolute equality between men and women in every aspect and nuance, and is biologically impossible.
Gender Equity means that men and women might have an edge over each other in various situations, however, in the whole, men and women are equal, and the differences balance each other out
I admire the work of early feminists, and support women having complete political power, including, but not limited to, ability to vote and run for various offices. I also support women being able to have jobs, choose who they want to marry, or if they should marry at all. I also support their right to choose where to work, or not to work at all. I condemn the idea that a woman is property, belonging to first her father, than her husband.

That being said, here is what I am against:
I am against women getting the same pay as men. Here is why: it is men's natural instinct to be a breadwinner, and a woman to be a nurturer. Nature/G-d has just designed us that way. Although we cannot go along with all of our instincts (such as polygamy), we should go along with as many as possible. In the situation where the husband raises the children, while the wife works, the husband still is a man, and has instincts that tell him to go and "win bread". Not only are these instincts wasted when he raises the children, they also hinder his ability to do so, and thus the his effectness falls. All of this is true with the wife too. Note how I am not forbidding women to work, i am just encouraging them not to. Working women would have all the right to do so, and shouldn't be treated any way inferior to non-working women. Therefore it just makes sense for the spouses to assume their natural roles, roles which are equal. Which brings me to the next point.
I am against staying at home being considered inferior to working. In fact, staying at home and working have equity. Some aspects are different, but overall they are the same. Here are some examples: "If you stay at home, you can sleep late. At work you can meet different people. If you stay at home you are your own boss. At work you have a career." Some may say that the breadwinner has financial power over the woman, but it's not true. All the money that a family member makes belongs not to him, but the family. Therefore, the wife has as many rights to that money as the husband.
I am against the murder of chivalry. For the last time, I swear that when I open a door for a girl, I am not trying to execute power over her, or show that it is in my power for the door to open, but not hers. I really don't mean any of that. I am JUST BEING NICE! That's it. Sure, it may puzzle you how a man might be nice, or do something out of niceness, but thats fact. I am only doing it to be nice. Same applies to most other situations, which some feminists claim to be men trying to control women, while in reality, it's nothing.

WEll, this is it for now. I gotta go to sleep now, but i'll be back tomorrow. Let
s hope this thread gets some interesting replys.

That being said, here is what I am against:
I am against women getting the same pay as men.
I am against the murder of chivalry.
muchos snippage


What about women who want a career, and who don't want to start a family? Why should they be forced to accept less money on the account that it is not their "natural instinct" to be breadwinner? I also take issue with the fact that an instinct such as this is strictly related to men. Women can want to be the breadwinner just as much as a man could want to be a stay-at-home-husband. Take, for example, the lioness. The hunter and the breadwinner of the pride, in the animal kingdom. do you see the guy going out and hunting? Nope. His role is to stay at home and protect the pride from attack by other prides looking for space. He sure as hell doesn't do any of that nurturing crap, but he doesn't go out and actively earn his keep. So saying it's natures way is incorrect.

As for chivalry, I don't think it should be dead either. I just think there should be chivalrous equity. To take the cliched example, if I'm coming up to a door, carrying a huge amount of heavy books, and there's a guy also using the door, damn right I want him to hold it open for me! I'd do the same for them. I'd also expect a girl to do the same thing for me, because being nice shouldn't just be something that a single gender has to do.

oh, and on your point that human society should conform to nature wherever it is not morally wrong to do so, I disagree. I say we should conform wherever it is to our advantage to, and come up with our own solution when it is not. That's the advantage of being a species that possesses the power of creative thought.

Errr... ok... right... So you're basically against same pay for the same work? Hey, how very fair and nice. Pretty much chauvinistic, no?

The argument with the insticts and nature design is flawed. Humans can go above insticnts. If you only stick to instincts you're like any other animal.

Actually, I'm not going to waste my breath on this. Just another chauvinist spewing his oldfashioned crap which lacks any basis except his own hurt ego.

All I have to say is...

Ehh.

I have to say I think that people in the workforce should be paid the same regardless of gender, a fair days pay for a fair days work.

I have to say I think that people in the workforce should be paid the same regardless of gender, a fair days pay for a fair days work.

I have to say... I agree.

Our instincts tell us to go out and hunt down our dinner. Yet I doubt very many of us still do that. Maybe it's possible to go against our "instincts", don't you think? Rise above our baser impluses?

Maybe it's possible to go against our "instincts", don't you think? Rise above our baser impluses?

Well, that would be very difficult, especially for those of us who are "Macho Men", if you get my drift...

Well, that would be very difficult, especially for those of us who are "Macho Men", if you get my drift...

You think he's a closet homosexual?

True feminism supports gender equality, not one sex being better than the others. This would include equal pay - it is irrelevant whether or not women are naturally nurturers and men breadwinners (and that's a stereotype, cos people like me - a woman - detest the concept of nurturing). Firstly, who decides what is 'natural' - are you the concept's arbiter? Is it a societal construct? Granted, it is part of out biological past, but times have changed - there are changes in the human spieces at an evolutionary level, as well as immense social changes.

Furthermore, if you regard supposed natural instincts as being paramount, men (in particular) are naturally looking to spread their seed to every woman they can. I take it you therefore support every man's infidelity and despise monogamy. People often say homosexuality is not natural - one must assume you are a homophobe therefore as well. Our biological past, which you appear to somewhat support, predisposed the triumph of the strong over the weak. Is this the kind of society in which we wish to live today?

If you are against the supposed 'natural' order of things in one way, then it would be inconsistent and hypocritical to be against them in others, would it not?

it is men's natural instinct to be a breadwinner, and a woman to be a nurturer. Nature/G-d has just designed us that way.

bullshit. firstly, because humanity did not spend most of its evolutionary history eating bread. secondly - and more importantly - because the whole chest-thumping "man the hunter and sole provider" thing just doesn't pan out. in foraging cultures with a sexual division of labor, women bring in more food more reliably than the men. and in those with less distinct sexual divisions of labor, the women take part in the hunt and the men gather and everybody's contribution averages out.

*ahem* As someone who grew up in a single parent household (due to the death of my father), may I state the notion that women are not breadwinners and should not be paid as much as men is self-evidently a load of swamp gas?

First things first:

Version 1.0 was my "What shall we do with feminism" thread. It died a few months ago after getting over 400 posts (my personal record)
I, the maker of this thread, realize that the people in the feminist movement have very different ideas, goals, and plans, and are united by the idea that women should have more power/rights than they do now.
Gender Equality means absolute equality between men and women in every aspect and nuance, and is biologically impossible.
Gender Equity means that men and women might have an edge over each other in various situations, however, in the whole, men and women are equal, and the differences balance each other out
I admire the work of early feminists, and support women having complete political power, including, but not limited to, ability to vote and run for various offices. I also support women being able to have jobs, choose who they want to marry, or if they should marry at all. I also support their right to choose where to work, or not to work at all. I condemn the idea that a woman is property, belonging to first her father, than her husband.

That being said, here is what I am against:
I am against women getting the same pay as men. Here is why: it is men's natural instinct to be a breadwinner, and a woman to be a nurturer. Nature/G-d has just designed us that way. Although we cannot go along with all of our instincts (such as polygamy), we should go along with as many as possible. In the situation where the husband raises the children, while the wife works, the husband still is a man, and has instincts that tell him to go and "win bread". Not only are these instincts wasted when he raises the children, they also hinder his ability to do so, and thus the his effectness falls. All of this is true with the wife too. Note how I am not forbidding women to work, i am just encouraging them not to. Working women would have all the right to do so, and shouldn't be treated any way inferior to non-working women. Therefore it just makes sense for the spouses to assume their natural roles, roles which are equal. Which brings me to the next point.
I am against staying at home being considered inferior to working. In fact, staying at home and working have equity. Some aspects are different, but overall they are the same. Here are some examples: "If you stay at home, you can sleep late. At work you can meet different people. If you stay at home you are your own boss. At work you have a career." Some may say that the breadwinner has financial power over the woman, but it's not true. All the money that a family member makes belongs not to him, but the family. Therefore, the wife has as many rights to that money as the husband.
I am against the murder of chivalry. For the last time, I swear that when I open a door for a girl, I am not trying to execute power over her, or show that it is in my power for the door to open, but not hers. I really don't mean any of that. I am JUST BEING NICE! That's it. Sure, it may puzzle you how a man might be nice, or do something out of niceness, but thats fact. I am only doing it to be nice. Same applies to most other situations, which some feminists claim to be men trying to control women, while in reality, it's nothing.

WEll, this is it for now. I gotta go to sleep now, but i'll be back tomorrow. Let
s hope this thread gets some interesting replys.

Twit.

You think he's a closet homosexual?
i believe that was the implication.

~snip~
Here's my advice to you. Stop being such a whiny bitch. Seriously, you're worse than Sean Penn

You think he's a closet homosexual?

Twit.

Here's my advice to you. Stop being such a whiny bitch. Seriously, you're worse than Sean Penn

Um...guys...I think we need to slow down a bit. I mean this is actually a well-constructed thread. It's not inflamatory, but merely presents a point. We may not agree with his sentiments (I don't), but I think we have the obligation to present our rebutals with civility.

Thank you.

True feminism supports gender equality, not one sex being better than the others. This would include equal pay - it is irrelevant whether or not women are naturally nurturers and men breadwinners (and that's a stereotype, cos people like me - a woman - detest the concept of nurturing). Firstly, who decides what is 'natural' - are you the concept's arbiter? Is it a societal construct? Granted, it is part of out biological past, but times have changed - there are changes in the human spieces at an evolutionary level, as well as immense social changes.

Furthermore, if you regard supposed natural instincts as being paramount, men (in particular) are naturally looking to spread their seed to every woman they can. I take it you therefore support every man's infidelity and despise monogamy. People often say homosexuality is not natural - one must assume you are a homophobe therefore as well. Our biological past, which you appear to somewhat support, predisposed the triumph of the strong over the weak. Is this the kind of society in which we wish to live today?

If you are against the supposed 'natural' order of things in one way, then it would be inconsistent and hypocritical to be against them in others, would it not?


*sigh*

What she said.

I can't believe tha people still fall for that "natural" stuff. I know just as many men who get clucky over babies as women; I know women who hat the idea of having kids and are very career-oriented. Gender roles are just that, roles cast by society.

All the money that a family member makes belongs not to him, but the family. Therefore, the wife has as many rights to that money as the husband.
Communist!

I think that in some ways, society is getting it. For instance, although pay is not yet equal in a lot of cases, there is definitely a push for it. However, I think that in some cases, society has gone too far. I know that around where I live, women have pretty much all of the social power (note - social power, not necessarily economic or anything). I know that it certainly annoys me to no end how little power I see myself and other guys having in social terms.

But in other areas we still haven't done anything at all. For instance, women who stay at home are generally labelled as "housekeepers", while men who do the same are usually labelled as unemployed. Until we get over things like this, we cannot move foreward.

Perhaps the biggest problem I see, though, is that of labelling people. It is far, far too easy to label a guy who stands up for himself as a chauvenist; women are trusted more as well. My family recently adopted a girl whos mother was beating herself and her father. The thing was, it wasn't until she started complaining that the authorities began to take notice. They completely ignored her father. Until society recognises that both men and women can be mean, can be abusive and can use their power for the wrong reasons, then we can't move foreward at all.

I know that around where I live, women have pretty much all of the social power
Where do you live?

In the Northern suburbs of Sydney, Australia

In the Northern suburbs of Sydney, Australia

Ah, I uderstand now... Wealthy women ARE more socially liberated than lower class ones. But of course it's all for show really.

meh


your saying everyone should be treated equally that means they should be payed equally to.

Yes, I so enjoy being patted on the head, patronized, and told by my future husband that I am allowed to have as much of his money as I need.

Really.

Honestly, what it it about women being treated equally that threatens some males? I mean, is there a need to feel superior that is so ingrown that it is necessary to dominate the person they supposedly love?

Personally speaking, I don't have and don't want kids; neither does my fiance. So the "stay home and nurture" argument just goes into the toilet.

Both of us want to make what we are worth... that way, we can afford the lifestyle we both want. You know, minor details like house, two cars, some travel now and again....

By paying women less as a matter of policy, you are doing nothing more or less than stealing from their paycheck.

Um...guys...I think we need to slow down a bit. I mean this is actually a well-constructed thread. It's not inflamatory, but merely presents a point. We may not agree with his sentiments (I don't), but I think we have the obligation to present our rebutals with civility.
You're right, it should be dealt with in debate and logic, not name calling. So...
That being said, here is what I am against:
I am against women getting the same pay as men. Here is why: it is men's natural instinct to be a breadwinner, and a woman to be a nurturer. Nature/G-d has just designed us that way. Although we cannot go along with all of our instincts (such as polygamy), we should go along with as many as possible. In the situation where the husband raises the children, while the wife works, the husband still is a man, and has instincts that tell him to go and "win bread". Not only are these instincts wasted when he raises the children, they also hinder his ability to do so, and thus the his effectness falls. All of this is true with the wife too. Note how I am not forbidding women to work, i am just encouraging them not to. Working women would have all the right to do so, and shouldn't be treated any way inferior to non-working women. Therefore it just makes sense for the spouses to assume their natural roles, roles which are equal. Which brings me to the next point.
A few points with this. First there is the whole notion of humans having to follow their nature assigned roles. As you noted in your post, we make an effort to avoid the drives and demands of our 'natural' side. Civilization is not natural, building towns, cities, and space stations are obviously not natural (Terry Pratchett comes to mind, "You mean you eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?"). If even embracing nature is a worthwhile goal, I seriously doubt that you could say men, as a sex, have a breadwinning instinct. As it was pointed out, the idea of settling down came from women who were the gatherers in our hunting/gathering tribes. While no one knows for sure, of course, most anthropology books I have read have agreed that women were probably the ones who discovered agriculture. They figured out that plants grow in a certain area each year and probably were the ones who worked out the growing cycle.

They provided a much more steady supply of food, and stability, than the roaming hunters. Needing to stay in one area to protect and grow a food crop led to the abandonment of the nomadic lifestyle, the building of cities and towns, and eventually, Reality TV.

Even more, it needs to be noted that man's instinct is more towards impregnating as many women as possible, in order to assure his seed is cast wide and his genetic material is passed on. In a number of books I have read on the evolution of sex (Down! Down I say!), it has been speculated that women evolved a number of ways to keep a wandering mate at home, namely masking when they were able to be impregnated (really, I'm trying to be nice). Since a man could not tell when his mate was able to be impregnated, it meant he had to keep close to home to prevent someone else sneaking in. Since he was there, he might as well bring in some food. So I wouldn't say it's a breadwinning instinct as more of a by-product of making sure the kid was his (Try The Evolution of Evil for some more detailed work on this).

Second, you manage to contradict yourself, "Not only are these instincts wasted when he raises the children, they also hinder his ability to do so, and thus the his effectness falls. All of this is true with the wife too." If it is true for the wife as well as the husband, you have not stated why then she should be paid less than him, if both have this nurturing instinct.
All the money that a family member makes belongs not to him, but the family. Therefore, the wife has as many rights to that money as the husband.
My Japanese fiancee agrees with you, but then again the culture is different. However, I would ask, would this hold true for money made by the wife as well?
I am against the murder of chivalry. For the last time, I swear that when I open a door for a girl, I am not trying to execute power over her, or show that it is in my power for the door to open, but not hers. I really don't mean any of that. I am JUST BEING NICE! That's it. Sure, it may puzzle you how a man might be nice, or do something out of niceness, but thats fact. I am only doing it to be nice. Same applies to most other situations, which some feminists claim to be men trying to control women, while in reality, it's nothing.
Possibly, but if I understand the argument correctly, it has nothing to do with the motive of the gentleman in question and has more to do with society. Why do you hold open a door? Is it because you were taught that you should always hold open doors for ladies? That is, from what I understand, the gist of the argument. You hold it open because you were taught to, but only for ladies, because they were the weaker sex.

Personally I disagree as well, and I'll hold open the door for anyone if I happen to reach the damn thing first.

While I agree with you on women are not property, or should be bound into the house against their will, I disagree with them being paid less, especially as I have not seen an argument for that. Please continue your thoughts.

That being said, here is what I am against:

I am against staying at home being considered inferior to working. In fact, staying at home and working have equity. Some aspects are different, but overall they are the same. Here are some examples: "If you stay at home, you can sleep late. At work you can meet different people. If you stay at home you are your own boss. At work you have a career." Some may say that the breadwinner has financial power over the woman, but it's not true. All the money that a family member makes belongs not to him, but the family. Therefore, the wife has as many rights to that money as the husband..

1) Chivalry is not a bad thing.
2) Equal pay for equal work. If someone is better at a job, they deserve better pay. But gender should be irrelevant in salary, just quality of work.
3) Staying at home should not be inferior to work, and some nations consider it so. Though I must laugh at the "If you stay at home, you can sleep late" comment. Do you have kids? I stay at home and raise my daughter, and I don't use an alarm. I don't need one. She tells me when to get up by screaming for milk.
Financially, in some families the breadwinner will control the money, giving them power over the homemaker. In others this is not the case. It really depends on the people involved.

And, by the way, I am my daughter's father. My wife works and I stay home with her. That may not be as nature inteded according to you, and society really looks at it funny, but so what.

Here is why: it is men's natural instinct to be a breadwinner, and a woman to be a nurturer. I disagree, and the vast number of men who are nurturing and women who are able to support their children attest to this. It's not instinct, but social conditioning which sets that rule. Perhaps research beyond the traditional western paradigm of gender roles and you'll find many examples. I think you're under the impression that the only acomplishment of any merit a woman is capable of is as a mother. Whilst not to disparage motherhood, that belief has just limited the capcity of over half the world's people to achieve beyond their biology. Shall we, by comparison, say that the greatest achievement for a man is to squirt semen into an orrifice? To stereotype the woman as a 'nurturer' and the man as the 'breadwinner' is to cultivate a culture where copping-out of society is ok if you have a vagina license. Denying equal pay for men and women makes women a burden on either a man or the state. That's not only bad gender politics, but bad economics. In the situation where the husband raises the children, while the wife works, the husband still is a man, and has instincts that tell him to go and "win bread". Provide physiological evidence for this involuntary instinct, and I'll believe you. I have a desire to go out and 'win bread,' and a vagina. Seems your assumption would be easier to change than my physiology. Note how I am not forbidding women to work, i am just encouraging them not to. Working women would have all the right to do so, and shouldn't be treated any way inferior to non-working women. Therefore it just makes sense for the spouses to assume their natural roles, roles which are equal. Those roles aren't equal. The woman as traditional wife and mother is the underling of the man, economically speaking. I think the ideology that a woman's role is at home popping out snotlings undermines whatever politically correct mantra you espouse about women being allowed to go out and work. Man is not the owner of women. They have distinct differences which cannot be disputed, but they are equal, and women have clearly demonstrated equal ability in the workforce.
I am against staying at home being considered inferior to working. In fact, staying at home and working have equity. Some aspects are different, but overall they are the same. Here are some examples: "If you stay at home, you can sleep late. At work you can meet different people. If you stay at home you are your own boss. At work you have a career." You can't sleep late if you have kids. Staying at home can be isolating and depressing. Housework is tedious, menial work, with no opportunity for advancement or intellectual stimulation. It is physically draining by its exertion, and emotionally draining by its futility, because it never ends. Please consider those realities before ascribing over half the human population to it. Some may say that the breadwinner has financial power over the woman, but it's not true. All the money that a family member makes belongs not to him, but the family. Therefore, the wife has as many rights to that money as the husband. Lip service to placate women with the delusion that she has rights to that money. It's not her money. It's her housekeeping allowance. To discourage her from working is to deny her the chance to develop the strength and independence to look after herself. The knowledge and security that she can rely on herself is of greater value than any life-insurance her husband can buy.
I am against the murder of chivalry. For the last time, I swear that when I open a door for a girl, I am not trying to execute power over her, or show that it is in my power for the door to open, but not hers. I really don't mean any of that. I am JUST BEING NICE! That's it. Sure, it may puzzle you how a man might be nice, or do something out of niceness, but thats fact. I am only doing it to be nice. Same applies to most other situations, which some feminists claim to be men trying to control women, while in reality, it's nothing. You should try the new unisex-flavoured chivalry. It's called respect. It motivates actions without the blinkers of gender perception.
As I said in the "Who says Women don't lie about rape?" thread: Feminism seeks to achieve is equality of the sexes. There have been the odd high-profile man-haters at the fore, giving the entire movement a bad name. What is most unfortunate is that the those with a very lazy concept of what feminism is, choose the man-hater as the definition for the movement. It's akin to choosing the sexual predator as the definition of Catholic clergy. Maybe you could avail yourself of some moderate contemporary feminist literature. Or even some really basic socioeconomics and psychology literature.

Twit.

Now, now. We might all give you an "Amen!" for that, but technically, it's flaming.

Let us remain content to question his intelligence, education, and upbringing from an intellectual, philosophical, and moral perspective.

Maybe you could avail yourself of some moderate contemporary feminist literature. Or even some really basic socioeconomics and psychology literature.

Or meet real women in the real world. That's usually an eye-opener.

First things first:
I am against women getting the same pay as men. Here is why: it is men's natural instinct to be a breadwinner, and a woman to be a nurturer.


Right, so acording to you, women want to spend as much time as they can at home, caring for their childern, right?

So why is this:

First things first:
I am against women getting the same pay as men.

<snip>

Note how I am not forbidding women to work, i am just encouraging them not to.


Nessessary?

Women want to stay at home apparently, they don't need encoraging, and certainly don't need financial disincentives, its in theis instincts, which are difficult to ignore and anyone tries their hardest to follow.


First things first:
the husband still is a man, and has instincts that tell him to go and "win bread"


Actually no, these instincts are telling him to do something that looks impressive to "keep his woman", like hunting, not something useful, like gathering, which the women did (I know this was mentioned above, but tis worth repeating). In prehistoric times, the women kept the family group fed on a day-to-day basis, so by this arguement, all the jobs with job security should go to the women, and men should all do occasional tasks which bring in food for a week, about once a month. Your arguement isn't even valid here.

I think you're under the impression that the only acomplishment of any merit a woman is capable of is as a mother. Whilst not to disparage motherhood, that belief has just limited the capcity of over half the world's people to achieve beyond their biology.Indeed. I don't get why our only purpose in society should be as mothers, when some of us don't even like children. Personally speaking, I hate kids and would be a pathetic mother in the unlikely and undesirable event that I ever had a child. Very fair on the child as well as me, clearly. The situation is extremely different in a working environment where I work hard to ensure things get done, and done well at that, unlike some others who sometimes - shock horror - are men! (That is not to say that men are necessarily poor workers; I am saying that gender is irrelevant when it comes to the ability to work hard and work well).

On the flip side, I've known some men who made wonderful fathers and house-husbands, but were happy to admit that they were not the best in terms of careers. Such men are not at fault, as women in my position (not wanting children, instead wanting careers) are not at fault either.

It's really about gender stereotyping in the end, but luckily most people would like to break free of these traditional roles. It just makes more sense socially, economically and politically.

This thread made me laugh in many places... the first post was hillarious...

Anyway... I am female... I work 2 jobs, I have a child, my intended (for the moment) is not living with me... and when he does while we work on immigration issues (he is from the UK) I will be the sole provider in the household as I am now.. but considering how often females are the ones who bring home the bacon, and fry it up in the pan.. I do not resent it at all.. I still nurture my child and work my butt off and enjoy it and I damn well get payed equally for what I do! As someone said earlier, being the house parent is not easy at all... you have a schedule you have to follow weekends or not and you dont get time off.. EVER!

Now, now. We might all give you an "Amen!" for that, but technically, it's flaming.

Let us remain content to question his intelligence, education, and upbringing from an intellectual, philosophical, and moral perspective.
Lol nice

I always hate these kinds of posts(origional poster) ... long rambiling ones that start off with such bad premicies you dont know where to start with (and usualy end up making a half page paper that is just really a rant why the other person is wrong and usualy wanders in thought) which the poster wont read anyways

I got to learn just not to care lol

This thread made me laugh in many places... the first post was hillarious...

Anyway... I am female... I work 2 jobs, I have a child, my intended (for the moment) is not living with me... and when he does while we work on immigration issues (he is from the UK) I will be the sole provider in the household as I am now.. but considering how often females are the ones who bring home the bacon, and fry it up in the pan.. I do not resent it at all.. I still nurture my child and work my butt off and enjoy it and I damn well get payed equally for what I do! As someone said earlier, being the house parent is not easy at all... you have a schedule you have to follow weekends or not and you dont get time off.. EVER!

Wooot ! Rock on, Girlfriend :p

My fiance and I have also agreed that when I have a child, he will quit HIS job and stay home to raise the baby. Why ? Because I make more money - plain and simple- and it doesn't bother either one of us at all !

Or meet real women in the real world. That's usually an eye-opener. He'd need more than a library card to do that.

[QUOTE=Greater Yubari]Errr... ok... right... So you're basically against same pay for the same work? Hey, how very fair and nice. Pretty much chauvinistic, no?

QUOTE]

Not the same work when the employer takes a risk that the woman will be unable to work for 9 months and an extra 6 month sabatical to raise the children. All paid leave increases health insurance, which drains my paycheck. Thanks, but no thanks.

Women get paid less because there is a higher risk that they will work less. It is not cost efficient to give money away, and many small businesses cannot operate under such duress.

That being said, if too many small businesses begin to collapse, the larger corporations can price gouge you all they want. Microsoft will rule the world, muwahahaha.

But seriously, women get paid less because they work less. Plain, simple.

He'd need more than a library card to do that.

He might have to wear a cup. It's a learning experience.

Not the same work when the employer takes a risk that the woman will be unable to work for 9 months and an extra 6 month sabatical to raise the children. All paid leave increases health insurance, which drains my paycheck. Thanks, but no thanks.

Women get paid less because there is a higher risk that they will work less. It is not cost efficient to give money away, and many small businesses cannot operate under such duress.

That being said, if too many small businesses begin to collapse, the larger corporations can price gouge you all they want. Microsoft will rule the world, muwahahaha.

But seriously, women get paid less because they work less. Plain, simple.

So the justification for paying women less is that they might have a kid?

Not the same work when the employer takes a risk that the woman will be unable to work for 9 months and an extra 6 month sabatical to raise the children. All paid leave increases health insurance, which drains my paycheck...But seriously, women get paid less because they work less. Plain, simple.Again, you assume that all women are going to have children at some point. I am not. I am aware of many others that are not (and of these quite a number have been steralised to prevent it, as I will be as soon as I can get it on the NHS). For the economic reasons you cite, I am against extended maternity leave (Labour intend to increase it here if they win the election next week), but regardless am in favour of men being able to take the same amount of time on paternity leave as women can take on maternity leave so as they can look after the offspring instead of the woman, if they so choose. As I said above, there are quite a number of men who would be in favour of that, and perform very well at it.

The problem of maternity leave aside, women work no less than men. You get some lazy men, you get some lazy women. You get some hard-working men, you get some hard-working women. Plain, simple.

Who needs HerPower to spark a feminism debate when we have such....interesting... ideas right here?


I am against women getting the same pay as men. Here is why: it is men's natural instinct to be a breadwinner, and a woman to be a nurturer.
You know what else is natural instinct? Fight or flight. One of our most fundamental instincts, yet it constantly kicks in during situations which do not need this reaction. There are not varying levels of the response. When that response is triggered, it is triggered full on, whether you are actually in danger or not. We learn to deal with that. We do not always give in, especially when the situation does not warrant either fight or flight. So guess what...natural instincts do not necessarily have to be obeyed.

Want another example? It is a natural instinct for women to want the fittest mate to sire her children. That means sleeping around, even if you are in a monogamous relationship with a suitable male who will support you and your offspring. If it is so natural, why do we try to suppress this behaviour? Because social constraints are just as valid as biological ones. It is natural instinct for women to have children, yet many resist, and never bear offspring. Is this unnatural? Or are the women's wishes in the matter not just as valid?

You say we should go along with as many of our instincts as possible, but say that polygamy would not be one of them. Why not? Who are you to choose what stays and what goes? Society as a whole shapes the restrictions to our natural instincts. Encourage away...I will continue to contribute financially to my family, and my husband will continue to help nurturing our children.


I am against staying at home being considered inferior to working. In fact, staying at home and working have equity. Some aspects are different, but overall they are the same. Here are some examples: "If you stay at home, you can sleep late. At work you can meet different people. If you stay at home you are your own boss. At work you have a career." Some may say that the breadwinner has financial power over the woman, but it's not true. All the money that a family member makes belongs not to him, but the family. Therefore, the wife has as many rights to that money as the husband. In a perfect world, this would be true. All to often, however, the person earning the money (male or female) ends up having the power in the family. Domestic work, valuable as it is, is still not VALUED. Not equal to paid work.


I am against the murder of chivalry. For the last time, I swear that when I open a door for a girl, I am not trying to execute power over her, or show that it is in my power for the door to open, but not hers. I really don't mean any of that. I am JUST BEING NICE!
This is not chivalry. It's common courtesy. If I hold open the door for you, I don't want a weird look, and have you mutter "lesbian" as you walk through it. If I reach out to shake your hand when we first meet, I don't want you to hesitate, or consider me to be acting 'masculine'. If I offer to pay for our meal, that isn't me asserting my feminism, it's me being polite, because maybe you don't have the cash, or you paid the last time.

I've said it so many times, but I'll say it again. MOST feminists...the ones who have actually analysed their feminism, who have actually given it thought, who are cognizant of gender roles, MOST feminists are not going to kick you in the balls for opening a door for them, or paying for a meal, or for just being a gentleman. The kick to the balls comes when you patronisingly suggest they follow their 'natural instincts', stay at home, and bear children, when that clearly goes against their wishes, or understanding of what their 'natural instincts' are. Are we clear? Good.

This thread is another great example of one of those,

"I'm not a chauvinist but..."

Yes, yes you are. Just admit it and move on.

I've said it so many times, but I'll say it again. MOST feminists...the ones who have actually analysed their feminism, who have actually given it thought, who are cognizant of gender roles, MOST feminists are not going to kick you in the balls for opening a door for them, or paying for a meal, or for just being a gentleman. The kick to the balls comes when you patronisingly suggest they follow their 'natural instincts', stay at home, and bear children, when that clearly goes against their wishes, or understanding of what their 'natural instincts' are. Are we clear? Good.This thread is another great example of one of those,

"I'm not a chauvinist but..."

Yes, yes you are. Just admit it and move on.Amen.

There are so many flaws in this argument I just don't know where to start...

In fact, I'm just not going to bother.

Not the same work when the employer takes a risk that the woman will be unable to work for 9 months and an extra 6 month sabatical to raise the children.
First, get your facts straight. Very few (if any) women need to take 9 months off work during their pregnancy. In fact, under the stipulations of Maternity leave in most countries, you CAN NOT take time off until the baby is actually born, UNLESS a doctor has given you medical leave to do so. There are often (as in Canada) restrictions as to how far in advance of the actual birth you can take leave, and it is numbered in weeks, not months.

Maternity leave itself varies from country to country, and can be as little as two weeks, or as long as 1 year. In Canada, that time is paid out of the Employment Insurance fund. Women pay into it too. When men are unemployed, they collect EI. When women are unemployed, so do they. They have the added stipulation that this unemployment can be due to the birth of a child. Men ALSO have this stipulation under Parental Leave. Meaning, men are just as likely to take time off from their job to care for their children, and just as able to collect EI for it. Very few companies provide any pay to their employee while he or she is off.

Women get paid less because there is a higher risk that they will work less.
If I had some stats that proved that Caucasian men were more likely to take sick time than Asian or Hispanic men, could I pay them less? Don't be ridiculous. Pay must be given based on job description and qualifications, not on assumptions about time that may or may not be taken off.

It is not cost efficient to give money away, and many small businesses cannot operate under such duress.
Again, in the majority of situations, companies are not required to pay their employees when they go off for Maternity or Parental leave. They are required to hired someone to fill that position temporarily, and are required to have that job open again when the person is finished their leave.

Women work less? Women work less PAID work. Still. In no country are the domestic chores equally shared (overall, for there are of course individual exceptions to this). So let's factor that unpaid work in for a change. Let's factor in productivity in the unpaid sector. Calculate how much a maid, cook, gardener and nanny would cost, per household. THEN we might have a better idea of how much women work compared to men, and what the true value of their work is. Until then, don't give me this crap about women "working less because they have babies". Clearly, you don't have children if you think they are such a walk in the park. Any man or woman who has raised children will tell you differently. It's damn hard work. Unpaid, but work, and important work at that.

but regardless am in favour of men being able to take the same amount of time on paternity leave as women can take on maternity leave so as they can look after the offspring instead of the woman, if they so choose.
Yes! This is something I really dislike about our current system in Canada (a pet peeve I've aired again and again). Women can take 32 weeks Mat leave, and an additional 20 weeks Parental leave, but men can ONLY have that 20 weeks Parental. If the woman chooses not to go on leave, the family only has 20 weeks instead of 52 for one parent to be home with the child.

Yes! This is something I really dislike about our current system in Canada (a pet peeve I've aired again and again). Women can take 32 weeks Mat leave, and an additional 20 weeks Parental leave, but men can ONLY have that 20 weeks Parental. If the woman chooses not to go on leave, the family only has 20 weeks instead of 52 for one parent to be home with the child.I'm not sure of the specifics here, but men are entitled to some paternity leave. However, I think it's only something like a week or a fortnight, which is - in practice - not especially useful. Women are allowed six months, I think, which should increase to nine months assuming Blair and friends get back into government (and assuming they actually bother to implement their promised policies). While the current system puts pressure on the woman to take care of the child, I also think it's very discriminatory against men who want to act as the/one of the primary carer(s). It pressurises them to actually give up their jobs or take unpaid career breaks if they want to be at home with the baby. Not fair to either gender!

You see this discussion about Maternity/Parental leave Doomy oh buddy oh pal? THIS is feminism. Gender equity. Looking at how ALL genders can benefit, not at the expense of the others, but instead, for the good of all. Bask in it, I say.

I think the lack of support for the original poster is a very good sign. Or a sign that all the chauvinists out there have just learned to keep their opinions to themselves? I'm not sure. In any case, I am heartened by the responses so far.

You see this discussion about Maternity/Parental leave Doomy oh buddy oh pal? THIS is feminism. Gender equity. Looking at how ALL genders can benefit, not at the expense of the others, but instead, for the good of all. Bask in it, I say.Once again, amen. You put everything so well, Sinuhue :)

maybe the original post fell into the cyber ether back in 1975 only to pop out here in 2005. back in 1975, while the handwriting was on the wall, there was some hope in the chauvinist heart that women could be kept home and some hope that such a course wouldnt end in financial disaster both personal and national.

in 2005 women's economic contribution is necessary to the family and to the nation. its not "pin money" its mortgage money. to suggest that she should be paid less for doing the same work is incomprehensible to most people. its not just wrong, it wouldnt enter their heads.

in 2005 women's economic contribution is necessary to the family and to the nation. its not "pin money" its mortgage money. to suggest that she should be paid less for doing the same work is incomprehensible to most people. its not just wrong, it wouldnt enter their heads.Exactly. In my parent's days, you could still manage to raise a family on one salary. My mother often says she was lucky she had the CHOICE to stay home, and that if she and my father had their family now, that chioce would be gone. If my husband suddenly stopped earning, I'd be accessing the social systems (for daycare subsidies perhaps, and most certainly the food bank) to support us. He makes a tad more than I do, but things would still be incredibly tight, and shortfalls very common, no matter how much we downsized our standard of living. A double income is not more common simply because of feminism. It is more common because it is necessary.

And by the way. I think the root of this issue lays in the mistaken belief that rights 'given' to one group must 'take away' from the other. When women fought for the right to vote, one of the biggest arguments against it was that it would 'cancel out' the men's votes. As though the women would all automatically vote one way, and the men the other. The same issue applies to jobs. Women working does not mean there are less jobs for men. The economy expands to include them. Unemployment has not significantly increased since women entered the workforce. With more women earning money, there is more disposable income, and more of a need for more goods and services, creating more jobs and more disposable income and so on. Women working in no way detracts from the man's potential to be a 'bread winner'. Few men WANT to be the sole 'bread winner'. The strain of having to support a family on an average person's salary should not be forced on any ONE person. If you want more burned out men, working stupid hours and never seeing their families, you are basically taking a step backwards in terms of the health and equality of MEN as well as WOMEN.

Gotta agree with everything Sinuhue and Kazcaper been saying there, though it hardly pains me to say it. Although I'd be for expanded maternity/paternity leave, because I personally don't see it as being particularly ruinous to the economy. It's probably just my inner commie rising up, and thinking "sometimes people just deserve a break, and if they want to take a year out to enjoy the arrival of their child, then yes, they deserve it!" Because I'm personally sick of the entire adult world and I'm not even a full part of it by any stretch of the imagination, where people say "life's not fair" but don't desire to change it. Bull'. But I wander onto an angsty rant that's utterly off-topic, so I'll cease.

oh, but on the quick example of women working being bad for the economy which has been refuted countless times, I'll just give a small example. We live in a capitalist society where women have been treated more as equals for the last hundred years. First things first. Society hasn't collapsed. That's enough to refute your point. Secondly, 100 years ago, we weren't even flying. Now we send little ships to other planets with mechano bots to play around with their soil. If women were detrimental to society as equals in any way, how have humans hit their highest technological, economical and societal growth period ever?

bullshit. firstly, because humanity did not spend most of its evolutionary history eating bread. secondly - and more importantly - because the whole chest-thumping "man the hunter and sole provider" thing just doesn't pan out. in foraging cultures with a sexual division of labor, women bring in more food more reliably than the men. and in those with less distinct sexual divisions of labor, the women take part in the hunt and the men gather and everybody's contribution averages out.

and now that i'm thinking about it - in agricultural societies, if anything it is the women who wind up doing more of the labor involved in food production. your breadwinning 'instincts' seem to be entirely an artifact of middle and upper class values in the industrial era. it certainly wasn't the case for the lower classes. ever.

Maybe he's more in the market for a Desperate Houswives type socialite who stays at home looking pretty, and (hopefully) doesn't cheat too much out of boredom...

Not being a misygonist, here's my opinion.

Women are subordinate to me. Not all men, just me. Now make me my steak.

Not being a misygonist, here's my opinion.

Women are subordinate to me. Not all men, just me. Now make me my steak.
If women are only subordinate to you, does that make you better than other men too? So you'd actually be a misogynist misandrist. Weird.

Yes.

and now that i'm thinking about it - in agricultural societies, if anything it is the women who wind up doing more of the labor involved in food production. your breadwinning 'instincts' seem to be entirely an artifact of middle and upper class values in the industrial era. it certainly wasn't the case for the lower classes. ever.
this is a very important point. that whole "woman who doesnt work" thing is a myth of the post ww2 baby boom. they had to convince women to leave their well-paid factory jobs (or be fired and not complain) and go home to have babies.

women have always worked.

Some may say that the breadwinner has financial power over the woman, but it's not true. All the money that a family member makes belongs not to him, but the family. Therefore, the wife has as many rights to that money as the husband.

Lets be realistic here. While the woman may have equal rights to the money her husband makes, she does not have equal access in many cases. Usually she will have to ask to spend the money, and speaking from experience, its not fun asking people for money, even if it is your own husband or father.

You know what...I think I should start an anti-anti-feminist thread. Sheesh. So far in this one there have only been two posts that even remotely seem anti-feminist.

Ummmm, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but women are confusing, even to other women. You can not classify us. Some women are better at being soccer moms then others. I hold those women who are always on time to pick up their kids, who bake cookies, who hold all of the sleep overs at their houses, and are cheerful all the time, in the absolute highest regard. The world needs more women like that, and they should not be made to feel like they are lesser for being moms. With that said, I enjoy biochemistry and molecular biology, and I really want to get an M.D. Ph.D. do you suggest that I be paid less? or that I stay at home? Perhaps you need a good, kind, and loving housewife, and there are women out there for you. There are also men out there for girls like me. The world balances itself out. People should do what they are good at. There is no shame in this. Besides if there are no soccer moms, who is going to pick up my kids?

I'm actually doing a term paper on feminism.

My research so far shows that it's been a grab bag of good and bad. Most of the good effects were things we could immediately perceive as a society. Most of the bad are latent effects that are extensions of the original good intentions.

It's still quite possible to raise a family on a single salary. Problem is people want to live outside their means. I was making 9 bucks an hour and had enough money to pay my bills, rent a two bedroom apartment with money for food and a little spending money each week. People want want want so much they need extra money to buy things they don't necessarily need.

It's still quite possible to raise a family on a single salary. Problem is people want to live outside their means. I was making 9 bucks an hour and had enough money to pay my bills, rent a two bedroom apartment with money for food and a little spending money each week. People want want want so much they need extra money to buy things they don't necessarily need.
That's not necessarily so. My family lives very simply. We bought a house and extended the mortgage so we could afford the payments even if one of us lost our job. We kept the payments to about what the lowest monthly rent could possibly be for a small home like ours. We don't even have enough bedrooms for everyone, but right now the girls are small and can share. We grow a lot of our own food, and hunt, so we keep expenses down that way. We have a newish vehicle, but it was a toss up in terms of the expense and safety as well as getting good mileage. Before you say it, we live in the country, and public transportation is not an option. Childcare is capped, but still costs $700 a month, so that would be the major expense we could get rid of if one of us wasn't working. We don't spend a lot of money outside of basic bills, groceries, gas money and our mortgage. We don't have a big screen tv or expensive artwork. I honestly don't see how we could downsize more. If one of us became unemployed, we would pretty much have to rely on the social system.

Ummmm, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but women are confusing, even to other women. You can not classify us. Some women are better at being soccer moms then others. I hold those women who are always on time to pick up their kids, who bake cookies, who hold all of the sleep overs at their houses, and are cheerful all the time, in the absolute highest regard. The world needs more women like that, and they should not be made to feel like they are lesser for being moms. With that said, I enjoy biochemistry and molecular biology, and I really want to get an M.D. Ph.D. do you suggest that I be paid less? or that I stay at home? Perhaps you need a good, kind, and loving housewife, and there are women out there for you. There are also men out there for girls like me. The world balances itself out. People should do what they are good at. There is no shame in this. Besides if there are no soccer moms, who is going to pick up my kids?

I don't think that doesn't apply only to the females. i mean, no one can fully understand anyone. Personally, I go against ati-femenism. It's almost always the men who starts the war. I think all the UN and the other organization/Nations will be lot better with female leaders....

To: The creator of this post,
What's wrong with the idea that a woman will get paid the same as a man for the same job a man does? Do you think it will take away your masculinity? I have no problem with a woman being paid the same as me if we both do the SAME job. It is totally fair to me. Ever see those cartoons of a boy pissing on something they don't like? Well, there aren't pictures of pissing kids so my little green friend will help us out today.
:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:
People who don't like the fact woman are equal.

That's not necessarily so. My family lives very simply. We bought a house and extended the mortgage so we could afford the payments even if one of us lost our job. We kept the payments to about what the lowest monthly rent could possibly be for a small home like ours. We don't even have enough bedrooms for everyone, but right now the girls are small and can share. We grow a lot of our own food, and hunt, so we keep expenses down that way. We have a newish vehicle, but it was a toss up in terms of the expense and safety as well as getting good mileage. Before you say it, we live in the country, and public transportation is not an option. Childcare is capped, but still costs $700 a month, so that would be the major expense we could get rid of if one of us wasn't working. We don't spend a lot of money outside of basic bills, groceries, gas money and our mortgage. We don't have a big screen tv or expensive artwork. I honestly don't see how we could downsize more. If one of us became unemployed, we would pretty much have to rely on the social system.

Don't worry, I ain't hatin'. I was just speaking from my experience. I live in Richmond, VA. My apartment is a little over 700 a month. Bills, with high speed and cable come out to maybe 150. Food isn't very much, and I shop at the dollar store for a lot of things, and I pretty much support the other person I live with. Granted, it's not quite so cheap for everyone else. If you work hard, kudos to you. Unfortunately, I just happen to know too many people who have trouble paying rent because they had to have that DVD set, etc.

Interestingly enough I saw a show where they actually showed having a second person work was costing some families more money than it was worth due to childcare, car payments, etc.

"I don't think that doesn't apply only to the females. i mean, no one can fully understand anyone. Personally, I go against ati-femenism. It's almost always the men who starts the war. I think all the UN and the other organization/Nations will be lot better with female leaders.... "


I think that is a terrible idea. Have you ever seen female politics? Shudder. I admit that I would rather play on a sports team that was mostly male. Women are catty. There is no getting away from it. Men may make you cry, but it is other women who can really get under your skin. The world is good the way it is. A few very exceptional women make it to the top. If the world was ruled by women then the United States would still hold a grudge aganst England for the revolution.

Now, now. We might all give you an "Amen!" for that, but technically, it's flaming.

Let us remain content to question his intelligence, education, and upbringing from an intellectual, philosophical, and moral perspective.

Sorry, I was ill and on painkillers last night. I actually don't even recall posting it, so I must have just typed the first thing that came to mind. While my sentiments haven't exactly changed, I will try to elaborate on my reasons for feeling that way and refrain from name calling.

I have no children and never plan to. Even if I did, I'd expect to be paid equally for equal work. A man is perfectly capable of nurturing, housework and taking off work to attend parent-teacher conferences. But I'd especially resent being told I shouldn't be paid equally because I should be raising children. And why punish children whose father is out of the picture for one reason or another? They should have a lower standard of living because their mother is supporting them by herself than they would if supported by only a father?

I think that is a terrible idea. Have you ever seen female politics? Shudder. I admit that I would rather play on a sports team that was mostly male. Women are catty. There is no getting away from it. Men may make you cry, but it is other women who can really get under your skin. The world is good the way it is. A few very exceptional women make it to the top. If the world was ruled by women then the United States would still hold a grudge aganst England for the revolution.[/QUOTE]

I've said it wrong. The point is, you shouldn't judge ppl by their looks or gender. I personally like any ideologies where it limits ppl from the equal rights.

Hmm, i am sorry I was away for so long. My modem driver fucked up, and i just reinstalled it today.

Now, as for this thread.

Since most of yuor arguments are the same: examples of families where the mother works, and father stays at home, i will counter them all at the same time.


I am not forbidding women to work, nor fathers to stay at home, nor both of them to work and stay at home at the same time. I am just encouraging them to. A woman has built in "maternal insticts", and a man has built in "breadwinning" insticts. To doubt their existance is to doubt something obvious, therefore I will not prove their existance at this point. These insticts help women in "housewifing", and hinder them in "job-working". Opposite is true with men -- their insticts help them in working in jobs, and hinder them in staying at home.
Take two workers making cars. One makes better frames, other one makes better motors. Henry Ford, in early 20th century, proved that if one makes motors exclusively, and another frames exclusively, their overall efficiency will be much higher than if both make cars from themselves, from scratch.
Same is true with families. When the family member that is better in working works, and the family member that is better in "homecareing" stays at home, the overall efficiency is much higher than if both work, and homecare. Since we already proved that women are superior to men in homecaring, and men are superior in job-working, then, clearly, men should work, and women care for the home.
Ok, but what if a woman still choose to work, shouldn't she get paid equally for the same work? Well, as we already proved, in most cases, families with roles distributed are a lot more effective, than the families with roles blended. Society itself, is only as effective as its composing units. Therefore, if the families are less effective, the society becomes less effective. Therefore, the society gently encourages families to distribute roles, and for the man to work, and woman to take care of the house. Of course this hurts the few rare exceptions where the woman is more productive at working than the man, and the man is more productive at homecaring. However, I never said this system a perfect: hey, a perfect world would be communist.
But isn't forcing women to stay at home, while the man can go out and have a career discriminating against women? Well, no. You see, staying at home is not in any way inferior to having a job. Both have their own ups and downs.
But those roles are really equal, so women aren't losing anything. As for the fact that the breadwinner has economic power, well that's not true either. I repeat again: ANY MONEY WHICH A FAMILY MEMBER EARNS DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM/HER, BUT THE ENTIRE FAMILY. A breadwinner has no more rights to the money (s)he earns, than the homecarer.

Ok, that's it. Now to answer some unanswered questions:

True feminism supports gender equality, not one sex being better than the others. This would include equal pay - it is irrelevant whether or not women are naturally nurturers and men breadwinners (and that's a stereotype, cos people like me - a woman - detest the concept of nurturing). Firstly, who decides what is 'natural' - are you the concept's arbiter? Is it a societal construct? Granted, it is part of out biological past, but times have changed - there are changes in the human spieces at an evolutionary level, as well as immense social changes.
Feminism seeks to achieve is equality of the sexes. There have been the odd high-profile man-haters at the fore, giving the entire movement a bad name. What is most unfortunate is that the those with a very lazy concept of what feminism is, choose the man-hater as the definition for the movement. It's akin to choosing the sexual predator as the definition of Catholic clergy.
But who is to define femism? Who is to say that Valerie Solanos is not a feminist? She certainly claims to be one, and so do most of men haters. Why is yuor word better than theirs? Therefore, the most fair term for feminism, is belief that women should have more power/rights that they do now. Is it not true? Do you, a feminist, I presume, not believe that? I think you do, and so does Valerie Solanos, and so do all feminists.

I would support an organization that would fight for genders to be equittable. However NOW, Womyn, and SCUM don't even come close to it.


Lets be realistic here. While the woman may have equal rights to the money her husband makes, she does not have equal access in many cases. Usually she will have to ask to spend the money, and speaking from experience, its not fun asking people for money, even if it is your own husband or father.
Than that is a bad family. That family should either correct its problem, or break up. Anyway, money should go to a join bank account, where both of them have full access to it.

Here is another thing: not all women support feminism! In fact, in the 60's, the movement was a tiny minority. The main opposition to feminism came from women! However, most of the women, have been convinced to believe in feminism, sometimes, even by threats. There have been quite a few instances of feminists criticizing housewives, almost violently.

A woman has built in "maternal insticts", and a man has built in "breadwinning" insticts. To doubt their existance is to doubt something obvious, therefore I will not prove their existance at this point. These insticts help women in "housewifing", and hinder them in "job-working". For some - a majority even. But not all - that's a crude generalisation. Are you inferring that those that would be utterly shit at those typically feminine roles, like myself, should do them anyway? OK. I'm going to have a child I don't ever and have never wanted. I'm going to sit at home miserable with it all day, resenting it and only doing housework when totally necessary (that bit is already true). Clearly, because it's a feminine instinct, this is my best course of action - despite the fact it'll make me and the child both utterly miserable. Good call!

But who is to define femism? Who is to say that Valerie Solanos is not a feminist? She certainly claims to be one, and so do most of men haters. Why is yuor word better than theirs? Therefore, the most fair term for feminism, is belief that women should have more power/rights that they do now. Is it not true? Do you, a feminist, I presume, not believe that? I think you do, and so does Valerie Solanos, and so do all feminists.But people you refer to here don't really make a secret of the fact that they're radical feminists. There's a difference between a radical and the standard women who sees no logical reason why she should not be afforded the same rights and responsibilites as any man.

For some - a majority even. But not all - that's a crude generalisation. Are you inferring that those that would be utterly shit at those typically feminine roles, like myself, should do them anyway? OK. I'm going to have a child I don't ever and have never wanted. I'm going to sit at home miserable with it all day, resenting it and only doing housework when totally necessary (that bit is already true). Clearly, because it's a feminine instinct, this is my best course of action - despite the fact it'll make me and the child both utterly miserable. Good call!
I said that there are exceptions. read it over. And anyway, you may wake those instincts if you have a child, you never know.

But people you refer to here don't really make a secret of the fact that they're radical feminists. There's a difference between a radical and the standard women who sees no logical reason why she should not be afforded the same rights and responsibilites as any man.
But they are still feminists, and share their goal with regular feminists. They agree on one thing with feminists: that women should have more power/rights than they do now.

Doom777, I still haven't seen you address the issue of a woman who prefers not to get married. If she opts to remain single, she is pretty much forced to work. Does this not put her at a significant, and really, unfair disadvantage if she is paid less for her work than a man?

Doom777, I still haven't seen you address the issue of a woman who prefers not to get married. If she opts to remain single, she is pretty much forced to work. Does this not put her at a significant, and really, unfair disadvantage if she is paid less for her work than a man?
No, I haven't. Let me think about this for a while.

I said that there are exceptions. read it over. And anyway, you may wake those instincts if you have a child, you never know.I doubt it, as if I ever get pregnant I won't be staying pregnant. Furthermore, every time in my life where I've been near a baby or child, I have felt deeply uncomfortable. So, while anything's possible, I'd say it's pretty unlikely.

Additionally, just because a woman does have maternal instincts does not mean she is useless at everything else. Perhaps the said woman's main forte may be in maternalism, but I think you'll find that a lot of people - women and men alike - are all rounders, both craving and needing variety in order to live their lives fully. Having life experience additional to cooking and playing with kids all day is bound to ultimately bring wider knowledge to a child, thus enhancing the maternal experience.

But they are still feminists, and share their goal with regular feminists. They agree on one thing with feminists: that women should have more power/rights than they do now.Yes they are. They go about it in what I personally consider to be unacceptable manners, however. There are roughly a billion Christians on Earth. Some of these people, over the years, have burned people at the stake, arrested and killed some for merely expressing differing views, and many today continue to harrass those that hold the said differing views. That does not make all Christians bad. These idiots do not reflect all of the views that the Christian population holds. So why should all people using the umbrella term 'feminist' to describe themselves be tarred with the same brush?

Doom777, I still haven't seen you address the issue of a woman who prefers not to get married. If she opts to remain single, she is pretty much forced to work. Does this not put her at a significant, and really, unfair disadvantage if she is paid less for her work than a man?


My question is why isnt she at home where she belongs? then she wouldnt have to worry her head over money

My question is why isnt she at home where she belongs? then she wouldnt have to worry her head over moneyIf she's single there's no money coming in, and if she isn't, there's only half coming in of what could be coming in. I'd say, therefore, that the occurrence to which you refer is the time she'd be worrying her head over money the most :p

I am against women getting the same pay as men.

Yes, so maybe women are starting to make the same pay as us, and we are still expected to pay for dinner.

But they still have to sleep with our hairy arses.

I would pay for the dinner for the rest of my life, happily knowing that I was not born with the curse being attracted to a hairy arse!

Besides, lets not forget that women have to spend a lot on making themselves look good (facials, nails, new shoes, etc.) Where as we are still allowed to just throw on any old t-shirt.

I doubt it, as if I ever get pregnant I won't be staying pregnant. Furthermore, every time in my life where I've been near a baby or child, I have felt deeply uncomfortable. So, while anything's possible, I'd say it's pretty unlikely.

Additionally, just because a woman does have maternal instincts does not mean she is useless at everything else. Perhaps the said woman's main forte may be in maternalism, but I think you'll find that a lot of people - women and men alike - are all rounders, both craving and needing variety in order to live their lives fully. Having life experience additional to cooking and playing with kids all day is bound to ultimately bring wider knowledge to a child, thus enhancing the maternal experience.

Yes they are. They go about it in what I personally consider to be unacceptable manners, however. There are roughly a billion Christians on Earth. Some of these people, over the years, have burned people at the stake, arrested and killed some for merely expressing differing views, and many today continue to harrass those that hold the said differing views. That does not make all Christians bad. These idiots do not reflect all of the views that the Christian population holds. So why should all people using the umbrella term 'feminist' to describe themselves be tarred with the same brush?
I am not going after feminism for the few extremists. I am going after them, because they promote the rights of women, instead of gender equity.

And yes, the christians that burned other people at stake, are still christians. Christians are united by their faith in the holy trinity, and the full version of the bible.

Yes, so maybe women are starting to make the same pay as us, and we are still expected to pay for dinner.

But they still have to sleep with our hairy arses.

I would pay for the dinner for the rest of my life, happily knowing that I was not born with the curse being attracted to a hairy arse!

Besides, lets not forget that women have to spend a lot on making themselves look good (facials, nails, new shoes, etc.) Where as we are still allowed to just throw on any old t-shirt.
What does that have anything to do with the topic? Hairy ass is personal hygiene, it has nothing to do with feminism, or anti-feminism, or gender equity.

--snippity snip snip--
Hmn,,,could your feeble minded infantile ranting possibly be the byproduct of some sort of sexual repression, childhood trauma? Or the fact that you haven't been laid lately... either way, you better get these chauvanistic attitudes out of your system before you enter the real world because the person you work for may very well be a woman.

Hmn,,,could your feeble minded infantile ranting possibly be the byproduct of some sort of sexual repression, childhood trauma? Or the fact that you haven't been laid lately... either way, you better get these chauvanistic attitudes out of your system before you enter the real world because the person you work for may very well be a woman.
Not that it's ANY of yuor business, NOR on topic, but I haven't had sex ever. Again, what does this have to do with feminism, anti-feminism, or gender equity?

As for my boss being a woman, if she fires me based on my personal beliefs, than I am simply going to sue the company.

Hairy ass is personal hygiene, it has nothing to do with feminism, or anti-feminism, or gender equity.

Oh great! You aren't one of those 'metrosexuals' who shaves their arse are you?

Oh great! You aren't one of those 'metrosexuals' who shaves their arse are you?
what? no...
I have never even thought about shaving my ass. It's kind of dangerous...

I am not going after feminism for the few extremists. I am going after them, because they promote the rights of women, instead of gender equity.

By your definition. If I define Christians as baby eating fanatics, does that make them so? No. So yes, you ARE going after feminists for the actions of the extremists.

By your definition. If I define Christians as baby eating fanatics, does that make them so? No. So yes, you ARE going after feminists for the actions of the extremists.
Definition of christianity, is the idea that all christians share. All christians, no matter how extreme, believe in the holy trinity. It is safe to assume, that anyone who doesn't believe in the holy trinity is not christian.
All feminists, no matter how extreme, or mild, believe that women should have more power than they have now. Do you, sinuhue, not believe that too? Find me one feminist that doesn't believe that. However, just like some christians don't believe in eating babies, some feminists do not believe in gender equality. Therefroe, christianity is not defined by eating babies, and feminism is not defined as gender equality.

what? no...
I have never even thought about shaving my ass. It's kind of dangerous...

Actually, it's really not. The most dangerous place a guy has to shave is the face. Well, more specifically, the neck.

Definition of christianity, is the idea that all christians share. All christians, no matter how extreme, believe in the holy trinity. It is safe to assume, that anyone who doesn't believe in the holy trinity is not christian.
You are mistaken. I'll let a Chrisitan tell you why.


All feminists, no matter how extreme, or mild, believe that women should have more power than they have now. Do you, sinuhue, not believe that too? Find me one feminist that doesn't believe that.

*raises hand*

And before you try, I suggest you NOT tell me what I believe and what I don't.


However, just like some christians don't believe in eating babies, some feminists do not believe in gender equality. Therefroe, christianity is not defined by eating babies, and feminism is not defined as gender equality.
You've contradicted yourself. Using your feminism example, if some Christians didn't believe in eating babies, then Christianity would be defined by baby eating.

Oh, and I don't mean to speak for others, but I will anyway. Other feminists I have encountered on this forum that are for gender equity, not female supremacy include (but are not limited to):

Dempublicents
Cat Tribe
Bottle
Whispering Legs (sorry WL if you don't like the title...you can simply choose 'gender equitist if you wish)
Jordaxia
Nadkor


By the way...not all of these people are even female. That's just off the top of my head...the rest of you feminists out there who are for gender equity not female supremacy, go ahead and identify yourselves.

I'm sure he'll just say we're lying.

Um, hello? Doom? Care to respond?

Actually, it's really not. The most dangerous place a guy has to shave is the face. Well, more specifically, the neck.
Yes, but you cannot see your ass, not even with a mirror.

Yes, but you cannot see your ass, not even with a mirror.
There are no major arteries in your ass.

You are mistaken. I'll let a Chrisitan tell you why.




*raises hand*

And before you try, I suggest you NOT tell me what I believe and what I don't.



You've contradicted yourself. Using your feminism example, if some Christians didn't believe in eating babies, then Christianity would be defined by baby eating.
I am not saying you are for female supremacy. I am saying that yuo probably believe that women today have less rights than men, and they should have more than they do now. I never said that yuo think that women should have more rights that men.

No, if not all christians didn't believe in eating babies, then christianity would not be defined by eating babies.
Since not all feminists believe in gender equality, then feminism is not defined by gender equality.

Oh, and I don't mean to speak for others, but I will anyway. Other feminists I have encountered on this forum that are for gender equity, not female supremacy include (but are not limited to):

Dempublicents
Cat Tribe
Bottle
Whispering Legs (sorry WL if you don't like the title...you can simply choose 'gender equitist if you wish)
Jordaxia
Nadkor


By the way...not all of these people are even female. That's just off the top of my head...the rest of you feminists out there who are for gender equity not female supremacy, go ahead and identify yourselves.

I'm sure he'll just say we're lying.
If you are not for women having more power/rights than they do now, but for gender equity, then you are not a feminist, but a gender equtist.

a body of social theory and political movement primarily based on and motivated by the experiences of women. While generally providing a critique of social relations, many proponents of feminism also focus on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women's rights, interests, and issues.

Feminist theory aims to understand the nature of gender inequality and focuses on gender politics, power relations and sexuality. Feminist political activism campaigns on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, discrimination and sexual violence. Themes explored in feminism include discrimination, stereotyping, objectification, sexual objectification, oppression and patriarchy. While generally providing a critique of social relations, many proponents of feminism also focus on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women's rights, interests, and issues.

There are no major arteries in your ass.
I am still not shaving my ass, and you can't make me!
*shrugs*

I am not saying you are for female supremacy. I am saying that yuo probably believe that women today have less rights than men, and they should have more than they do now. I never said that yuo think that women should have more rights that men.
No, I don't think that all women have less rights than men. Not in the West, anyway. In fact, I think the main obstacle facing all the genders in the West is social conditioning and gender stereotyping. I think men are being adversely affected by this, just as women and transgendered people are.

In other countries, women DO have less rights under LAW than men. So do transgendered people. That needs to change so that all genders are respected.

No, if not all christians didn't believe in eating babies, then christianity would not be defined by eating babies.
Since not all feminists believe in gender equality, then feminism is not defined by gender equality.
Seriously. This makes no sense. You are saying:

If group 1 did not believe in 'x', then group one would not be defined by 'x'.
If group 2 did not believe in 'x', then group one would be defined by 'x'.

You are contradicting yourself. Choose a new analogy.

Yes, but you cannot see your ass, not even with a mirror.

It doesn't matter. It's all fat and muscle. There are no major arteries. The worst you'll do is get a little nick. Like a paper cut. It'll hurt, but there's no real danger (unless you're a hemophiliac). Whereas on your face and neck there are several major veins you could potentially open.

At any rate, this is horribly off topic.

If you are not for women having more power/rights than they do now, but for gender equity, then you are not a feminist, but a gender equtist.
Perhaps you should read your own quoted definition of feminism. No where does it say that feminism is just about women having more power and rights. Gender equitist is not an accepted term. Feminism will do.

a body of social theory and political movement primarily based on and motivated by the experiences of women. While generally providing a critique of social relations, many proponents of feminism also focus on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women's rights, interests, and issues.

Feminist theory aims to understand the nature of gender inequality and focuses on gender politics, power relations and sexuality. Feminist political activism campaigns on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, discrimination and sexual violence. Themes explored in feminism include discrimination, stereotyping, objectification, sexual objectification, oppression and patriarchy. While generally providing a critique of social relations, many proponents of feminism also focus on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women's rights, interests, and issues.

Also. Not only.

No, I don't think that all women have less rights than men. Not in the West, anyway. In fact, I think the main obstacle facing all the genders in the West is social conditioning and gender stereotyping. I think men are being adversely affected by this, just as women and transgendered people are.

In other countries, women DO have less rights under LAW than men. So do transgendered people. That needs to change so that all genders are respected.


Seriously. This makes no sense. You are saying:

If group 1 did not believe in 'x', then group one would not be defined by 'x'.
If group 2 did not believe in 'x', then group one would be defined by 'x'.

You are contradicting yourself. Choose a new analogy.
Just read what you are quoting. Let me explain it again

If a significant subsection of group 1 did not believe in 'x', then group one would not be defined by 'x'.
Group1::::::Feminists:::::::Christaians
x::::::::::::gender equality:eating babies

No, if not all christians didn't believe in eating babies, then christianity would not be defined by eating babies.
Since not all feminists believe in gender equality, then feminism is not defined by gender equality.
*sigh*
You have not said that most christians or most feminists do not believe in these things. You have said 'not all'. So yes, you have contradicted yourself.

If you would like to claim that most feminists do not believe in gender equity and that most Christians do not believe in baby eating, you would NOT be contradicting yourself. You would just be wrong about feminism. Again, clearly you have very limited exposure to, and experience with feminism. YOU have define feminism as not being about gender equality, despite the fact that the movement itself does not define itself this way.

Again, YOUR OPINION DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Your opinion is just that. Based not on fact, but your feeling. Does that make sense to you now?

I'll get back to this tomorrow.

oh my god!

Somebody call the Museum! We've got a real live Caveman here!

this is amazing!

oh my god!

Somebody call the Museum! We've got a real live Caveman here!

this is amazing!
And this goes in the "absolutely useless spam" category.


You have not said that most christians or most feminists do not believe in these things. You have said 'not all'. So yes, you have contradicted yourself.

If you would like to claim that most feminists do not believe in gender equity and that most Christians do not believe in baby eating, you would NOT be contradicting yourself. You would just be wrong about feminism. Again, clearly you have very limited exposure to, and experience with feminism. YOU have define feminism as not being about gender equality, despite the fact that the movement itself does not define itself this way.
I am arguing that plenty of feminists DONT believe in gender equality, and plenty of christians DONT believe in eating babies. Therefore femists ARE NOT defined by gender equality and christians ARE NOT defined by eating babies.

Perhaps you should read your own quoted definition of feminism. No where does it say that feminism is just about women having more power and rights. Gender equitist is not an accepted term. Feminism will do.
No it doesn't, because
1) The term itself suggests women rights, not gender equality.
2) The history; never in the history of feminsm has it fought for something not "women's rights" related. Except prohibition, but that has nothing to do with gender equity either. Femism has fought for womens political rights, prohibition, women's rights to abortion, higher wages for women, higher sentences/death penalty for rapists, and so on.

I figured out the miscommunication problem me and sinuhue had.

Thinking that women should have more power/rights than they have now is not the same as being a female supremacist. In fact, it is possible to be both gender equitist, and think that women should have more power/rights than they have now.

No it doesn't, because
1) The term itself suggests women rights, not gender equality.
2) The history; never in the history of feminsm has it fought for something not "women's rights" related. Except prohibition, but that has nothing to do with gender equity either. Femism has fought for womens political rights, prohibition, women's rights to abortion, higher wages for women, higher sentences/death penalty for rapists, and so on.

Great. The He Man's Women Hater's Club is at it again.

You completely confuse "women's rights" and rights for everyone. By your definitions, any attempt to fight for equal rights will be labeled "women's rights" related.

First, in a patriachial society in which women had fewer rights and opportunities there is nothing wrong with advocating for women's rights. But rights are not a zero sum equation.

Second, many issues that have been at the core of feminism have been about equality -- not rights for women. Pray tell how the infamous Equal Rights Amendment was for women only?

Third, you know nothing about the history of feminism or rape laws in this country or you would know that feminists fought to lower penalties for rape -- because it was nigh impossible to convict when rape was penalized by death.

Fourth, I assume you have never read or even heard of books like Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man by Susan Faludi. Guess what? A book by an feminist -- about male stereotypes and men's rights? Do you need smelling salts?

Given your pledge to kill women that have an abortions, I despair of making any dent in your thought processes -- but you might want to study a little history and feminist literature before you condemn more women for seeking gender equality.

I figured out the miscommunication problem me and sinuhue had.

Thinking that women should have more power/rights than they have now is not the same as being a female supremacist. In fact, it is possible to be both gender equitist, and think that women should have more power/rights than they have now.

Yay! This is a breakthrough!

You are correct, sir.

Because women have had less power and rights, seeking gender equity in fact required seeking more power and rights for women.

I personally think it's funny how many people are horrendously offended by this guy's post. He probably posted it not only to state his opinion, but to get a rise out of people. Seems to have worked......

You completely confuse "women's rights" and rights for everyone. By your definitions, any attempt to fight for equal rights will be labeled "women's rights" related.
See, some fights for women's rights could be also for equal rights. But when everything an organization does is clearly women's rights, is it really safe to say that it just fights for equal rights?


First, in a patriachial society in which women had fewer rights and opportunities there is nothing wrong with advocating for women's rights. But rights are not a zero sum equation.
What do you mean by a patriarchal society? I think that the society of the 1960's had gender equity. Just look: Men and women had equal political rights. Men were breadwinners, women were homecarers. And I already proved that these roles are equitable.

Second, many issues that have been at the core of feminism have been about equality -- not rights for women. Pray tell how the infamous Equal Rights Amendment was for women only?
Because it promoted women getting more rights.

Third, you know nothing about the history of feminism or rape laws in this country or you would know that feminists fought to lower penalties for rape -- because it was nigh impossible to convict when rape was penalized by death.
Read the thread about feminists who wanted all accused of rape to be guilty until proven innocent, because according to them "no woman would ever lie about getting raped".

Fourth, I assume you have never read or even heard of books like Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man by Susan Faludi. Guess what? A book by an feminist -- about male stereotypes and men's rights? Do you need smelling salts?
I have read the summary, and a few reviews. I got a distinct feeling that she still makes men look bad in her book. For example in the part where she interviews teenage boys which keep a score on how many different girls they have sex with.

Gven your pledge to kill women that have an abortions, I despair of making any dent in your thought processes -- but you might want to study a little history and feminist literature before you condemn more women for seeking gender equality.
No, I pledged to kill any woman that has an abortion for a fetus concieved from me. And I support gender equity, i just don't think feminism is the train that gets there.

See, some fights for women's rights could be also for equal rights. But when everything an organization does is clearly women's rights, is it really safe to say that it just fights for equal rights?

Depends.

1) Is it true? No.

2) Are you manipulating definitions? Yes.

What do you mean by a patriarchal society? I think that the society of the 1960's had gender equity. Just look: Men and women had equal political rights. Men were breadwinners, women were homecarers. And I already proved that these roles are equitable.

Which is exhbit A of how your concept of equity is merely patriachy.


Because it promoted women getting more rights.

More rights than men? No.

More rights than women had? Yes. It promoted equal rights. It forbade legal discrimination on the basis of gender -- which would protect men and women (and other genders).

Nice job of proving how you are manipulating definitions to dismiss any fight for equal rights.


Read the thread about feminists who wanted all accused of rape to be guilty until proven innocent, because according to them "no woman would ever lie about getting raped".

Did you read it?

Because it was shown that those were feeble lies perpetrated by anti-feminists.

No one --- let alone any real feminist -- was quoted as saying those accused of rape should be presumed guilty or that women never lie about rape.

You conveniently believe what the original poster alleged -- without foundation -- and ignored the ample rebuttals.


I have read the summary, and a few reviews. I got a distinct feeling that she still makes men look bad in her book. For example in the part where she interviews teenage boys which keep a score on how many different girls they have sex with.

Perhaps if you didn't rely on "MenWeb" and other anti-feminist Google results, you might learn something.

Your "distinct feeling" is wrong. And do you think the Spur Posse is a healthy example of manhood? Or do you think something might be a tad wrong there?

And you fail to explain how a feminist book about harmful male stereotypes and discrimination against men is consistent with your "feminists only care about women's rights" theory.


No, I pledged to kill any woman that has an abortion for a fetus concieved from me. And I support gender equity, i just don't think feminism is the train that gets there.

Because you don't want us to go forward. You want us to go backward to an idyllic time that never existed, but that definitely doesn't allow for equity.

Your misogyny is showing. Better cover that up.

Wow, the last time I saw such convoluted, twisted, and bizzar logic was when I was last grading junior high school student's papers. Congratulations, Doom777, you've managed to preform just about every debater's mistake that I can think of, and still haven't really answered why you think women should be paid less.

Men and women should be equal. ('cept for certain parts if ya know what I mean) I think the only time some lady would get mad at you opening the door, or helping her carry grociers (however you spell it) is if she was crazy, or one of those "do it all myself" feminists. I think that people will always have prejudices, and people can do anything they want as long as it isn't illegal. Men can raise children, women can be CEO's. It really doesn't matter who does it as long as what needs to get done, gets done.

Ok...i think your sick. Saying women should stay in the home and that they shouldn't do things men do is just like saying that black people are less deserving than white people. It's sexism (just a little obvious) and that's no better than racism. Personally, i don't know how you sleep at night. This is just as risky as saying that 'black people all belong in jail.' (as a disclaimer, i don't think like that. I think all men and women of every race should be equal.)

In this day in age, nature seems irrelevant. I don't think we should disregard nature completely, but we (and every other living thing on earth) are evolving physically. Being the dominant species of the planet, we also have to evolve mentally in our thinking. Women are no longer needed to be 'the nuturer', our 'natural' instict is slowing evolving with our minds, now men can take on that role too. You can hire some one to do the same thing. In my family, the role is shared. Both my parents take the nuturing role and both are successful professionals (i'm 15 by the way... :) ).

Religion is still good becasue i believe that without something or someone to belive in, you are lost. But religion need to evolve and adapt to the times.

I am actually need to do some nuturing of my own. I'm babysitting right now and i'm a guy. so in the name of men, i would like to say that this job isn't only for girls!

Peace!

Jagg

Tyrrael']Ok...i think your sick. Saying women should stay in the home and that they shouldn't do things men do is just like saying that black people are less deserving than white people. It's sexism (just a little obvious) and that's no better than racism. Personally, i don't know how you sleep at night. This is just as risky as saying that 'black people all belong in jail.' (as a disclaimer, i don't think like that. I think all men and women of every race should be equal.)

In this day in age, nature seems irrelevant. I don't think we should disregard nature completely, but we (and every other living thing on earth) are evolving physically. Being the dominant species of the planet, we also have to evolve mentally in our thinking. Women are no longer needed to be 'the nuturer', our 'natural' instict is slowing evolving with our minds, now men can take on that role too. You can hire some one to do the same thing. In my family, the role is shared. Both my parents take the nuturing role and both are successful professionals (i'm 15 by the way... :) ).

Religion is still good becasue i believe that without something or someone to belive in, you are lost. But religion need to evolve and adapt to the times.

I am actually need to do some nuturing of my own. I'm babysitting right now and i'm a guy. so in the name of men, i would like to say that this job isn't only for girls!

Peace!

Jagg
So politically correct, you are even afraid to quote an opinion you don't believe in.
And yes, in the 5,000 years of civilization, or so, the human DNA could have really changed, or the instinct could have changed. Any anthropologist would just heartily laugh at you.


Wow, the last time I saw such convoluted, twisted, and bizzar logic was when I was last grading junior high school student's papers. Congratulations, Doom777, you've managed to preform just about every debater's mistake that I can think of, and still haven't really answered why you think women should be paid less.
Absolutely useless flaming post.
And btw, NS is not real debate. Real debate would have two people standing up and talking for a certain amount of time.

Men and women should be equal. ('cept for certain parts if ya know what I mean)
That's called equity, and I promote it. I also think that feminism doesn't promote it.

1) Is it true? No.

2) Are you manipulating definitions? Yes.
Show me one major feminist accomplishment that didn't augment women's rights.

What do you mean by a patriarchal society? I think that the society of the 1960's had gender equity. Just look: Men and women had equal political rights. Men were breadwinners, women were homecarers. And I already proved that these roles are equitable.
Which is exhbit A of how your concept of equity is merely patriachy
Exactly where do you see patriarchy? Didn't we agree that breadwinning is equitable to homecaring? In what way, are men superior to women in my view?

More rights than men? No.

More rights than women had? Yes. It promoted equal rights. It forbade legal discrimination on the basis of gender -- which would protect men and women (and other genders).

Nice job of proving how you are manipulating definitions to dismiss any fight for equal rights.

Yes, I told you that not all feminists want more rights than men. They want more rights that women had. However, I am arguing that women already had equitable rights. Sure it would have women have equal rights as men in the economic field, however it never noted they were inequality with women having an advantage in the domestic field. It is, and was, much harder for men to be homecarers than women. So therefore, it would give women and edge in total, while without it, women and men were equitable.

Your "distinct feeling" is wrong. And do you think the Spur Posse is a healthy example of manhood? Or do you think something might be a tad wrong there?I think that she tried to show spur posse as a prime example of men.

No, I pledged to kill any woman that has an abortion for a fetus concieved from me. And I support gender equity, i just don't think feminism is the train that gets there.



Because you don't want us to go forward. You want us to go backward to an idyllic time that never existed, but that definitely doesn't allow for equity.

Your misogyny is showing. Better cover that up.
Hmm, I looked all through my post, that you quoted, but I be damned, if I found "I hate women" in it. Maybe your computer is showing weird things. And how does my view show any hint of male supremacy?

Absolutely useless flaming post.
Is it now? Well then, let me question you directly. Please state why you feel that women whould be paid less then men. Do so using facts (please cite your sources, feelings and 'obvious' facts are not acceptable), as well as projecting where you suppose your policy would lead to.

You have stated a request for a massive change in policy and laws. You have asked for a re-working of current trends in society on a lage scale, and asked for a major disruption of the current US and world ecconomy. If you cannot support this opinion with any reasonable basis, then yes, I feel I can state I found your posting to be equivlant to middle school papers I have worked with because that is the normal methods of argument and debate I find in them.

If you wish to turn the world upside down, please answer why.

So politically correct, you are even afraid to quote an opinion you don't believe in.
And yes, in the 5,000 years of civilization, or so, the human DNA could have really changed, or the instinct could have changed. Any anthropologist would just heartily laugh at you.

That's funny. When I demonstrated that anthropologists did laugh at your views on race, it was called an appeal to authority.

Apparently only the views of imaginary anthropologists count.

Show me one major feminist accomplishment that didn't augment women's rights.

Given that women are human, any support for equal rights or human rights is, under your twisted view, invalid. The only actions that would count are actions that were sexist and supported only men.

Exactly where do you see patriarchy? Didn't we agree that breadwinning is equitable to homecaring? In what way, are men superior to women in my view?

First of all, your view imagines a past was patriachal.

Second, your view wishes to lock people into gender stereotypes. That you do not openly admit the inherent sexism does not mean it isn't there.

Third, you assume men are CEOs, politicians, law enforcement, etc. All positions of power and authority. All positions to make the law or enforce the law are held by men. Sorry, skippy, but that is patriarchy.

Yes, I told you that not all feminists want more rights than men. They want more rights that women had. However, I am arguing that women already had equitable rights. Sure it would have women have equal rights as men in the economic field, however it never noted they were inequality with women having an advantage in the domestic field. It is, and was, much harder for men to be homecarers than women. So therefore, it would give women and edge in total, while without it, women and men were equitable.

Utter bullshit.

Equal rights under the law wouldn't give an edge to either "side." Forbidding legal discrimination on the basis of gender is, by definition, gender neutral. You have to warp reality to get around that.

How about protection from domestic violence?

How about marital rape? Do you think it should be legal? It was. Still is in some states.

Before divorce laws were reformed, men owned and controlled most property. Was that legal?

What about men and women that were not married or did not have children? The nuclear family isn't the only lifestyle, you know.

Why does a woman have to get married and have kids in order to have "equity"?

As I already noted, feminists fought for the end to male stereotypes of the type you complain about regarding "homecare." But you don't really support equal rights or the end to gender stereotypes -- because you want women relegated to the home to care for your children.

I think that she tried to show spur posse as a prime example of men.

Untrue.

And you dodged the question - do you think Ms. Faludi should have shown the Spur Posse in a good light? Or do you agree they are an example of manhood gone wrong?


Hmm, I looked all through my post, that you quoted, but I be damned, if I found "I hate women" in it. Maybe your computer is showing weird things. And how does my view show any hint of male supremacy?

Again, failing to say "I hate women" doesn't rule out misogyny.

A pledge to kill women, a penchant for descriptions of rape and murder of women, and a fondness for rape jokes are good qualifications for misogyny.

And the little window-dressing on your "women belong barefoot in the kitchen" views doesn't disguise the sexism.

Any anthropologist would just heartily laugh at you.

hey, speaking of anthropologists, did you ever respond to posts #11 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8753774&postcount=11) and #54 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8757978&postcount=54)?

That's funny. When I demonstrated that anthropologists did laugh at your views on race, it was called an appeal to authority.

Apparently only the views of imaginary anthropologists count.

I didn't call it that. Actually, I left NS midway through that forum.


Given that women are human, any support for equal rights or human rights is, under your twisted view, invalid. The only actions that would count are actions that were sexist and supported only men.
Now who is twisting stuff. So if I say that all white people can trade in marijuana, since white people are human, I am really augmenting human rights?


First of all, your view imagines a past was patriachal.

Second, your view wishes to lock people into gender stereotypes. That you do not openly admit the inherent sexism does not mean it isn't there.

Third, you assume men are CEOs, politicians, law enforcement, etc. All positions of power and authority. All positions to make the law or enforce the law are held by men. Sorry, skippy, but that is patriarchy.
What? I think that all outside job positions should be filled by men, from CEO's to local butchers. And women could still become politicians, after all, I am not forbidding women to work, and being a politician, is not really a job, I mean you don't become a politician to pay the bills.





Utter bullshit.

Equal rights under the law wouldn't give an edge to either "side." Forbidding legal discrimination on the basis of gender is, by definition, gender neutral. You have to warp reality to get around that.

How about protection from domestic violence?

How about marital rape? Do you think it should be legal? It was. Still is in some states.

Before divorce laws were reformed, men owned and controlled most property. Was that legal?

What about men and women that were not married or did not have children? The nuclear family isn't the only lifestyle, you know.

Why does a woman have to get married and have kids in order to have "equity"?

As I already noted, feminists fought for the end to male stereotypes of the type you complain about regarding "homecare." But you don't really support equal rights or the end to gender stereotypes -- because you want women relegated to the home to care for your children.
Equal rights in workplace, does not necesarily mean equal rights overall. In fact, it could hinder equal rights overall, as I already demonstrated. Nor have I said anything about marital abuse, or marital rape. I, of course, oppose them. THey have nothing to do with sexism, or gender equality, but are, simply put, crimes. However, I also oppose women being able to hit men.
11. React so cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts.
See, this is what pisses me off about women: they expect special treatment at their discretion. They want equal rights, equal pay, and equal treatment for everything EXCEPT when it comes to shit like this, then they want you to "react cutely" instead of, say, putting them in a head lock and making them eat ants and/or spiders while you give them carpet burn. Why don't women react "cutely" when men hit them for a change? Oops, I forgot, that's domestic abuse. I oppose women being able to hit men as well. And the nuclear family is the most effective lifestyle.



Untrue.

And you dodged the question - do you think Ms. Faludi should have shown the Spur Posse in a good light? Or do you agree they are an example of manhood gone wrong?
No, she showed them in a bad light.




Again, failing to say "I hate women" doesn't rule out misogyny.

A pledge to kill women, a penchant for descriptions of rape and murder of women, and a fondness for rape jokes are good qualifications for misogyny.

And the little window-dressing on your "women belong barefoot in the kitchen" views doesn't disguise the sexism.
Woman or not, anyone who kills my child, will be killed by me. Do you actually expect me stand by when my son/daughter has been murdered? And when was i fond of rape jokes? I like rape jokes that are funny, and don't like those that are not funny. Just like I like racist, or anti-semitic jokes that are funny, and don't like those that are not funny. To summarize: i don't care about the topic, if a joke is funny, I like it. If its not funny, I don't like it.

Hey Doom, you ever here the saying "Biology is not destiny?"
I'm forty, I don't have children and I don't want them. I'm smarter then most men and tougher than most. As far as I'm concerned having me raise children would be a diservice to me and the children. I have no desire to be chattel to any man.
BTW, in hunter-gatherer societies women provide most of the food. The vast majority of calories in such societies are from plant products. So who's the bread winner there?

Twit.

I agree with this guy.

bullshit. firstly, because humanity did not spend most of its evolutionary history eating bread. secondly - and more importantly - because the whole chest-thumping "man the hunter and sole provider" thing just doesn't pan out. in foraging cultures with a sexual division of labor, women bring in more food more reliably than the men. and in those with less distinct sexual divisions of labor, the women take part in the hunt and the men gather and everybody's contribution averages out.
Breadwinning has nothing to do with bread. Breadwinning is a role, which brings in outside resources into the family, such as food, or money. As for women hunting, maybe there was one or two societies where women hunted, but you must agree, that in most stone age societies, men hunted, and women took care of the children.



And, this, concludes today's session. Good night, everyone.

It's a nice differant perspective dude but the fact of the matter is if we're going to play this stupid game called capitalism everyone should have equal oppurtunity and payment. In today's society normaly both parents are working and it would be in everybody's best interest if they got as much money as possible so they could live. What they think is irrelevant.

in most stone age societies, men hunted, and women took care of the children.

source?

source?
There's no need for source it's common sense! *Rubs nasal cavity*

Jesus Christ this is why this conservatism shovanistic pig tactic versus liberal stupidity will never end. One wants to opress to make themselves feel big, the other is just fucking retarded!

A woman has built in "maternal insticts", and a man has built in "breadwinning" insticts. To doubt their existance is to doubt something obvious, therefore I will not prove their existance at this point.

A convenient way of avoiding having to prove something that is untrue.


These insticts help women in "housewifing", and hinder them in "job-working". Opposite is true with men -- their insticts help them in working in jobs, and hinder them in staying at home.

And you wondered where the sexism was in your theory.

Again, unproven and untrue and sexist.

Since we already proved that women are superior to men in homecaring, and men are superior in job-working, then, clearly, men should work, and women care for the home.

You "proved" no such thing. You assumed it.


Ok, but what if a woman still choose to work, shouldn't she get paid equally for the same work? Well, as we already proved, in most cases, families with roles distributed are a lot more effective, than the families with roles blended. Society itself, is only as effective as its composing units. Therefore, if the families are less effective, the society becomes less effective. Therefore, the society gently encourages families to distribute roles, and for the man to work, and woman to take care of the house. Of course this hurts the few rare exceptions where the woman is more productive at working than the man, and the man is more productive at homecaring. However, I never said this system a perfect: hey, a perfect world would be communist.

This imperfect system also completely ignores the existence of single men, single women, one-parent families, etc.

Sorry, but we aren't all Ward and June Cleaver. And we don't want to be.

But isn't forcing women to stay at home, while the man can go out and have a career discriminating against women? Well, no. You see, staying at home is not in any way inferior to having a job. Both have their own ups and downs.

One earns income and one does not.

One carries economic power and one does not.

One may carry political power and one does not.

So, why you can say they are equal -- they are not.

Particularly when you relegate all members of a certain gender to one role -- whether they like it or not.

And you punish any member of that gender that seeks to work outside the home with unequal pay. Why would you do that if the home and economic fields are equal?


[But who is to define femism? Who is to say that Valerie Solanos is not a feminist? She certainly claims to be one, and so do most of men haters. Why is yuor word better than theirs? Therefore, the most fair term for feminism, is belief that women should have more power/rights that they do now. Is it not true? Do you, a feminist, I presume, not believe that? I think you do, and so does Valerie Solanos, and so do all feminists.

I love how Valerie Solanos is the anti-feminist poster child.

She was 1 person. Who was the sole member of SCUM. Her claim to fame was shooting Andy Warhol in 1968.

I can parade lots of examples of white men who have said and done lots of incredibily stupid things in the last 40 years. Are they all representative of your view?

I would support an organization that would fight for genders to be equittable. However NOW, Womyn, and SCUM don't even come close to it.

Cute.

Care to point out something from NOW's official positions or bylaws to support this?

Or is this just pure ignorance speaking?

Here is another thing: not all women support feminism! In fact, in the 60's, the movement was a tiny minority. The main opposition to feminism came from women! However, most of the women, have been convinced to believe in feminism, sometimes, even by threats. There have been quite a few instances of feminists criticizing housewives, almost violently.

Women have been forced to support feminism by threats? LOL.

Prove it. This should be good for a laugh.

I agree with this guy.This guy's not one. I'm a female bitch. :D

There's no need for source it's common sense!

except that it is patently untrue as far as i can tell. you see, i have this little degree in anthropology, and my desk is currently surrounded by more peer-reviewed articles about various foraging societies than i care to count (for a graduate project i'm working on). so i'd like to see a source on the claim - maybe i've missed something up to this point.

Note: only read first page, sorry if I repeat anyone, but the initial statement is so misguided I have to comment



snip

That being said, here is what I am against:
I am against women getting the same pay as men. Here is why: it is men's natural instinct to be a breadwinner, and a woman to be a nurturer. Nature/G-d has just designed us that way. Although we cannot go along with all of our instincts (such as polygamy), we should go along with as many as possible.

And why is that last sentence the case? Our instincts were developed before we started civilized society: like traditions, they are solutions to forgotten problems, and have little or no relevence today.
Even granted that there are studies that suggest biological differences between men and women that tend to promote certain skills between gender (say geometry in men to improve hunting, landmarking in women to improve gathering), but every study has its exceptions and most of those skill differences don't match up to modern careers. Even if they did match careers, what if statistically women are more skilled at doing a certain career? (most jobs requiring cooperation/dealing with people) Shouldn't they get paid MORE than men to encourage them to do it instead of leaving it to a half assed job by a guy? Instead of wasting our time trying to figure out if people fit a skill stereotype then pay engineer to force their career, it's far easier and more fair to just let people pick what they want and pay them what it's worth.

Remember the reality: there are bad mothers out there, there are great house-husbands out there, and there are others that seem to never be meant to have children of their own. The social order of the American 50's never existed in the way some tradionalists would believe, as tons of women had moved into the work force thanks to WWII. Therefore, give the dream of the "perfect family" a rest and let people live the way they wish, receiving in money the value of their time and effort.

I didn't call it that. Actually, I left NS midway through that forum.

Actually, not true.


Now who is twisting stuff. So if I say that all white people can trade in marijuana, since white people are human, I am really augmenting human rights?

Cute.

If I point to a policy of NOW that supports men and women equally, your response is that it still supports women and isn't really a policy in favor of "equity."

Under your warped view, the only way a feminist can be for equity is by supporting a policy that helps only men to the disadvantage of women.

What? I think that all outside job positions should be filled by men, from CEO's to local butchers. And women could still become politicians, after all, I am not forbidding women to work, and being a politician, is not really a job, I mean you don't become a politician to pay the bills.

What part didn't you follow.

Men have all the money and power = patriarchy.

All the CEOs, policemen, & politicians being men = patriachy.

And, women are discouraged from being politicians and get paid less if they do and have (as a group) no economic power to support female leaders, but you don't forbid them from being politicians. How nice. :rolleyes:

Equal rights in workplace, does not necesarily mean equal rights overall. In fact, it could hinder equal rights overall, as I already demonstrated.

You have "demonstrated" no such thing.

Nor have I said anything about marital abuse, or marital rape. I, of course, oppose them. THey have nothing to do with sexism, or gender equality, but are, simply put, crimes. However, I also oppose women being able to hit men.

I hate to break it to you, but those issues do have a lot to do with sexism and gender equality.

Or do they count as issues that NOW has fought against that were not just to help women?

Hmmm?


I oppose women being able to hit men as well. And the nuclear family is the most effective lifestyle.

According to who?

Moreoever, that says nothing about the inequitable effects of your sexist little system on anyone that does not belong to a nuclear family.

No, she showed them in a bad light.

Which apparently you object to.

You cannot have it both ways. Either Ms. Faludi was correct in protraying the Spur Posse as an undesirable example of manhood or she was not.

As a man, I think those little degenerates were disgusting examples of a twisted sense of masculinity.

Woman or not, anyone who kills my child, will be killed by me. Do you actually expect me stand by when my son/daughter has been murdered? And when was i fond of rape jokes? I like rape jokes that are funny, and don't like those that are not funny. Just like I like racist, or anti-semitic jokes that are funny, and don't like those that are not funny. To summarize: i don't care about the topic, if a joke is funny, I like it. If its not funny, I don't like it.

I expect you not to commit murder.

I expect you not to treat women as mere recepticles for your seed.

I have seen you repeatedly -- and gratuitously -- refer to the murder, rape, and mutilation of women.

And I'm not aware of a lot of funny rape jokes, sorry. But I've seen you think the subject was funny.

So, yes, between that and your openly sexist theories here -- you are a misogynist.

Hopefully, you will grow out of it.

You "proved" no such thing. You assumed it.

you mean those words don't mean the same thing?!?

you mean those words don't mean the same thing?!?

Well, here on the NS Forums, they usually do.

And having an actual source is an appeal to authority.

This thread is a perfect example of why I avoid debates with Cat Tribe like the plague. :D

So politically correct, you are even afraid to quote an opinion you don't believe in.
And yes, in the 5,000 years of civilization, or so, the human DNA could have really changed, or the instinct could have changed. Any anthropologist would just heartily laugh at you.

1) :rolleyes: I'm not afraid to quote, i just feel that if your looking at this thread, you should know what were talking about. I also think you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how pig-headed it might be.

2) Human society is changing extremely rapidly compared to 5,000 years ago. If you can remember in the early 80s, there were no computers. And now, 20 years later, we have organized our lives, businesses and education around them. I think many anthropoligists would agree with me when i say that men and women having separate roles in a household and not being able to share responsiblities of bringing in the dough and cooking and cleaning is out dated by about 5 -7 decades.

3) I would also like to point out, that anti-feminists like you are what make some feminists become so extreme and they use you as an example of 'men controlling women' or 'men expressing power over women.' They use people you as example to further their cause. So by expressing your opinion over this topic, you are actually making the situation worse for you. It's taking one step backwards for anti-feminists.

Originally Posted by Doom777
Woman or not, anyone who kills my child, will be killed by me. Do you actually expect me stand by when my son/daughter has been murdered? And when was i fond of rape jokes? I like rape jokes that are funny, and don't like those that are not funny. Just like I like racist, or anti-semitic jokes that are funny, and don't like those that are not funny. To summarize: i don't care about the topic, if a joke is funny, I like it. If its not funny, I don't like it.

Rape jokes are never funny. Ever. Ask a rape victim.

Breadwinning has nothing to do with bread. Breadwinning is a role, which brings in outside resources into the family, such as food, or money. As for women hunting, maybe there was one or two societies where women hunted, but you must agree, that in most stone age societies, men hunted, and women took care of the children.



And, this, concludes today's session. Good night, everyone.

I would like to note, as it has been said before, i know, women did most of teh breadwinning in prehistoric times. They 'won enough bread' to feed their man too when he didn't ccome back home with a nice juicy mammoth/deer/rabbit/etc. I also notice how you don't directly answer all of the comments. and if you do, you end up contradicting yourself. I think that in itself disproves your argument of man = provider and woman = caregiver.
_________________________________________________________________

I really think your missing the point about feminism, Doom.
See, men are seen as having more rights than women. therefore, in some societies, women are considered lower than men. Feminism tries to increase womens rights to match those of men. they are not looking for supremacy over men, despite your views when people say "women need more rights."
the only way to reach gender equity is through feminism. Making women equal to men.

This reminds me a little of how the public now sees muslims and anyone with brown skin wearing a turban. If you are muslim, you are a terrorist. If you are a feminist, you want women to be superior to men.

You need to stop basing your arguments on the few bad models and start looking deeper into the actual movement.

And having an actual source is an appeal to authority.

i know. that's why i haven't thus far said anything like this:

"according to richard b. lee in his paper what hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on scarce resources, [in reference to the san] 'vegetable foods make up 60-80 percent of the total diet by weight, and collecting involves two or three days of work per woman per week... the men are conscientious but not particularly successful hunters; although men's and women's work input is roughly equivalent in terms of man-day of effort, the women provide two to three times as much food by weight as the men.'"

i wouldn't want to engage in any logical fallacies or anything, ya know.

Take, for example, the lioness. The hunter and the breadwinner of the pride, in the animal kingdom. do you see the guy going out and hunting? Nope. His role is to stay at home and protect the pride from attack by other prides looking for space. He sure as hell doesn't do any of that nurturing crap, but he doesn't go out and actively earn his keep. So saying it's natures way is incorrect.

This is flawed logic. We are not lions. Human biological history was that the woman stayed home while the man hunted. I am for equal pay, before anyone leaps on me.

As for chivalry, I don't think it should be dead either. I just think there should be chivalrous equity. To take the cliched example, if I'm coming up to a door, carrying a huge amount of heavy books, and there's a guy also using the door, damn right I want him to hold it open for me! I'd do the same for them. I'd also expect a girl to do the same thing for me, because being nice shouldn't just be something that a single gender has to do.

Done, moving along.

I don't think that doesn't apply only to the females. i mean, no one can fully understand anyone. Personally, I go against ati-femenism. It's almost always the men who starts the war. I think all the UN and the other organization/Nations will be lot better with female leaders....

I find it interesting that the origional poster was attacked so much for sexist comments while this was ignored.

If I point to a policy of NOW that supports men and women equally, your response is that it still supports women and isn't really a policy in favor of "equity."

Under your warped view, the only way a feminist can be for equity is by supporting a policy that helps only men to the disadvantage of women.

A NOW policy that supports equality. That would be a rarity. NOW is a horrid organisation. It once called Valerie Solanas a great feminist role model...

Human biological history was that the woman stayed home while the man hunted.

bull-fucking-shit.

bull-fucking-shit.

Calm down mate. Post some counter evidence or be quiet. Dont just swear at me.

Calm down mate. Post some counter evidence or be quiet. Dont just swear at me.

look one post before yours

you see, i have this little degree in anthropology
I've heard enough. You're one of those college pricks who think thier better then everybody else cause you got some damn degree. Big fucking deal. If you're so damn smart you'd know women were opressed and FORCED to stay at home for eons. So wether it's instinct or not is irrelevant, that's simply how it was and neither your little degree or any other pinko shit is going to change that.

Now i'm not going to say that was right because it wasn't, but God-damn. You people really need to think about what you say before you say it. You're need to prove the otherside wrong makes you talk out your ass, seriously.

look one post before yours

The men still went out to hunt and find things while the women stayed home with the children. The men were the protectors. Anyway the point of that part was that the logic behind the lion post was flawed.

This is flawed logic. We are not lions. Human biological history was that the woman stayed home while the man hunted. I am for equal pay, before anyone leaps on me.

We'll leap on you for the stupid statement, regardless of your view on equal pay.

I find it interesting that the origional poster was attacked so much for sexist comments while this was ignored.

I find it interesting that someone seeks to distract from a repeated, glaringly sexist viewpoint by pointing out a rather innocuous statement.


A NOW policy that supports equality. That would be a rarity.

Care to name another organization that has done more for gender equality?

How about the Family and Medical Leave Act?

Or the Equal Rights Amendment (http://www.now.org/issues/economic/eratext.html)?

Equal Pay for Equal Work?

What NOW policies are not about equality? (I know, Affirmative Action. The great bugaboo of the white male. Try another one.)


NOW is a horrid organisation. It once called Valerie Solanas a great feminist role model...

Bullshit. You mean a couple of members of one chapter of NOW said that.

NOW has had millions of members over the years in hundreds of chapters.

That wasn't trying to flaunt a degree or anything, that was called an
appeal to authority. It was representing the person as being knowledgable
about what they were talking about, since they had experience with
the subject. And they DID provide evidence to refute the other side.
Re-read the post. :rolleyes:

That's all.

Kaole Tsutako; Red-head, Woman, Feminist, Anti-Extremist, Anti-Moronist
:sniper:

I've heard enough. You're one of those college pricks who think thier better then everybody else cause you got some damn degree. Big fucking deal. If you're so damn smart you'd know women were opressed and FORCED to stay at home for eons. So wether it's instinct or not is irrelevant, that's simply how it was and neither your little degree or any other pinko shit is going to change that.

Now i'm not going to say that was right because it wasn't, but God-damn. You people really need to think about what you say before you say it. You're need to prove the otherside wrong makes you talk out your ass, seriously.

Simmer down there, sparky.

Why the hostility? Are you not old enough for college or did you not get in?

There is something to be said for education, you know.

The fact that he is right only makes your rant sillier.

Also I agree with Tyrrael. I was raped repeatedly by 12 guys for a few hours.
I highly doubt I would ever find the subject of rape to be humorous, under
any circumstances.

That's all.

Kaole Tsutako

The men still went out to hunt and find things while the women stayed home with the children. The men were the protectors. Anyway the point of that part was that the logic behind the lion post was flawed.

"the men are conscientious but not particularly successful hunters; although men's and women's work input is roughly equivalent in terms of man-day of effort, the women provide two to three times as much food by weight as the men"

also, among most foraging cultures women were either involved in the hunts to some extent (among the mbuti, for example) or hunted small animals themselves.

plus, both sexes went out hunting or gathering for a very short percentage of the total time - just a few days per week. so everybody, male and female, stayed home for much of the week. nobody stayed home with the children exclusively.

There's no need for source it's common sense! *Rubs nasal cavity*

Jesus Christ this is why this conservatism shovanistic pig tactic versus liberal stupidity will never end. One wants to opress to make themselves feel big, the other is just fucking retarded!

As opposed to demonstrating big stupid fucking retardedness that transcends ideology.

Bravo.

I've heard enough. You're one of those college pricks who think thier better then everybody else cause you got some damn degree.

no, i'm actually one of those egalitarian pricks that thinks no one is any better than anyone else. but that doesn't mean that i don't know more about some particular topic than someone else. and i hold the radical position that we ought be interested in truth rather than commonly held lies.

The fact that you all compare yourselves to cave people says something..

The fact of the matter is women are getting payed the same amount of money as men for doing the same amount of work which NEEDS TO STOP.

I could give a rat's ass about what some primitive beast did in yesteryear, if you want to learn from the past then fucking plan a future. Stop acting like it matters who's right and who's wrong. We as a society have engrained into it that women are suppose to be at home barefoot while the man brings home the bacon and is never around to watch his children grow up. This is bullcrap. I for one am very good with children and would love to play the parent figure, and Jennifer is a very busy girl, she could deffinitly serve the role as "breadwinner" far better then I.

That stereotype is starting to ween, but your foolishness remains in tact. Wise up or die out as our race should've done eons ago. I'm not completely unceartain aliens arn't the only reason our kind is still alive.

The fact that you all compare yourselves to cave people says something..

The only ones doing that were the anti-feminists. And I agree.

The fact of the matter is women are getting payed the same amount of money as men for doing the same amount of work which NEEDS TO STOP.

I think you meant to have a "not" in there.

Women are not getting paid the same as men for the same work -- and that needs to stop. Agreed.

I could give a rat's ass about what some primitive beast did in yesteryear, if you want to learn from the past then fucking plan a future. Stop acting like it matters who's right and who's wrong. We as a society have engrained into it that women are suppose to be at home barefoot while the man brings home the bacon and is never around to watch his children grow up. This is bullcrap. I for one am very good with children and would love to play the parent figure, and Jennifer is a very busy girl, she could deffinitly serve the role as "breadwinner" far better then I.

That stereotype is starting to ween, but your foolishness remains in tact. Wise up or die out as our race should've done eons ago. I'm not completely unceartain aliens arn't the only reason our kind is still alive.

Okay ....

We agree the gender stereotypes need to be discarded and people should be treated equally regardless of gender.

You appear to be yelling primarily at the wrong people.

I would deffinately agree that women and men need to be paid the same for the same work, but there are some jobs that women are not generally suited for. Jobs like firefighting and prison guarding. The typical woman, even an abnormally strong woman will have more difficulty lifting a 250 pound person and carrying him/her out of a burning building than a man of a simliar build. Also women should not be assigned to escort violent criminals anywhere (like rapists or murderers) at least not a single woman. There are exceptions, some women would have no trouble at all carrying a 250 pound man out of a burning building and some men could not move him, and some self defense systems were designed with women in mind but the best ones take a fair bit of time become proficient enough to defeat a much larger oppenent who also knows how to fight.

hey, speaking of anthropologists, did you ever respond to posts #11 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8753774&postcount=11) and #54 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8757978&postcount=54)?
Would they hav anything to do with how anthropology is a bullshit 'science' struggling to redeem itself from it's racist, patriarchal days? My boyfriend wrote a good essay on the topic...

Would they hav anything to do with how anthropology is a bullshit 'science' struggling to redeem itself from it's racist, patriarchal days? My boyfriend wrote a good essay on the topic...

hey now, they started working on fixing all that back in the 60s. and how is it a bullshit science? sure, its no physics, but fuck physics envy.

besides, its the archaeologists that get all freaky about the science question.

I find it interesting that someone seeks to distract from a repeated, glaringly sexist viewpoint by pointing out a rather innocuous statement.

So a sexist statement against females is "glaringly sexist" and a sexist statement against males is innocuous?


Bullshit. You mean a couple of members of one chapter of NOW said that.

NOW has had millions of members over the years in hundreds of chapters.

"the New York chapter president of NOW, attended Solanas' court appearance and said she was "the first outstanding champion of women's rights."

The president of the New York chapter would seem like a rather important person.

source http://www.womynkind.org/valbio.htm

The fact that you all compare yourselves to cave people says something

Truth is, cave people aren't much different from us. Give a caveman electricity and a PC and he turns into a modern person. The references to cave people note the simplest and purest forms of social structure in mankind.

It's absurd to think that our ancestral roots are irrelevant in modern terms. The biology that drives us is the same. In most societies, men hunted, women gathered/raised children. Men typically have greater physical ability and greater logical facilities, which compliments that physical ability. Women have better social capabilities, which makes them suited for cooperating in groups (ie Gathering berries, sewing) and raising children. That's common sense.

The natural vocations determined by differentiation helped our ancestors work more efficiently. Yes, times have changed and the same skills once used are not necessarily needed the same way. But is it logical to claim that in all cases, the genders are interchangeable? Absolutely not.

I would deffinately agree that women and men need to be paid the same for the same work, but there are some jobs that women are not generally suited for. Jobs like firefighting and prison guarding. The typical woman, even an abnormally strong woman will have more difficulty lifting a 250 pound person and carrying him/her out of a burning building than a man of a simliar build. Also women should not be assigned to escort violent criminals anywhere (like rapists or murderers) at least not a single woman. There are exceptions, some women would have no trouble at all carrying a 250 pound man out of a burning building and some men could not move him, and some self defense systems were designed with women in mind but the best ones take a fair bit of time become proficient enough to defeat a much larger oppenent who also knows how to fight.

screw you man, a female firefighter put out our fire.

More women fighting fires!

No it doesn't, because
1) The term itself suggests women rights, not gender equality.
2) The history; never in the history of feminsm has it fought for something not "women's rights" related. Except prohibition, but that has nothing to do with gender equity either. Femism has fought for womens political rights, prohibition, women's rights to abortion, higher wages for women, higher sentences/death penalty for rapists, and so on.
Wow...it sounds like you've really studied feminism! You know all about what feminists and the feminist movement have fought for! :rolleyes:

You know what, I thought about it last night, and I've come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no need for me to prove that feminists are about gender equity. Your baseless opinion, based in inexperience and prejudice will not impact the work that I, and other feminists (again, we are not all females) do to improve the equitable treatment of all people, regardless of their gender. So you just go on and try to sully the name of feminism with your claims that most of us don't care about gender equity. You have neither the stats, nor the truth to back you up. I give you about as much creedence as I do to those who blame all Christians for sex abuse scandals.

Unless you have a point other than your flawed analysis of feminism, which even your own quoted definitions of such do not back you up, then I would say you have nothing further to add to the discussion.

I figured out the miscommunication problem me and sinuhue had.

Thinking that women should have more power/rights than they have now is not the same as being a female supremacist. In fact, it is possible to be both gender equitist, and think that women should have more power/rights than they have now.
Ah Christ, then you have to go out and be reasonable.

Sigh.

I agree with what you've said. Bum head :p

I personally think it's funny how many people are horrendously offended by this guy's post. He probably posted it not only to state his opinion, but to get a rise out of people. Seems to have worked......
Hon, don't assume on this forum that extreme opinions are jokes. They often aren't.

As well, even if he himself is not entirely serious, this IS an opinion held by some people. It is a real opinion that bears scrutiny.

Show me one major feminist accomplishment that didn't augment women's rights.


So, you want proof of something that feminists have done that in no way benifitted women, just men? That pretty much rules out everything. Gender equity does not work that way. Women getting the vote did not just benefit women. Not unless you think that all female political activity has been solely in the interests of women....never men, and that all female politicians care solely for their female constituents, not the male or transgendered. You seem to have the mistaken belief that one gender benefits at the expense of all others in this equation. That is not the case.

Flip side.

Show me ONE major (or minor) feminist accomplishment that benefited ONLY women.

I've heard enough. You're one of those college pricks who think thier better then everybody else cause you got some damn degree. Big fucking deal.
Ummm...sounds like you have issues with people who've pursued a post-secondary education. You are projecting superior attitudes onto people who so far have failed to demonstrate them.

You know the kinds of debators that get respect? The ones that provide facts to back up their statements. University educated or no, you can do that. You are as limited as your prejudices make you.

I've heard enough. You're one of those college pricks who think thier better then everybody else cause you got some damn degree.

No, I'm smarter because I've been alive longer, and am one of the Been There Done That crowd.

I also train women in the use of firearms - I specifically train victims of domestic violence, because the men who abuse them are uneducated pricks who think they have the right to beat and kill women.

So a sexist statement against females is "glaringly sexist" and a sexist statement against males is innocuous?

No. The one set of statements is glaringly sexist. The other statement is sexist, but fairly innocuous. Both in quantity and quality the situations are not comparable.

That you persist in demanding condemnation of the one statement rather than the host of other statements shows the real bias here.

"the New York chapter president of NOW, attended Solanas' court appearance and said she was "the first outstanding champion of women's rights."

The president of the New York chapter would seem like a rather important person.

source http://www.womynkind.org/valbio.htm

Wow. One leader of one chapter of NOW said something appallingly stupid in 1968.

Of course, Ms. Atkinson was denounced at the time by other members of NOW -- including National officers of NOW, members of NOW's National Board, and members of NOWs New York Chapter -- for her statements.

And NOW publicly denounced Ms. Solanos's advocacy and use of violence.

And Ms. Atkinson clarified in the media that her presence at the Solanos hearing and/or statements were not on behalf of NOW.

But, if one member -- or even one leader -- of an organization says or does something horrible in a 40 year period -- even in an unofficial capacity -- then the whole organization must be "horrible." :rolleyes:

I'm sure every human organization would fail this cute little test of yours.

But, if one member -- or even one leader -- of an organization says or does something horrible in a 40 year period -- even in an unofficial capacity -- then the whole organization must be "horrible." :rolleyes:


Apparently that is only true of feminist organisations.

These insticts help women in "housewifing", and hinder them in "job-working". Opposite is true with men -- their insticts help them in working in jobs, and hinder them in staying at home.
These instincts you speak of, I believe, are a little more complex than what can be divvied up as ‘housewifing’ and ‘jobworking.’ Being determined and efficient, or being a good communicator, are qualities that may suit both the work-realm and the family home. Being a reliable and kind friend, having good conflict management skills, and a healthy sense of humour are equally desireable in a colleague and a spouse/parent. Being fair and disciplined, and empathetic in the guidance of others are yet another example. Or how about having the courage to respectfully confront things that you don’t approve of, like your child’s behaviour or your company’s policy? It takes all kinds to make the world go round, and not every ‘jobworking’ scenario is a generic office corral. Can you explain what these gender specific instincts are about, and how they are only really applicable to housewifing or jobworking?

As far as defining an entire feminist movement, I agree that it can be confusing for those who are too lazy to investigate the politics fully, and instead latch onto the loudest, most extreme example as a representation of the whole. There are countless women in the world who define their ideology as feminist, and are not man-hating. Their anger is a gift that motivates equality through love and respect for others. They live their lives striving to do their best as examples to their families and communities as strong, intelligent and courageous women. In contrast, there are many hateful, angry women who think that their fury and resentment of men entitles them to call themselves feminist. Their anger is purely self serving, and fueled by a victim-complex. They blame others for their cycle of mistreatment and yet refuse to take responsibility for themselves. They may well be justified in their victim status, but until they look outside themselves and see the whole picture, they aren’t feminists, but merely whingers. I honestly cannot grasp how one can confuse the two, or furthermore, how one can misapply the term ‘feminist’ to someone who may just be a product of her own martyrdom.

I am not going after feminism for the few extremists. I am going after them, because they promote the rights of women, instead of gender equity.
Can you explain how you interpret “the rights of women” as different to “gender equality,” and therefore less desirable? I would argue that “the rights of women” are just as valid as the rights of anyone else, and have to be regarded in context, but by merely identifying the deficiencies and working to rectify these does not instantly jeopardize freedom and opportunities for men. One does not exclude the other. I like the fact that recognizing my individual rights includes recognizing my gender, if only because of the discrimination perpetuated by those who still believe that my worth as a person is dictated by my foetus-management capabilities.

All feminists, no matter how extreme, or mild, believe that women should have more power than they have now.
Who do you think they want this power over? Would that be power over or power with? As a feminist, I want the power over my own life so that I might have opportunities because of the merits of my work, not because of my norks or because of someone’s pity. I would like to be regarded as an individual with autonomy, courage and intelligence instead of having my questions and ideas disregarded because I’m just a chick. The men in my life who have really mattered, like my father, have given me the opportunity to do a man’s work for a man’s pay, and I’ve proven I’m capable. It would be nice to only have to prove myself once, but I still find I have to perform 110%, and to be recognized for my capabilities instead of my norks is still a novelty for me.

Wanting more power than we currently have is not a threat. There is no mass patricide around the corner, because women know it takes both genders to make the world work. I’m curious to understand why you could be opposed to that, and what it is that you feel is threatened by women having more power over their own lives.

I think that the society of the 1960's had gender equity. Just look: Men and women had equal political rights. Men were breadwinners, women were homecarers. And I already proved that these roles are equitable.
Just having the vote is hardly akin to “equal political rights.” I wonder if you were a woman faced with the prospect of being stuck at home with the snotlings, watching Oprah and Days Of Our Lives while you indulge in menial housetasks, you would really consider that they were equitable? No chance of change, no chance of recognition outside the home, no chance for promotion. Having all your intelligence and spirit squandered on the most unappreciated work in the world. That would drive me to suicide.

And the nuclear family is the most effective lifestyle.
When? Where? And how does one assume its possible? I know a woman who became a mother at 17, her boyfriend wanted nothing to do with it, and she raised the child alone, working long hours and even going without food so that her son could eat. In Australia, of all places. The nuclear-family trend doesn’t work when you’re a naïve pregnant mother with a coward for a boyfriend. I think the perfect 1960s world you envisage excludes the courage and tenacity of women like that.
Woman or not, anyone who kills my child, will be killed by me. Do you actually expect me stand by when my son/daughter has been murdered?
I suspect that when you apply that idea in the real world, you’ll find things aren’t so black and white. Do you know what an abortion procedure is like for a woman? They have the potential for profound damage, both emotionally and physically. Do you really believe that a woman has such disregard for her own health to enter into an abortion without considerable heartache and fear? Do you actually believe that you have the right to take a person’s life because of your grief? What of it was an accidental pregnancy? What if the child was horrifically disabled? What if the pregnancy was threatening your girlfriend’s health? I’m tempted to hope this boast comes back to bite your arse. If I were you I’d be informing potential partners of your intention to murder them if things don’t go according to your plans.
I would deffinately agree that women and men need to be paid the same for the same work, but there are some jobs that women are not generally suited for. Jobs like firefighting and prison guarding. The typical woman, even an abnormally strong woman will have more difficulty lifting a 250 pound person and carrying him/her out of a burning building than a man of a simliar build. Also women should not be assigned to escort violent criminals anywhere (like rapists or murderers) at least not a single woman. There are exceptions, some women would have no trouble at all carrying a 250 pound man out of a burning building and some men could not move him, and some self defense systems were designed with women in mind but the best ones take a fair bit of time become proficient enough to defeat a much larger oppenent who also knows how to fight.
I’m 162cm, 50kg and I have a vagina. I used to work with rather well built youths who were in state care prior to being incarcerated for things like rape, serious assaults, armed burglaries, etc. I was assaulted, had my car vandalized, and received death threats all the time. I’ve had to pull youths off other staff during assault situations, and was almost killed on one occasion. The size/strength/gender argument is a myth. Even if I was built like a brick dunny, these young men still would have targeted me, and I may well have been killed for sure, because I may not have had the interpersonal skills to diffuse confrontations before they escalated. The “men’s work/women’s work” stereotype is lie to undermine equality. You don’t have to be a burly thug to be able to handle potentially violent/dangerous situations.

As far as defining an entire feminist movement, I agree that it can be confusing for those who are too lazy to investigate the politics fully, and instead latch onto the loudest, most extreme example as a representation of the whole. There are countless women in the world who define their ideology as feminist, and are not man-hating. Their anger is a gift that motivates equality through love and respect for others. They live their lives striving to do their best as examples to their families and communities as strong, intelligent and courageous women. In contrast, there are many hateful, angry women who think that their fury and resentment of men entitles them to call themselves feminist. Their anger is purely self serving, and fueled by a victim-complex. They blame others for their cycle of mistreatment and yet refuse to take responsibility for themselves. They may well be justified in their victim status, but until they look outside themselves and see the whole picture, they aren’t feminists, but merely whingers. I honestly cannot grasp how one can confuse the two, or furthermore, how one can misapply the term ‘feminist’ to someone who may just be a product of her own martyrdom.


I thought this section bears highlighting.

Apparently that is only true of feminist organisations.

nah, i'm sure it would also work for any other type of group they don't like.