NationStates Jolt Archive

http://fathersforlife.org/index.html

Warning!

This site contains news and commentaries pertaining to fatherhood, fatherlessness, family issues, gender politics and the deconstruction of our society.

The news items and other information found on this website reflect a conservative perspective. If you don't like families, fathers or conservatives, don't read this website, as what you read here will most likely prove to be harmful to your ideology.

That warning had me so torn...you see, I do like families and fathers, and hey, I get along with plenty of conservatives, though I disagree with their politics. But I still think this site is a compiliation of misinformation, bias and misogyny...WHAT TO DO!!???

From the site: http://fathersforlife.org/fv/fv2.htm#Womens_Violence
Media hide the fact women are far likelier to kill their children than are men
by WALTER H. SCHNEIDER and CANDIS MCLEAN

When statistics for all family violence victims are examined, it emerges that women, primarily mothers, perpetrate by far the largest share of incidents of violence in the family. Women commit a good two-thirds of all violence against children — and the majority of child murders — in families.

Unfortunately, women's boyfriends, common-law husbands and stepfathers of children commit a substantial share of violence against children in families. Fortunately, biological fathers perpetrate a relatively insignificant share of it.
I love that the blame for violence here is put on women themselves, or on men who are not married to the woman, or the biological father of her children. So, it's not men, women commit more violence...but oh wait, yeah, men commit a lot of violence too, but it's because they aren't married fathers!

This one is even better:

Violence against women in families is a relatively minor portion of all family violence.
Families headed by two married parents (one of each sex) are, short of widowhood, the safest and least violent environment of all for women, by far.
The sad thruth is that the most violent domestic relationships occur in "families" of which men are no part, between partnered lesbians.

That's right folks! If women would just get married and stay married, they'd be safe! And if they just stopped turning lesbian, there would be no violence at all!

I learned a new word on this site! The Gynarchia! Apparently this is a new world order ruled by gynecologists...or maybe by vaginas....?

Oh how nice...

misogyny, homophobia and ignorance all rolled into one...beautiful...

Oh how nice...

misogyny, homophobia and ignorance all rolled into one...beautiful...
I'm quite ashamed that this is a Canadian site:(

Here's something you might appreciate, Sinuhue. I found it, of all ways, searching for Dungeons and Dragons materials. :D

The Cult of the "Stupid Evil Female" (http://www.elfdata.com/darkside/womensuck/index.html)

From the site: http://fathersforlife.org/fv/fv2.htm#Womens_Violence

I love that the blame for violence here is put on women themselves, or on men who are not married to the woman, or the biological father of her children. So, it's not men, women commit more violence...but oh wait, yeah, men commit a lot of violence too, but it's because they aren't married fathers!

This one is even better:



That's right folks! If women would just get married and stay married, they'd be safe! And if they just stopped turning lesbian, there would be no violence at all!

Seriously, Sin, you have TOO much time on your hands.

Seriously, Sin, you have TOO much time on your hands.
Shut up!

Okay, it's true. I came accross this site when I was looking for suicide stats in Canada. Apparently, males committing suicide are doing so because of Women's Lib.

Here's something you might appreciate, Sinuhue. I found it, of all ways, searching for Dungeons and Dragons materials. :D

The Cult of the "Stupid Evil Female" (http://www.elfdata.com/darkside/womensuck/index.html)

O_o I am uncertain whether or not the guy is...

-Being sarcastic.
-Just came out of a bad relationship.
-A religious nutjob.
-A poor soul who's mother never hugged him.
-Really a woman trying to make men look bad.

What do you think?

O_o I am uncertain whether or not the guy is...

-Being sarcastic.
-Just came out of a bad relationship.
-A religious nutjob.
-A poor soul who's mother never hugged him.
-Really a woman trying to make men look bad.

What do you think?

It almost seems like it's in jest, but not quite. I think he's just had bad experiences with women.

Saw that one and other "father's rights" sites a long time ago. Back when I was looking at domestic violence material online.

O_o I am uncertain whether or not the guy is...

-Being sarcastic.
-Just came out of a bad relationship.
-A religious nutjob.
-A poor soul who's mother never hugged him.
-Really a woman trying to make men look bad.

What do you think?
I'm a little disturbed by the site...I thought at first it was satire, but ALL the forums and comments run in the same vein, talking about how slutty women are and so on...I'm starting to suspect it is serious.

Saw that one and other "father's rights" sites a long time ago. Back when I was looking at domestic violence material online.
Domestic violence is so much more than just violence about women...but these sites seem to want to swing it to the other side and say that men are the real victims...it's kind of spooky.

As for that stupid evil woman site...I still can't find any evidence anyone on it is kidding...

Shut up!

Okay, it's true. I came accross this site when I was looking for suicide stats in Canada. Apparently, males committing suicide are doing so because of Women's Lib.

Well, duh, I could have told you that. Seriously, just look at how big my balls are getting.

I'm a little disturbed by the site...I thought at first it was satire, but ALL the forums and comments run in the same vein, talking about how slutty women are and so on...I'm starting to suspect it is serious.

Some of the domestic violence forums have gone very private because a lot of the guys who run that sort of site stalk women over the Internet. There's one guy who claimed to be a researcher in the UK who joined one board I was on, and then he became the most frightening troll you can imagine.

Then again:

For a female to be truely nice, she'll have to accept that females are weaker and stupider, and this is why females have not produced anything much of worth mentioning, over the milennia, except for misery and rotting away the spirits of great men. How almost everything great in this world was invented and created and fought for, by males.

A nice female will have to happily accept this, and in fact worship us for this. Shouldn't you respect those who are more able than you? This is only natural. And so females should worship us, or at least us males who represent what males should be about. And she should understand that this greater male potential, is the direct cause of the female crime against her own species.
I can't decide!

Ouch. Even if the original writer in that site is not serious, others really are:

Except for the few nice girls, the rest are just "sperm receptacles".
I love to see when the mother loses the custody battle in divorces.

Cripes...are there any comparable misandrist sites out there?

The "Evil Woman Leaders" page is what got me to the site.

Ouch. Even if the original writer in that site is not serious, others really are:
Cripes...are there any comparable misandrist sites out there?

And to think there are men who think that women shouldn't have guns.

Ouch. Even if the original writer in that site is not serious, others really are:



Cripes...are there any comparable misandrist sites out there?

And they wonder why they can't get laid....

The "Evil Woman Leaders" page is what got me to the site.
lol!

Seriously...can someone find me a man-hating site? I can't seem to come up with anything.

How 'bout we just link you to threads from this board, instead. :rolleyes:

That shouldn't be to difficult to find.

How 'bout we just link you to threads from this board, instead. :rolleyes:

That shouldn't be to difficult to find.
Then let's see it. So far I haven't seen a 'real' man-hating thread here. But knock yourself out...I'd like to read one if you can find it.

Then let's see it. So far I haven't seen a 'real' man-hating thread here. But knock yourself out...I'd like to read one if you can find it.

Whatever, we know HERPOWER is the real you. We're just waiting for HER to gather HER forces and take control once and for all.

How 'bout we just link you to threads from this board, instead. :rolleyes:

That shouldn't be to difficult to find.

How about you do it, then, instead of just talking big shit?

Whatever, we know HERPOWER is the real you. We're just waiting for HER to gather HER forces and take control once and for all.
I'm lulling you all into a false sense of confidence with my moderate feminism...then I will take over, castrate you all and make you my eunuch slaves! MUAHHAHAHHAHAAA!

Then let's see it. So far I haven't seen a 'real' man-hating thread here. But knock yourself out...I'd like to read one if you can find it.

There've been plenty - but they're just blown smoke - a lot like the "women hating" page that was posted to start this run.

I'd guess that the site everyone's so worked up about is no more 'real' than the man-hating threads around here - ie: pretty much overblown tripe, not worth a second glance.

That was my point, afterall - why are we even dignifying the site with a thread, much less responses bemoaning the state of manhood in general, for allowing such a thing to go up?

You might as well flush the female gender while you're at it, since the threads cropping up around here (the 'privileged to be a man' one springs to mind) are just as worthy of attention as the site in question.

How about you do it, then, instead of just talking big shit?
See, I rushed through your post and thought it said TAKING instead of TALKING.

That was the biggest collection of hate I've ever seen...
Stay tuned for updates! (OK, well you don't need to, but there will be some from time to time). Articles to come:

* Females / Parasites article!
* The origins of sexism article!
* Article on how most things are the fault of women!

Great, I can't wait to read why most things are my fault!

I'm lulling you all into a false sense of confidence with my moderate feminism...then I will take over, castrate you all and make you my eunuch slaves! MUAHHAHAHHAHAAA!

That will be a sad day. Because we know I will be slain the first I mention the word whore to HER. What fun is it if you can't playfully call some hot, sexy, playmate a whore from time to time... whore.

How about you do it, then, instead of just talking big shit?

Good lord - easy with the tazer, there. :rolleyes:
It wasn't a challenge of any sort, and I guess I rather was forced to spell out the minor point I was trying to make later.

No big deal.

That was the biggest collection of hate I've ever seen...

Great, I can't wait to read why most things are my fault!

Clearly women are responsible for all of history's greatest injustices. The bubonic plague? Women's fault. The Holocaust? Eva Braun's fault. The oppression of women? Obviously women's fault.

There've been plenty - but they're just blown smoke - a lot like the "women hating" page that was posted to start this run.

I'd guess that the site everyone's so worked up about is no more 'real' than the man-hating threads around here - ie: pretty much overblown tripe, not worth a second glance.

That was my point, afterall - why are we even dignifying the site with a thread, much less responses bemoaning the state of manhood in general, for allowing such a thing to go up?

You might as well flush the female gender while you're at it, since the threads cropping up around here (the 'privileged to be a man' one springs to mind) are just as worthy of attention as the site in question.

The Evil Women site, I agree with you, is crap. But the Fathers for Life IS a serious group, and does deserve to be taken seriously. They have a farily large contingent of very vocal men who do a lot of political work, and devote a lot of time to their cause. Tripe? Perhaps...but no less concerning in nature than nationalist or white power sites.

As for bemoaning manhood...um...where was that done exactly? I think you're projecting here.

That will be a sad day. Because we know I will be slain the first I mention the word whore to HER. What fun is it if you can't playfully call some hot, sexy, playmate a whore from time to time... whore.
Don't worry hon...you can still pleasure me and be my slave without your male parts.

Plus, we all know who the real whore is around here.

Don't worry hun...you can still pleasure me and be my slave without your male parts.

That sounds hot.

..as for bemoaning manhood...um...where was that done exactly? I think you're projecting here.

I didn't mean you, specifically - I wasn't projecting, really. More of a reference to the "gee, I guess it is all women's fault for everything" responses that sorta floated around.

I don't think that's really constructive, to much of an extent.

Don't worry hon...you can still pleasure me and be my slave without your male parts.

Plus, we all know who the real whore is around here.

Phew. I was worried there for a minute. If I can pleasure you then my life is at least better than now. Right now I do not get to give nor receive pleasure.

EDIT: I aspire to be a whore

I didn't mean you, specifically - I wasn't projecting, really. More of a reference to the "gee, I guess it is all women's fault for everything" responses that sorta floated around.

I don't think that's really constructive, to much of an extent.
So what, pray tell, do you think people should be saying that would be constructive?

So what, pray tell, do you think people should be saying that would be constructive?

Perhaps set out what, exactly, about the FathersForLife site is misinformation.
Then back it up with factual evidence WHY.


The way I see it:
What's the purpose of posting the site here, under the label of "anti-feminist website"? I should hope it would be some attempt to perhaps finger it as a misleading source.

But what's the point if it's just "out there", and then followed by airy, tongue-in-cheek comebacks?

I didn't mean you, specifically - I wasn't projecting, really. More of a reference to the "gee, I guess it is all women's fault for everything" responses that sorta floated around.

I don't think that's really constructive, to much of an extent.
I apologise for making light of the situation, I wasn't aware that such comments were so damaging to the constructive discussion that's taking place.

Why don't you do us the honour then of making this thread constructive?

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000625

Man hating vagina warriors unite!

I apologise for making light of the situation, I wasn't aware that such comments were so damaging to the constructive discussion that's taking place.

I'm not referring to you, specifically.

Gees - I guess the question now becomes, why was the site linked to in the first place? If it was to put it on a pedestal for mockery, then my apologies - carry on.
I must have been completely off my nut, when, upon reading-

...I do like families and fathers, and hey, I get along with plenty of conservatives, though I disagree with their politics. But I still think this site is a compiliation of misinformation, bias and misogyny...

-that I imagined it was written to make one think about the message perpetuated thru' the site in question.

I apologise for making light of the situation, I wasn't aware that such comments were so damaging to the constructive discussion that's taking place.
Apparently there is a standard that must be upheld here, that does not include making light of the situation, japing, jesting, commenting pointlessly or any tomfoolery in general. Since this doesn't seem to apply to the General Forum as a whole, I have deduced that this thread has been chosen for such special treatment.

I'm still waiting for some of these man-hating General threads that there is supposedly a preponderance of.

Apparently there is a standard that must be upheld here, that does not include making light of the situation, japing, jesting, commenting pointlessly or any tomfoolery in general. Since this doesn't seem to apply to the General Forum as a whole, I have deduced that this thread has been chosen for such special treatment.

I suppose I was drawing my supposition from the content and wording of the first post. :rolleyes:
That's usually -I had thought, up until now- the way to figure out if a thread/topic was serious or not?


In addition, I also felt that your request for "man-hating sites" was a shift to the serious side, as well.

..or not.
The internet is a monotone.

-that I imagined it was written to make one think about the message perpetuated thru' the site in question.
Of course it is. However, so far I don't think there is anyone who is taking what the site is saying seriously enough to bother refuting it. Certain foolishness doesn't need to be refuted. We mock it, because it is worthy of mockery.

If someone wants to take the time to refute something we are all pretty sure is crap anyway, then great! But I'm not going to crack down on people in a thread I started, because frankly, starting a thread does not make it YOUR thread.

Okay, it's true. I came accross this site when I was looking for suicide stats in Canada. Apparently, males committing suicide are doing so because of Women's Lib.
I know you're being glib. But all the crap like Title IX and the "leveling of the playing field." Who's expense do you think that comes at? The alpha males? The boys with the social network that provides the competative advantage? No. They're unaffected. It comes at the expense of the boys at the bottom. Their oppotunities are halved, and their pressures doubled. You should check out The War Against Boys.

That said, children do need a parent of each gender. Are two moms and two dads better than perpetual abuse in an apathetic foster system? Absolutely, you'd have to be Texan to disagree. Are they better than a mom and a dad, all other things being equal, no. What's worse are single parents, and god forbid it's a single mother raising a son. Feminism has given women a pass, particularly in the raising of children. Much like religion, it's permission to not take responsability.

I wish that women would take a real hard look at the statistics. Take the time to normalize them, and see what cost of the divergance between the practice and theory of "feminism" really is. Or don't, everyone should have a prison in their backyard.

I want to get back to talking about whores.

I know you're being glib. But all the crap like Title IX and the "leveling of the playing field." Who's expense do you think that comes at? The alpha males? The boys with the social network that provides the competative advantage? No. They're unaffected. It comes at the expense of the boys at the bottom. Their oppotunities are halved, and their pressures doubled. You should check out The War Against Boys.

Their opportunities have not been halved... and I hardly think that they should be in a position to criticise anyway. So the chances of them not getting a job because there's a woman out there better than them have increased... tough! Women actually have some chance now.


What's worse are single parents, and god forbid it's a single mother raising a son. Feminism has given women a pass, particularly in the raising of children. Much like religion, it's permission to not take responsability.

Total rubbish.... I don't even know why I should acknowledge it. I don't know of any mother who would use "oh, well now I'm considered legally equal to men" to justify failings, and I don't know any who would use that excuse to be lax. Naturally I'm not an all seeing eye at this kind of thing, but I know well enough that promoting female equality has not given any women a pass to raise their child half-arsed. Why don't you give examples of where feminism has encouraged maternal neglect?

I wish that women would take a real hard look at the statistics. Take the time to normalize them, and see what cost of the divergance between the practice and theory of "feminism" really is. Or don't, everyone should have a prison in their backyard.

Because that's the inevitable result of equality between the genders. Everyone ends up in prison. That's a nonsequitor if ever I've heard one.

I know you're being glib. But all the crap like Title IX and the "leveling of the playing field." Who's expense do you think that comes at? The alpha males? The boys with the social network that provides the competative advantage? No. They're unaffected. It comes at the expense of the boys at the bottom. Their oppotunities are halved, and their pressures doubled. You should check out The War Against Boys.
I have no idea what Title IX is. Leveling the playing field...to what policies are you referring specifically?

This isn't about 'giving women rights' and 'taking away men's rights'. All genders should be advancing, not one over the other.

That said, children do need a parent of each gender.
No. They don't. It would be preferable that they had two parents (though I argue with the need that they be of opposite genders), but they will NOT DIE without two parents. They are not guaranteed to fail in life. They are not guaranteed to do drugs, become violent or any other horrible thing.


What's worse are single parents, and god forbid it's a single mother raising a son.
Baseless. Show me some facts that say a single parent, or god forbid, a single mother raising a son is going to result in some nebulous horror.

Feminism has given women a pass, particularly in the raising of children. Much like religion, it's permission to not take responsability.
Where in feminism exactly are women giving each other a pass on responsibility?
I wish that women would take a real hard look at the statistics.
Which statistics exactly?
Take the time to normalize them, and see what cost of the divergance between the practice and theory of "feminism" really is. Or don't, everyone should have a prison in their backyard.
What exactly do you have against feminism that is based in any sort of fact? So far, all I've gotten from you is that it is nebulously 'bad' in your opinion.

I have no idea what Title IX is. Leveling the playing field...to what policies are you referring specifically?

Title IX is the law in the US that said that public high schools have to provide equal opportunities for both genders in all school activities.

Title IX (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm)

I know you're being glib. But all the crap like Title IX and the "leveling of the playing field." Who's expense do you think that comes at? The alpha males? The boys with the social network that provides the competative advantage? No. They're unaffected. It comes at the expense of the boys at the bottom. Their oppotunities are halved, and their pressures doubled. You should check out The War Against Boys.

Wait? Equal funding for males and females takes money away from males? You mean the money that should've been used equally all along?!!??

In all seriousness though, I don't think all sports should be split that way in the first place.

By the way, I was not being glib. This site actually blames Women's Lib for rising rates of suicide among men.

Canadian men kill themselves at rates far higher than at any time before in Canadian history and have been doing so since 1971, ever since the liberation of women got well under way.
Sounds like certain men are using feminism as a scapegoat for all their problems.

Title IX is the law in the US that said that public high schools have to provide equal opportunities for both genders in all school activities.

Title IX (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm)
OH NO! NOT EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES!!!

Wait...um...why is that a bad thing exactly? I'm just not seeing it.

First of all, did you notice the name in the "EVIL WOMEN" site's URL?

"elfdata...."

Here's a clue -- ANYone who more than playfully takes things out of the fantasy realm and uses them in daily interactions has the maturity level of a neutered sophomore. Add to that the fact that he can't even use the word "woman." Men who actually use the word "females" in the way this site does are so emotionally and socially stunted that I find it compelling that they manage get through daily life. "Females"? What are these guys, zoologists?

Fellas, it's called "outside." Look into it.

Unenlightened self-indulgence coupled with denial does not make for an interesting rant -- even if this nutjob has had bad luck with women, it doesn't excuse being so critically ignorant. If this guy is so chronically oppressed by women that he has to ask why MOST of them are so evil, doesn't that say something about him? When someone is so socially inept that they keep asking "what's wrong with EVERYONE that they don't like me?" -- it's time to have a good long look in a mirror. I know this because I went through it. After prolonged ostracization, I finally realized that nobody can tolerate an overtly cynical, depressed and undersexed know-it-all for very long.

Come on, you d20 denizens! If I can figure out how to enjoy RPGs and strategy games without becoming obsessed or terminally engrossed (and a milk-skinned hermit, at that), so can you. Put down the dice, the controller, and the mouse and get into your own reality. You might find that change is not only possible, it's highly desirable.

Women suck? Oh yes, they do -- and God bless them for it! :D

OH NO! NOT EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES!!!

Wait...um...why is that a bad thing exactly? I'm just not seeing it.

Because, supposedly, by providing those girls with equal opportunities, we are taking opportunities away from some of the boys. Opportunities that they once had at the expense of girls.

First of all, did you notice the name in the "EVIL WOMEN" site's URL?

"elfdata...."

Here's a clue -- ANYone who more than playfully takes things out of the fantasy realm and uses them in daily interactions has the maturity level of a neutered sophomore. Add to that the fact that he can't even use the word "woman." Men who actually use the word "females" in the way this site does are so emotionally and socially stunted that I find it compelling that they manage get through daily life. "Females"? What are these guys, zoologists?

Fellas, it's called "outside." Look into it.

Unenlightened self-indulgence coupled with denial does not make for an interesting rant -- even if this nutjob has had bad luck with women, it doesn't excuse being so critically ignorant. If this guy is so chronically oppressed by women that he has to ask why MOST of them are so evil, doesn't that say something about him? When someone is so socially inept that they keep asking "what's wrong with EVERYONE that they don't like me?" -- it's time to have a good long look in a mirror. I know this because I went through it. After prolonged ostracization, I finally realized that nobody can tolerate an overtly cynical, depressed and undersexed know-it-all for very long.

Come on, you d20 denizens! If I can figure out how to enjoy RPGs and strategy games without becoming obsessed or terminally engrossed (and a milk-skinned hermit, at that), so can you. Put down the dice, the controller, and the mouse and get into your own reality. You might find that change is not only possible, it's highly desirable.

Women suck? Oh yes, they do -- and God bless them for it! :D

I did mention I found the site while searching for Dungeons and Dragons materials, didn't I?

Whats with this thread? Seriously i dont see the point. OK the site is crap, no-one has taken is seriously, so why bother? There are still very sexist men out there, there are sexist women too, but to coment on this would be like stating 'the sky is blue', quite redundant.

I did mention I found the site while searching for Dungeons and Dragons materials, didn't I?

That you did, but I wasn't aiming at you. I play the game, too, and I know people out there who incorporate RPG-speak and other related behavior into their daily lives. Escapism is one thing -- refusing to come back is quite another. I play once every fortnight or so and it's fun (currently running a 4th/2nd level rogue/fighter looking to enter shadowdancer prestige class) -- but it isn't any substitute for the life I have in reality. I guess if you boil down my rant, it basically calls for balance. I'm a big fan of balance and moderation.

Whats with this thread? Seriously i dont see the point. OK the site is crap, no-one has taken is seriously, so why bother? There are still very sexist men out there, there are sexist women too, but to coment on this would be like stating 'the sky is blue', quite redundant.
Plenty of people take this site seriously, and plenty of men still think that women's rights means taking away men's rights. Frankly, commenting on ANYTHING is crap, since there are always going to be opposing sides to any issue. We do it anyway...why do you think that might be?

By the way...if you don't want to participate, the simpliest solution is not to.

Whats with this thread? Seriously i dont see the point. OK the site is crap, no-one has taken is seriously, so why bother? There are still very sexist men out there, there are sexist women too, but to coment on this would be like stating 'the sky is blue', quite redundant.

Yet you found it necessary to comment on how redundant it would be to comment on this thread. How peculiar.

Here's something you might appreciate, Sinuhue. I found it, of all ways, searching for Dungeons and Dragons materials. :D

The Cult of the "Stupid Evil Female" (http://www.elfdata.com/darkside/womensuck/index.html)
Lol, but I have to agree with some of it, like:

"For a female to be truely nice, she'll have to accept that females are weaker and stupider, and this is why females have not produced anything much of worth mentioning, over the milennia, except for misery and rotting away the spirits of great men. How almost everything great in this world was invented and created and fought for, by males."

That(and a lot of other stuff).

Yet you found it necessary to comment on how redundant it would be to comment on this thread. How peculiar.

Well i clicked on the link expecting a good debate and didnt find one is all. Fine, carry on.

Yet you found it necessary to comment on how redundant it would be to comment on this thread. How peculiar.
Yeah, that's funny:).

Perhaps I should comment on how redundant it is to comment on the redundancy of a thread...but that could just go on all day.

All women are not whores, despite what you've heard me scream on way home on Saturday night.

Yeah, that's funny:).

Perhaps I should comment on how redundant it is to comment on the redundancy of a thread...but that could just go on all day.

Would it be redundant to comment on how this could go on all day?

Well i clicked on the link expecting a good debate and didnt find one is all. Fine, carry on.
A good debate is what the participants make it. We've had a bit so far, but more would be welcome. Would you like to participate?

Look, I started this thread by putting a site out there. I am not going to plan the agenda. People will discuss the parts that are of interest to them, as will any thread. So do so, instead of bewailing the lack of interesting debate.

Would it be redundant to comment on how this could go on all day?
No. Just repititious. ;)

Lol, but I have to agree with some of it, like:

"For a female to be truely nice, she'll have to accept that females are weaker and stupider, and this is why females have not produced anything much of worth mentioning, over the milennia, except for misery and rotting away the spirits of great men. How almost everything great in this world was invented and created and fought for, by males."

That(and a lot of other stuff).
Sounds like you've found a site near and dear to your heart then.

By the way.

Debate needs opposing viewpoints, or at the very least, different viewpoints. So far, only two posters have posted viewpoints different than the rest of us. The rest of us tend to agree that the site is bunk. I put the site up to interest people, to see if some agreed, and some disagreed, and to get us together in order to debate the issues. Again, that can't happen unless we have people willing to argue different viewpoints. Do you see how that works?

Now, enough belly-button gazing about the nature of this frickin' thread. Let's just converse.

Ok. Here's a question. Read the following quote first:

Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as "Marxism without economics," since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.

Is this really what is behind feminism? An attack on the patriarchal family? Is this, as has been asserted in the site, the "planned destruction of the family", or mearly a redefining of gender roles so that all genders benefit?

Well, I've seen people like these before.

For me, they rank similarly to the "feminazis" on the female side - they may have legitimate points, but their presentation is offensive and violent, and they therefore harm their arguements.

That guy on the "Stupid Evil Female" page is an idiot. Not neccesarily his ideas, but no one in their right mind should present ideas like his while being what he claims he is fighting against. He does have some legitimate points about modern society, some dualities in society's rules and customs that shouldn't exist in an equal society, but his presentation was aggressive and inapporpriate. Even the color of the site reminds me more of like some underground Nazi/KKK site.

I just wish people on both the male and female rights sides who speak out against these less well known inequalities weren't always nutjobs... one can dream... one can dream...

I'd say we should probably dismiss the "women are evil" site, and focus on the Father for Life site. I think that they are bringing up points of discontent that many men actually do feel (albeit in more watered down and less dogmatic versions). The idea that men are under attack, that women are being given preferential treatment and so on. I think we should try to discuss those points.

He does have some legitimate points about modern society, some dualities in society's rules and customs that shouldn't exist in an equal society,
Like....(I agree by the way, but I'd like to know what dualities you are referring to specifically).

Ok, now I've actually posed a topic for debate, and everyone is silent? WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME!!!???

I'd say we should probably dismiss the "women are evil" site, and focus on the Father for Life site. I think that they are bringing up points of discontent that many men actually do feel (albeit in more watered down and less dogmatic versions). The idea that men are under attack, that women are being given preferential treatment and so on. I think we should try to discuss those points.

Ok, I say these "points" are bogus. These are men who wish to be considered greater than their female counterparts and are upset that such a "right" is being removed from them.

I do love the fact that they blame idea that one person in a marriage has more power than the other on feminists, stating that the women's lib movement took us out of the idea of marraige in which both people cooperate. Funny, I thought that type of marriage is *exactly* what we are fighting for?

Yes, a hopelessly ignorant site.

Although fathers do have staggeringly less rights than women do.

Ok, I say these "points" are bogus. These are men who wish to be considered greater than their female counterparts and are upset that such a "right" is being removed from them.
Yes, I think these men have that opinion. Other men, however, have similar, but not as strident opinions that men are being discriminated against.

I do love the fact that they blame idea that one person in a marriage has more power than the other on feminists, stating that the women's lib movement took us out of the idea of marraige in which both people cooperate. Funny, I thought that type of marriage is *exactly* what we are fighting for?
Yes, they are claiming that the traditional marriage was equal, and that feminists have made it imbalanced in favour of women. Strange that.

Yes, a hopelessly ignorant site.

Although fathers do have staggeringly less rights than women do.
Please elaborate.

Lol, but I have to agree with some of it, like:

"For a female to be truely nice, she'll have to accept that females are weaker and stupider, and this is why females have not produced anything much of worth mentioning, over the milennia, except for misery and rotting away the spirits of great men. How almost everything great in this world was invented and created and fought for, by males."

That(and a lot of other stuff).


Actually, that is very ill based and quite frankly ridiculous. Women have invented the wind sheild wiper, the disposable cell phone, disposable diapers, diabetes tests, Nystatin, the first practical dishwasher, white out, elevated railway, the circular saw, the medical syringe, fire escape, and the muffler....just to name a few, infact,there have been way over hundreds of thousands of inventions made by women...there are hundreds of thousands of patents given to women every year...since 1809 (I belive) which marked the year of the first woman patent. Women have been altering society for thousands of years...you just don't see them, because they work behind men. "Men might be the head, but women are the neck which turns the head". If you think I'm lying...look into justinian and theodora for example. (Justinian was a byzantine emporer, and theodora was his emporess). There was riot in the city and Justinian stopped it. Not because he was brilliant and a good leader, but because theodora made him and told him how to do it. The fact is, women are doing tremendous things for our government now that they are given a chance to. Yea we didn't hundreds of years ago because we weren't allowed. Just look at what women could do in earlier societies that were led by women...there aren't many of those societies...and the ones that existed, you don't hear about, so you'll have to do your research. Yes, most women are physically weaker then men...but as for emotionally, women are stronger...probably because society allows them to be. I mean, if a man has emotions he's accused of homosexuality (which I disagree with...not homosexuality, but being accused of it for showing feelings). Women are stronger emotionally. Men fall apart easier. Just look at when we get sick...the man lies in bed whinning, but the woman is still going to the store, taking care of kids. In no way are women less intellegent... (first of all...I like the way they insulted our intellegence with a word that doesn't exist...stupider...that's not a word jack ass). Male and female brains work differently...but not in any way are womens brains less adequate when compared to a mans. The whole..women rotting away the spirit of man...that's crock, and we all know it. I feel stupid for even having to correct it, but for all the idiots out there that agree, I suppose I have to. If you enter into a relationship that is miserable it's because it wasn't meant to be and it wasn't true love. In no way is the woman evil...in most cases. With so many things in literature dedicated to love...to say it doesn't exist is well...just stupid...and to deny the feelings of billions of people...that's stupid as well. Plus, if the woman is (which I highly doubt) the man shouldn't have asked for her hand.

Sorry I didn't mean for it to be that long. I would also like to say that I'm not a feminist. Actually, I often find them to be annoying. I'm all for equality...but they often blow things out of proportion.

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0906931.html

Like....(I agree by the way, but I'd like to know what dualities you are referring to specifically).

Sure, if you'd like.

I have a few pet peeves, and although he is evil while discussing them, they do bear mentioning.

He calls one of them female insensitivity towards males. Greeting cards, the lifetime and oxygen networks, television, magazines, and most commercials present negative portrayals of men that I often find offensive. Men are often shown as animalistic, incompetant, sex-obsessed and often subject to the will of their female partners in "honey do" situations. That just gets me, as it would be very inappropriate if I made a commerical showing women as weak, vain, professionally incompetant, and submissive to their husbands. In other words, perpetuating a stereotype. We no longer show black people with big lips and bad speech patterns acting ignorantly as that perpetuates a harmful stereotype.

Secondly, he makes a passing mention of this but it has always made me question things - why do guys have to hold doors, pay for dinner, open the car door, etc? I know its "chivalrous," but for me, I don't believe one sex is superior, so why should one sex have to do this for another? I would love to see people doing this out of kindness(I often do it for my friends, male and female) but I know it is done now mostly because it is expected, and in an equal society, it shouldn't be.

Also, the legal idea (this is the Father's site now) that there is the "tender age" in which a child should mostly if not always be awarded to a woman seems extremely discriminatory. My father is a wonderful man, and I know many fathers that love their children very much. I would wager money that they can care for a child just as well as a woman.

Finally, a major duality that has no place in a gender-equal society is the way women are allowed to act towards men and their property, without men being able to respond or act accordingly. Now, it would be utopia if no one wanted to act cruelly, but unfortunatly it's not. I have heard and seen, though thankfully never been the victim of, women destroying their ex-lovers things, slashing tires, throwing property out of windows, etc. There is even a song (couple years old) about a woman who caught her man cheating, and the speaker in the song was elated about deciding to destroy that man's life - she was going to spend every penny he had in the bank, she was going to burn his clothes and things, and then throw him out of the house. The fact that this song even exists worries me. Also, women hit, usually in the form of a slap, men all the time. Have you ever been slapped? :) Its not the most pleasant experience in the world. Oh, we act all tough, but it physically stings, and offends us, also it really pisses us off. And yet, if that guy were to slap her back, she could call the cops and probably drag his ass to jail. Plus, culturally, men are taught from a very young age - don't hit girls. Why? I don't hit anyone (i'm a pacifist) but why don't hit girls specifically? It's not that they are naturally weaker - there are girls in those bodybuilding competitions that are so strong they could lift me and throw me into a third story window, so women can get strong and tough - It just seems sexist. I think if we need to teach our children lessons, say don't hit anyone, not just don't hit girls.

Anyways, those are my thoughts (I think a lot :D ).

Sorry I didn't mean for it to be that long. I would also like to say that I'm not a feminist. Actually, I often find them to be annoying. I'm all for equality...but they often blow things out of proportion.


People of all groups and agendas blow things out of proportion. It's a load of crap that 'most feminists' do this. And I'm tired of refuting it. Are you for gender equity? Then guess what. You're a feminist. Don't like the term? Tough. A rose is a rose is a rose...

People of all groups and agendas blow things out of proportion. It's a load of crap that 'most feminists' do this. And I'm tired of refuting it. Are you for gender equity? Then guess what. You're a feminist. Don't like the term? Tough. A rose is a rose is a rose...

i disagree strongly. If you're for gender equity, you're a personist. hehe

Ok, now I've actually posed a topic for debate, and everyone is silent? WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME!!!???

Your body and soul, baby. Your body and soul. :D

Sure, if you'd like.

I have a few pet peeves, and although he is evil while discussing them, they do bear mentioning.

He calls one of them female insensitivity towards males. Greeting cards, the lifetime and oxygen networks, television, magazines, and most commercials present negative portrayals of men that I often find offensive. Men are often shown as animalistic, incompetant, sex-obsessed and often subject to the will of their female partners in "honey do" situations. That just gets me, as it would be very inappropriate if I made a commerical showing women as weak, vain, professionally incompetant, and submissive to their husbands. In other words, perpetuating a stereotype. We no longer show black people with big lips and bad speech patterns acting ignorantly as that perpetuates a harmful stereotype.
And you know what I see on daytime tv? Neurotic, controlling haridans who brow-beat and humiliate their husbands. Negative stereotypes abound in the media and attack everyone and everything. Unless you can prove somehow that there is a higher proportion of dumb-male stereotypes, you are simply focusing on what affects you personally, not the totality of the portrayals.

Secondly, he makes a passing mention of this but it has always made me question things - why do guys have to hold doors, pay for dinner, open the car door, etc? I know its "chivalrous," but for me, I don't believe one sex is superior, so why should one sex have to do this for another? I would love to see people doing this out of kindness(I often do it for my friends, male and female) but I know it is done now mostly because it is expected, and in an equal society, it shouldn't be.
Guys don't have to do these things. Neither do women. Neither does anyone, and NO ONE is running around waving fingers and saying they should. COMMON COURTESY dictates that we hold doors for one another, regardless of gender, or pay for dinner or whatever. Again, your perception is that it is expected of men. Other people's perception is that it is NOT expected of men. I don't think there is a definite ruling either way.

Also, the legal idea (this is the Father's site now) that there is the "tender age" in which a child should mostly if not always be awarded to a woman seems extremely discriminatory. My father is a wonderful man, and I know many fathers that love their children very much. I would wager money that they can care for a child just as well as a woman.
Ah, the often brought up, forever refuted argument. Again, I point you to Whispering Legs, who has custody of his children. The courts decide on custody based on the best interests of the child. Women still tend to be the main caregivers of children, and are more likely to work jobs conducive to child-rearing (in terms of working hours). Many men walk away from custody, or don't contest it. Show me a law in the books proving a legal bias. You won't be able to. Is there a societal bias? Perhaps. Is our society shaped such that the woman is more likely to remain the caregiver of her children? Yes. Is that a bias, or an issue of gender roles? I argue the latter.

Finally, a major duality that has no place in a gender-equal society is the way women are allowed to act towards men and their property, without men being able to respond or act accordingly. Now, it would be utopia if no one wanted to act cruelly, but unfortunatly it's not. I have heard and seen, though thankfully never been the victim of, women destroying their ex-lovers things, slashing tires, throwing property out of windows, etc. There is even a song (couple years old) about a woman who caught her man cheating, and the speaker in the song was elated about deciding to destroy that man's life - she was going to spend every penny he had in the bank, she was going to burn his clothes and things, and then throw him out of the house. The fact that this song even exists worries me. Also, women hit, usually in the form of a slap, men all the time. Have you ever been slapped? :) Its not the most pleasant experience in the world. Oh, we act all tough, but it physically stings, and offends us, also it really pisses us off. And yet, if that guy were to slap her back, she could call the cops and probably drag his ass to jail. Plus, culturally, men are taught from a very young age - don't hit girls. Why? I don't hit anyone (i'm a pacifist) but why don't hit girls specifically? It's not that they are naturally weaker - there are girls in those bodybuilding competitions that are so strong they could lift me and throw me into a third story window, so women can get strong and tough - It just seems sexist. I think if we need to teach our children lessons, say don't hit anyone, not just don't hit girls.
Yes, no one should be hitting anyone. Women who deface a man's property can be charged. If the man doesn't press charges, that's his problem. The laws are not biased in this matter. The issue with physical assault is that actual harm has to be done, or fear of harm has to be induced. A slap on the face is rude, but probably not going to harm a man, or cause him to be afraid for his safety. He should probably choose not to be with that woman. A man hitting a woman is more likely to cause harm, or the fear of real harm. Neither situation is right.

i disagree strongly. If you're for gender equity, you're a personist. hehe
Not until personist becomes an accepted term defined in the dictionary and used commonly to refer to someone fighting for gender equity.

What's with the forum? It seems to be frozen/empty...none of the threads are jumping like usual...

I learned a new word on this site! The Gynarchia! Apparently this is a new world order ruled by gynecologists...or maybe by vaginas....?

do they mean gynecocracy?

do they mean gynecocracy?
I don't know what the heck they mean. They never define the word. It's a weird one. Gynarchia sounds vaguely anarchistic, slutty, and dirty all at once.

Not until personist becomes an accepted term defined in the dictionary and used commonly to refer to someone fighting for gender equity.

'personist', that is an excellent idea.

I am a girl and I disagree with title IX. This is because women just play less hardcore sports then men. It is not sexest, it is reality. My college does not have a mens soccer team because they use the girls soccer team to counter the spending on the male football team, because frankly there are not many women who are up for playing hardcore football (there are of course exceptions). I like to watch guys play soccer, and I miss it.
]

Since I'm going to appearently be the only one taking the opposing stance in this thread, I'll just condense things.

On Title IX. It doesn't provide equal funding. Men's sports MAKE money. This is not considered in title nines equation, and through the absolute necessity of it educational institutions engage in all kinds of bureaucratic gymnastics to avoid harming the cash cows of men's sports. Particularly football and basketball. Were that included in the equation all the sports that men wanted to play would be paid for, and then some, while women's sports would struggle for the left overs provided by a few successful women's programs. Instead, men's sports, which are frequently more popular are cancled in favor of less popular womens sports to achieve parity. Often what happens, such as at my highschool, when cheerleading is included women's sports out number mens sports, and yet may still displace more of them. In the interestes of "gender equality" of course.

The real equality in this case is provided by the free market. People want to see what they want to see, and they'll pay for it. That's why Anna Kournikova gets paid despite her talent for losing. And when men play, the market wants to see the peak of physical performance.

---
I'll expand upon the "level playing field." Let's talk wage disparity. Women make less than men. And this is good, because they don't do work that's worth as much. 76 cents on the dollar is the most frequently cited statistic. It's 100% true, or at least it was at the time the original study was done. But the implicit assumption is that men and women do exactly the same work. This is false. Men work more hours, over more of their lives, are more willing to travel in pursuit of work, and work at more dangerous strenuous jobs. Now all of this information was available at the time the original, and subsequent studies have been done. But it's not included. Why is this? Is there an intentional bias being built into these numbers? Are the those involved just bad at science? Or bad at math? The fact is that when the statistics are "normalized" (comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges) women frequently earn MORE than their male counterparts. Occasionally much more. This is the result of an artificial shortage created by so called "gender equality." Furthermore, women are more expensive to employ, but these costs are borne by the organization as a whole, which again disproportunately affects males. Effectively subsidizing female labor.

But we're still not finished. Women can frequently reduce the efficency of the work enviroment, interfering with the cohesion that so easily forms in male units. Often through the threat, spoken or not, of a lawsuit or the termination of employment. Furthermore, in a work enviroment with men, women will frequently off load their more physical tasks on the men around them! But this additional contribution is expected to be uncompensated.

Fair pay indeed.

---
Sinuhue specifically.

You write a lot about "guarantees." You're right it's not a deterministic universe. But if you added "more frequently" to all of your statements, they'd be false. Single parents deprive their children of opportunities. This leads, indirectly, to more violent deaths. (Among other things.) It's not magic, it's cause and effect. As for facts, and the particular damage the absence of male role models, it's your thread, google for them. They'll frequently include words like "epidemic" "prison" "violent crime." Hell, plenty of books are written about them too. It's not a secret. If someone is ignorant of where to start on these issues, it's because they're willfully ignorant. And a lot of times issues like this *are* a religion unto themselves. (Environmentalism, Veganism come to mind.)

The problem with feminism isn't the stated ideal "Equality for all." It's the practice. Instead of focusing on building social networks for women, which are far more common, the focus was on taking resources from the boys that people least care about. I've already recommended one book in this vein should you wish to pursue your investigations. This increased a disparity where it meant to diminish one. Increasing that disparity in a population who's options are job, jail, death is going to have an effect on a society at a time when the opportunities under "job" are under assault from a lot of directions. This kind of information is the difference between a sociology class where they focus on the science, and a women's studies class.

Every child should get equal amounts and quality of state sponsored nurturing units, and if some get more, we should probably err on the side of the children in trouble. But that's not what the practice of feminism promotes. Instead it takes from the poor, and gives to the not so rich. (But it's still that much better to be rich by comparison.)

---
The pass on responsibility.

Look at any issue involving children. From having them, to caring for them, to killing them.

If a woman lies to a man about having his child, she can receive child support even if it's not his, even if he proves it. A woman can force a man to have a child she knows he doesn't want to have. Even if he's underage, even if she assaults him while he's sleeping, even if she steals a condom from a wastebasket. Things that would put a man in jail for a LONG time. (As they should). Not only will these things not send a woman to jail, but they'll provide her with a steady 18 year income. Further more father's parental rights are often laxly enforced.

While people might say these are extremes and rarely happen so they should be discounted, I'd make two observations. Firstly, it's unusual that a man kills his wife too, but to everyone nonetheless agrees he should suffer not profit from it. Secondly, women do not speak out against these extremes, and instead seek to increase the inequities that make them possible.

Now lets really look at where women take no responsibility for their choices. The politics of sex. If a man and women are drunk and they have sex, the man raped her. By definition in some studies. Let alone the mercurial nature of women to change their mind, as is their prerogative, and doom a man after the fact. Forthcoming book deal or no. Women can't be trusted to make decision for themselves. Not how much to drink, not with whom they trust their personal security, not how to cope with regret. And, in the case of recent video games, and DVD's, not even how and where they flash their boobies. These decisions are too much for women, by their own admission. They need special legal protections from their own poor judgment. Young males in contrast get no special protections for their risky or foolish activities. Little wonder so many women game the system, it's encouraged. And feminists think, that's not enough.

---
Meh, I had intended to respond to Jordaxia. But between what I wrote above, and a cursory examination of the data there should be enough. That said, it's long already. Personal responsibility is integrity, integrity makes trust cheap, that saves time, and time *is* wealth. Everyone should take more personal responsibility, we'll all be richer. I tried to give a good survey, but honestly, there's a reason people write *books* about it. Many are worth reading.

Shut up!

Okay, it's true. I came accross this site when I was looking for suicide stats in Canada. Apparently, males committing suicide are doing so because of Women's Lib.
Ah ha! My sig is correct then... :p

snip


Freemarket means exploit those you can, not the best for everyone.

Most wage disparity issues I have seen are related to jobs that are entirely equal except women are paid less. This is unreasonable.

Most jobs don't involve hard physical work, so this point is utterly irrelevant before you even consider burly women and tiny weak men.

Women don't interfere with some mystical male work unit. That's pure bullsh*t. Women are perfectly integrated in most work situations as men are. It's personality that interferes.

Most rape cases are dropped or fail to get a conviction - the law is very much on the side of men in a his word against her word case - it's reasonable doubt.

Women can't be trusted to make decision for themselves. Not how much to drink, not with whom they trust their personal security, not how to cope with regret. And, in the case of recent video games, and DVD's, not even how and where they flash their boobies. These decisions are too much for women, by their own admission.

I would like some proof showing that women, morso than men, cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves. What scientific study has shown women to be unable to cope with regret? Just as a woman might go slash her ex-boyfriend's tires, a man might do the same--it depends on the person, not the gender. Further, I have never heard a woman admit to decisions such as those you mentioned to be beyond their ken.

As for recent video games and DVDs, reality is far removed from the fantasy here provided. Just as it would be unfair for me to watch Oxygen and determine all males are boorish sex-maniacs, it is unfair to base conclusions regarding women's behavior on movies/games.

I can see the point about Title IX: men's sports do make more money. At the same time, however, would you be willing to refuse to let a girl play a sport because her male counterparts bring more money to the school? Is this fair? While Title IX is far from perfect (the cutting of successful men's sports is an example), it is a far better than schools where athletic females had no options at all.

The argument against fair pay, however, baffles me utterly. It is a generalization to say that women do less work--there are lazy men just as there are lazy women. In the same way, men can bring tension into the group just as effectively as any woman could.

Big Snip
I see you've made several generalizations about women as a whole: they don't work as hard as men, they threaten the cohesion of a work environment, they cannot be trusted with personal decisions etc etc.

Whether you can statistically prove these claims or not (and I doubt you'd even be able to do that) the fact remains that you're making a sweeping generalization about half the population. Women and men are far more diverse among themselves; comparing the genders based on such things as work ethic and decision making is utterly pointless. Obviously there are millions of women who break the stereotypes you've listed, and there are men aswell who do not work long hours or take risky job positions.

Women do not want to be subsidized, they want to be free of the generalizations that are put upon them. Until workplaces start recognising women as human beings (not a threat to the cohesion of an all-male work area) the sooner we can achieve a fairer environment for both genders.

On Title IX. It doesn't provide equal funding. Men's sports MAKE money.

Is this because they are somehow inherently more exciting? Or is it because of gender stereotypes? Why can't women and men play on the same teams in most sports?

Often what happens, such as at my highschool, when cheerleading is included women's sports out number mens sports, and yet may still displace more of them. In the interestes of "gender equality" of course.

Why is cheerleading a women's sport at your high school? Even my po-dunk high school had a male cheerleader or two.

I'll expand upon the "level playing field." Let's talk wage disparity. Women make less than men. And this is good, because they don't do work that's worth as much. 76 cents on the dollar is the most frequently cited statistic. It's 100% true, or at least it was at the time the original study was done. But the implicit assumption is that men and women do exactly the same work. This is false. Men work more hours, over more of their lives, are more willing to travel in pursuit of work, and work at more dangerous strenuous jobs. Now all of this information was available at the time the original, and subsequent studies have been done. But it's not included. Why is this? Is there an intentional bias being built into these numbers? Are the those involved just bad at science? Or bad at math?

Do you have actual numbers and studies for this? Or are you just repeating gender stereotypes?

But we're still not finished. Women can frequently reduce the efficency of the work enviroment, interfering with the cohesion that so easily forms in male units. Often through the threat, spoken or not, of a lawsuit or the termination of employment.

Wait? So you mean it is bad to make sure that people are not intimidated at their workplace?

Furthermore, in a work enviroment with men, women will frequently off load their more physical tasks on the men around them! But this additional contribution is expected to be uncompensated.

You need to provide some sort of proof of this statement as well. In my experience, this is patently untrue.

Single parents deprive their children of opportunities.

I call bullshit.

Every child should get equal amounts and quality of state sponsored nurturing units, and if some get more, we should probably err on the side of the children in trouble. But that's not what the practice of feminism promotes. Instead it takes from the poor, and gives to the not so rich. (But it's still that much better to be rich by comparison.)

I'd really like to know exactly how promoting gender equality takes money from the poor.

If a woman lies to a man about having his child, she can receive child support even if it's not his, even if he proves it.

I call bullshit once again. If a paternity test is negative, the man bears no legal responsibility unless the two were married (in which case it is simply the responsibility of continuing care, not beginning it).

A woman can force a man to have a child she knows he doesn't want to have. Even if he's underage, even if she assaults him while he's sleeping, even if she steals a condom from a wastebasket. Things that would put a man in jail for a LONG time. (As they should). Not only will these things not send a woman to jail, but they'll provide her with a steady 18 year income. Further more father's parental rights are often laxly enforced.

I call bullshit once again. While men may be prosecuted for statutory rape more often than women, women are prosecuted and jailed for it.

As for forcing a man to have a child he doesn't want to have: she can certainly decide to bring a child into the world, whether the man wants it or not. I disagree with the fact that she can choose for him whether or not he will have to pay for that child, so long as his decision is made within the time period in which she can choose to have an elective abortion.

And why are father's rights often laxly enforced? Generally because they are laxly sought.

Secondly, women do not speak out against these extremes, and instead seek to increase the inequities that make them possible.

False. When I see inequity against either gender, I speak out against it.

Now lets really look at where women take no responsibility for their choices. The politics of sex. If a man and women are drunk and they have sex, the man raped her.

Technically, they raped each other.

-snip-
Thank you, Dem', you saved me having to type up an identical response.
But I'll just add two little things with no true weight to that argument as such.

Kibbles, put yourself in the other shoes. Do you honestly see yourself typing up that same response if you were born and raised as a woman? Really... or would you call BS. What if society evolved as matriarchal and that post was adapted to more male sensitivities and stereotypes? Would you agree with it then? I don't see it.

Let's assume, just for a second, that all the employed women in the world just picked up and walked out. Do you have any idea what would happen? How about the entire worlds economic ruin. Women now make up a HUGE percentage of the workforce... there aren't enough unemployed men to replace them. The economy needs women workers. And I'll note once more than humanity has hit its peak in advancing, economically, socially, and technologically since gender equality started to become more important and women were allowed to work. So it's not as if it's done the world any harm, has it?

Why is cheerleading a women's sport at your high school? Even my po-dunk high school had a male cheerleader or two.


Yup, my academic, nerdy pubic school had guys playing netball and girls playing rugby. Oh the horror!

Is this because they are somehow inherently more exciting? Or is it because of gender stereotypes? Why can't women and men play on the same teams in most sports?



I'd like to see that, in sports like rugby i think maybe 1 or 2 girls out of a squad of 20 would probably be picked.

I'd like to see that, in sports like rugby i think maybe 1 or 2 girls out of a squad of 20 would probably be picked.

Actually, girls would be very good at rugby, for one specific reason, as well as a few others I haven't thought of yet. Who do you think is going to be able to run faster? A huge, heavy brawler, or someone a little lighter on their feet? I know I'm bordering, and even striking into gender stereotyping here, but several quick players are necessary in rugby. It makes more tactical sense for you to avoid their defenses than to charge head on and hope to plow through. And yes, I'm bringing the art of war to a rugby game.

People of all groups and agendas blow things out of proportion. It's a load of crap that 'most feminists' do this. And I'm tired of refuting it. Are you for gender equity? Then guess what. You're a feminist. Don't like the term? Tough. A rose is a rose is a rose...

Hurray!!
Goes double for me!!
I am a feminist and I am extremely proud of it. This whole 'anti-feminism backlash' really does my head in. You only have to pay attention to the world to see that feminism as a political and sociological movement still has a lot to achieve. But it is more difficult now, because what we are fighting against has become a lot more 'underground' and harder to see. That doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Blessings
Cyber

Actually, girls would be very good at rugby, for one specific reason, as well as a few others I haven't thought of yet. Who do you think is going to be able to run faster? A huge, heavy brawler, or someone a little lighter on their feet? I know I'm bordering, and even striking into gender stereotyping here, but several quick players are necessary in rugby. It makes more tactical sense for you to avoid their defenses than to charge head on and hope to plow through. And yes, I'm bringing the art of war to a rugby game.

Yeah, i have played rugby before. I was one of the faster players (wing forward). All the backs need to be fast, but they also need to be able to tackle 18 stone forwards. I've played against only a couple of mixed teams, the girls hardly got a look in.

Yeah, i have played rugby before. I was one of the faster players (wing forward). All the backs need to be fast, but they also need to be able to tackle 18 stone forwards. I've played against only a couple of mixed teams, the girls hardly got a look in.

Because there's only a couple of mixed teams out there. Wait til women become as active in sports as men to a true level. You've currently got a much larger pool of men to find a capable squad with than you do women. And I've played rugby also. I found the key was NOT to tackle 18 stone forwards, but to make sure they never got hold of me. If they can't touch you, all that mass is for nothing. And it tends to be that an 18 stone person has a lot of momentum to cancel out before they can chase you again if you dodge them. Enough time to make an escape.

Because there's only a couple of mixed teams out there. Wait til women become as active in sports as men to a true level. You've currently got a much larger pool of men to find a capable squad with than you do women. And I've played rugby also. I found the key was NOT to tackle 18 stone forwards, but to make sure they never got hold of me. If they can't touch you, all that mass is for nothing. And it tends to be that an 18 stone person has a lot of momentum to cancel out before they can chase you again if you dodge them. Enough time to make an escape.

Whatever man. Feminism is fine if realistic, but mixed sports like rugby is being stupid in my opinion. All that mass is used in the rucks and scrums, why do you think they're that heavy? for no reason? You have to tackle them if they're running right at you. Generally if a forward has stayed out to the three-quarters to tackle someone other than another forward, it wont be in a situation where there's an easy getaway. I admit that there wasnt a large pool of girls in the teams i played against, but they were experienced and still couldnt compete.

Feminism is bull.. be a humanist if you want men and women to be equal.

Feminism is bull.. be a humanist if you want men and women to be equal.

Humanist isnt associated with gender equity in general, feminism is the only popular term that is useable at the moment, its not the best option but i dont think it matters that much.

Actually, girls would be very good at rugby, for one specific reason, as well as a few others I haven't thought of yet. Who do you think is going to be able to run faster? A huge, heavy brawler, or someone a little lighter on their feet? I know I'm bordering, and even striking into gender stereotyping here, but several quick players are necessary in rugby. It makes more tactical sense for you to avoid their defenses than to charge head on and hope to plow through. And yes, I'm bringing the art of war to a rugby game.

Yes there are some good womens rugby teams in my country, but even they would admit ti thinking twice about playing with the boys in a serious match, your ideal of women being faster than men in rugby is pretty farcical, some of these guys in the backs are near Olympic times over a set distance, alot of your 'huge heavy brawlers' are no slouches either.
The only advantage I can see the women having over them would be the males indecision on how hard to tackle them for fear of doing some serious damage, please get out and actually play a game, it may enlighten you somewhat.
Also at risk of inflaming your silly gender warfare you obsess on, it may do your maturity some good to just admit that maybe women are not as capable as men,at some things such as heavy physical contact sports. as much as you may wish them so.
Stick to Buffy.

Whatever man. Feminism is fine if realistic, but mixed sports like rugby is being stupid in my opinion. All that mass is used in the rucks and scrums, why do you think they're that heavy? for no reason? You have to tackle them if they're running right at you. Generally if a forward has stayed out to the three-quarters to tackle someone other than another forward, it wont be in a situation where there's an easy getaway. I admit that there wasnt a large pool of girls in the teams i played against, but they were experienced and still couldnt compete.

Like I said. I also have played Rugby. I know what the mass is for. I also learned that speed and the ability to maneouvre is just as important if you actually want to score a try. I don't deny that you do need a lot of heavies in the game. But you also need someone who can stay the hell out of their way. I again, also know, that such a tactic is successful, after personal experience of trying it. But really. This isn't a debate about rugby, so let's just agree to disagree? you have your opinions about the way is best played, I have mine. And something that you might want to remember is that natural ability is quite important in these games. They could have all the experience in the world, it's only going to help them so much. That's why you need to open the field more, to allow an equal participation, to increase the chances of natural ability and experience combining.

Technically, they raped each other.
At the risk of being a pedant (but I am good at it, so hey), it would be rape if one or the other party is so drunk that they are considered to be incapable of consenting.

Blessings
Cyber

Yes there are some good womens rugby teams in my country, but even they would admit ti thinking twice about playing with the boys in a serious match, your ideal of women being faster than men in rugby is pretty farcical, some of these guys in the backs are near Olympic times over a set distance, alot of your 'huge heavy brawlers' are no slouches either.
The only advantage I can see the women having over them would be the males indecision on how hard to tackle them for fear of doing some serious damage, please get out and actually play a game, it may enlighten you somewhat.
Also at risk of inflaming your silly gender warfare you obsess on, it may do your maturity some good to just admit that maybe women are not as capable as men,at some things such as heavy physical contact sports. as much as you may wish them so.
Stick to Buffy.


I'm still physically a guy.
I'll choose not to respond to your trolling insults.
Secondly, as I established, I have played. Why would you choose to pick out my obvious deliberate exagerations and not take notice of that fact? Thirdly, I've pointed out that I have practical experience of what I said working, or I wouldn't be saying it.
Fourthly, I'm not an obsessive about gender warfare. This thread is about gender equality. it's the topic of conversation. I am responding to it. How can you also call me an obsessive on it? you don't know me. Exaggerate often yourself?
Fifthly, I do admit that fit (not necessarily attractive... fit!) women are weaker than physically fit men, that's fairly obvious.
sixthly, I hated Buffy on principle alone. I refused to watch it. :D


(and a little seventh point. I've already proposed to drop the argument with the other person because I doubt we'll convince each other. They were a lot more cogent, and certainly less insulting than you were. What makes you think you'll convince me?)

At the risk of being a pedant (but I am good at it, so hey), it would be rape if one or the other party is so drunk that they are considered to be incapable of consenting.

Blessings
Cyber

And if both are equally so?

(Meanwhile, it doesn't take a whole lot of alcohol to be considered legally drunk =)

Since I'm going to appearently be the only one taking the opposing stance in this thread, I'll just condense things.
Before I go into this, I just want to thank you for contributing, because frankly, without these opposing (and some not-so-opposing, just differently worded) opinions, we wouldn't HAVE a discussion:).

On Title IX. It doesn't provide equal funding. Men's sports MAKE money. This is not considered in title nines equation, and through the absolute necessity of it educational institutions engage in all kinds of bureaucratic gymnastics to avoid harming the cash cows of men's sports. *cut, paste* The real equality in this case is provided by the free market. People want to see what they want to see, and they'll pay for it. That's why Anna Kournikova gets paid despite her talent for losing. And when men play, the market wants to see the peak of physical performance.


Again, I can't really speak to Title IX. I've read it now, but I don't really know how it's being applied in the US, and we don't (I believe) have anything similar in Canada. I'll have to pass on this one.

Let's talk wage disparity. Women make less than men. And this is good, because they don't do work that's worth as much. 76 cents on the dollar is the most frequently cited statistic. *cut snip* The fact is that when the statistics are "normalized" (comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges) women frequently earn MORE than their male counterparts. Occasionally much more. This is the result of an artificial shortage created by so called "gender equality." Furthermore, women are more expensive to employ, but these costs are borne by the organization as a whole, which again disproportunately affects males. Effectively subsidizing female labor.

Alright. (rolls up sleeves) Wage disparity. It is important that both sides really look into the statistics on this one. The 76 cents on the dollar stat does not, as you have said, tell the whole story. Women overall tend to have less years in the workforce due to pregnancies and child-rearing etc, so that influences their wages. Women also tend to go into jobs based on traditional gender roles (as do men), and typically, these jobs are less paid. The disparity then, is not necessarily in equal jobs, with men and women who have equal experience and equal tasks. Two office workers with the same job description and years of experience are generally paid the same, regardless of gender.

The disparity is caused by gender roles and societal attitudes, things that are difficult, if not impossible to effectively quantify. Why are women not going into the higher paying jobs? Is it because they naturally gravitate towards certain professions, while men are attracted to others? Is it because people expect women and men to do specific jobs? Is it because society expects each gender to be good at certain things, but not others? Is it because potential employers also hold these biases, and choose between two equally qualified candidates based on those biases? The beliefs, expectations, and norms of society have a powerful impact on the choices we make. The problem is, we all know this, but we either believe that is fine, and natural, and needs no comment, or we struggle with trying to prove something that again, can not be quantified, and plotted on a chart.

Before I continue, I want to speak to the following comment you made:

But we're still not finished. Women can frequently reduce the efficency of the work enviroment, interfering with the cohesion that so easily forms in male units. Often through the threat, spoken or not, of a lawsuit or the termination of employment. Furthermore, in a work enviroment with men, women will frequently off load their more physical tasks on the men around them! But this additional contribution is expected to be uncompensated.
Here, you are giving a good example of things that happen under the surface. Things that are not legislated biases, or easily quantifiable. We must both of us agree that these sorts of things, these attitudes that influence how we interact with one another, are important. They are difficult to support, difficult to prove, and difficult to address, because we must rely more on anecdotal evidence than hard numbers. I make this qualification, because I neither wish you to dismiss any of my arguments based on such nebulous attitudes, nor do I wish to dismiss YOUR observations outright. Can we agree to this?

Alright, back on track.

My argument is this: women are paid less because societal constraints cause them to enter certain positions of lower pay than men, and societal expectations still put the burden of child care on women, who are then penalised for this role in the workplace when they accrue less professional experience than men. I believe, in the interest of gender equity, that we actively examine these constraints and expectations, and discard them. This would mean, women and men would not be expected to enter certain professions based on their gender, and that women and men would share the task of child-rearing in such a way as to neither benefit nor disadvantage one gender or the other.

The how to achieving this is much more slippery. We can not wave a magic wand and make gender a non-issue. We can not change our education system to be blind to gender, because we can not make humans blind to gender. Nor should we. Instead, we need to raise awareness of gender and gender roles, bring them to the level of consciousness, examine, validate, discard, all based on our beliefs.

We need to ask ourselves...why are women still expected to care for her children more than men? Not just take care of them...but love them more. Why are men still expected to work long hours at the expense of their time with their families? Why are men often encouraged, and admired for promiscuity, while women are not? Why do we teach our sons that crying is a weakness, but our daughters that it is a freedom, and a weapon? Are these simple biological urges, or are they actively constructed and taught?

The point is, men and women are biologically different, and few people want to change that. What needs to change is the idea that those biological differences makes one gender inherently superior to the other. Women are not inherently better at raising children than men. They may have been taught to be so, and perhaps biology factors in, but not to the extent that you could take a girl, never give her child-raising skills, and expect her to be better at it than a man. Men are not inherently better at running corporations. They have been socialised and educated to be so.

We don't need policies that force more women and men to enter professions that are not traditional, but we do need to stop convincing them that the traditional professions are the only place for them.

One more comment. You say, "Fair pay indeed", citing that men end up doing more physical tasks than women (anecdotal) even when they are both have comparable positions. Please comment then on the work that women do in the home. Domestic work often flies under the radar because it is unpaid, and uncompensated, just as these extra tasks you mention are. How do we make sure BOTH contributions are more recognized and valued?

You write a lot about "guarantees." You're right it's not a deterministic universe. But if you added "more frequently" to all of your statements, they'd be false. Single parents deprive their children of opportunities. This leads, indirectly, to more violent deaths. (Among other things.) It's not magic, it's cause and effect.
Cause and effect can not be a long, rambling string of causes and possible, tenuous effects, and that is what you are talking about here. Single parent != more violent deaths automatically, all on its own. Other factors are key. You can not more predict that a child raised by a single parent will die violently than you can say the opposite. You could certainly find stats that would support BOTH views, but you can not draw a straight line from single parenthood to violent death. So much more is at play here than just having one parent. Don't try to boil it down to one factor.


The problem with feminism isn't the stated ideal "Equality for all." It's the practice. Instead of focusing on building social networks for women, which are far more common, the focus was on taking resources from the boys that people least care about.
I'm not going to rush out, read that book, and get back to you. Provide me with some specific examples of where resources were taken from boys that 'people least care about' (and please define that group) and 'given to women'. I can't address this point otherwise.


Every child should get equal amounts and quality of state sponsored nurturing units, and if some get more, we should probably err on the side of the children in trouble. But that's not what the practice of feminism promotes. Instead it takes from the poor, and gives to the not so rich.
Prove it. You've stated your opinion here, and this is one I want backed up with some proof. Because as a feminist, I have never advocated ' taking from the poor, and giving to the not so rich'. Nor has any organisation focused on gender equity that I have ever come across.


*snip* (topic was the politics of sexual responsibility)
While you are factoring in the pernicious women that legally extort money from men who unknowingly and unwillingly fathered their children, please take into account the men that knowingly and willingly did the same thing and who still forgo their parental and financial responsibility to those children. Just because the law says that man must provide child support, the law must be applied for it to be effective. Many women do not choose to apply that law. There are a number of reasons why. They want no contact with this man (which he would be entitled to, through the children if he met his responsibilities). They can not afford the time and energy it takes to force compliance when a man is unwilling to pay. Etc.

I do not judge or characterise fathers by the ones who purposely hide money or remain unemployed, or who 'disappear' in order to not pay child support. Please don't judge and characterise women based on those who do the things you have mentioned. Neither of us can provide reliable statistics to say which gender is more underhanded overall. We should both be speaking out about those who abuse the system in this way, male or female, not arguing about who is more at fault.

One more thing. You have said, "feminists don't speak out about this,' or 'feminists don't care about that'. Simply because you are unfamiliar with what active feminists do, does not mean an absence of their action. Remember that. I don't need to justify to you what I have done on the behalf of men, or transgendered people, in order to prove to you that I am about gender equity, and not just women. Making assumptions because you simply have no experience, is like saying, "I've never met an aboriginal activist, but I think they just hate white people".

Feminism is bull.. be a humanist if you want men and women to be equal.
Humanism is all ready a term that has use, and its own connotations, not the least of which is the fact that humanism often aligns itself in polar opposition to organised religion. Feminism is JUST about gender relationships. Not about religion, or race. You can look at race and religion through a lens of gender....how does race and religion affect and apply to men and women and transgendered people differently? Feminism is like a special pair of glasses through which you can see many different issues.

The only thing women are good for is cooking, cleaning and bearing kids.
They can be amusing and bewitching sometimes, but shouldnt be taken that seriously.
You mighten like it, but sorry its the truth.

These sites are another example of people taking the minority as being the majority. In every single group of society, there is a group that is detestable.

What I can't understand is why people can't understand that... :headbang:

[/rant]

-snip-


I find it hard that anyone can seriously hold those views and be capable of working a keyboard, which leaves me two options. Either you are dictating, which is doubtful as I can't think of anyone who would choose to type this in for you, or you are a troll, in which case, it's been nice talking to you, but buh-bye.

I find it hard that anyone can seriously hold those views and be capable of working a keyboard, which leaves me two options. Either you are dictating, which is doubtful as I can't think of anyone who would choose to type this in for you, or you are a troll, in which case, it's been nice talking to you, but buh-bye.

Well I just happen to hold this view very seriously, it might seem extreme to you, but the sooner men put women back in their place the better off western society will be. We should to save our society do as the Ancient Romans did, which was to put the father at the head of the household in every respect and it was never questioned. He had absolute right over his wife and offspring, and could even kill them if so desired, this was never questioned by state, neighbors or even relatives, it was his right, so as to maintain discipline in the household, with no female idiocys interfering. You might think it was extreme but it worked very well.

snip

You're not being fair. Do I stand by my pledge to simply ignore you for being so wrong as to not warrant response, or do I give you the time of day. Ah, what the hell. This is a debate forum.

Ok, here's the main force of my counter this time. Point to me, on the map, the Roman Empire. Can you find it? No? That's because it fell. The Roman Empire didn't work. But find for me, also, the United Kingdom. It's there. It might not be quite as big as it once was, but it isn't collapsing any time soon. So let's compare these two nations, just for a second. Roman Empire: Fallen.
United Kingdom: Still around.

Whose sociopolitical system would you follow if you wanted a successful nation? Rome? The one that fell? You haven't thought this through, have you?

You're not being fair. Do I stand by my pledge to simply ignore you for being so wrong as to not warrant response, or do I give you the time of day. Ah, what the hell. This is a debate forum.
Ok, here's the main force of my counter this time. Point to me, on the map, the Roman Empire. Can you find it? No? That's because it fell. The Roman Empire didn't work. But find for me, also, the United Kingdom. It's there. It might not be quite as big as it once was, but it isn't collapsing any time soon. So let's compare these two nations, just for a second. Roman Empire: Fallen.
United Kingdom: Still around.
Whose sociopolitical system would you follow if you wanted a successful nation? Rome? The one that fell? You haven't thought this through, have you?

Whos empire lasted the longest?
Hint: it wasnt the British one.

Also how much longer do you think western society will be around for?
In its current state of moral decay, caused by feminism and other liberal ways of thought, I give it less than fifty years, do you think China, the worlds next power, will tolerate feminism, gay rights etc, if you do, think again.

I cannot believe how poorly I'm structuring my arguments today. Honestly. No. Just no. You, sir, are bad for my intelligence. I only wish there was a way to withdraw from this without seeming like I have been beaten by your quite obviously superior male brain, which knows nothing but to spew anecdotal filth and hope to batter people into submission with all the force that a closed mind can muster. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

I'd love to see scientific evidence from you that the caucasian white straight male is any way superior to any other human life form though.

Well I just happen to hold this view very seriously, it might seem extreme to you, but the sooner men put women back in their place the better off western society will be. We should to save our society do as the Ancient Romans did, which was to put the father at the head of the household in every respect and it was never questioned. He had absolute right over his wife and offspring, and could even kill them if so desired, this was never questioned by state, neighbors or even relatives, it was his right, so as to maintain discipline in the household, with no female idiocys interfering. You might think it was extreme but it worked very well.

You sound familiar. I've met many a wife beater. They sing a different tune when they find out their wife has a gun and a protective order (which translates in Virginia as "hunting permit for abusive spouse").

I cannot believe how poorly I'm structuring my arguments today. Honestly. No. Just no. You, sir, are bad for my intelligence. I only wish there was a way to withdraw from this without seeming like I have been beaten by your quite obviously superior male brain, which knows nothing but to spew anecdotal filth and hope to batter people into submission with all the force that a closed mind can muster. I see no point in continuing this discussion.
I'd love to see scientific evidence from you that the caucasian white straight male is any way superior to any other human life form though.

We just are. Get used to it.

You sound familiar. I've met many a wife beater. They sing a different tune when they find out their wife has a gun and a protective order (which translates in Virginia as "hunting permit for abusive spouse").

I dont see myself as a wife beater, a wife beater hates his wife for some reason or another, I just admire how the Romans cut through all the bullshit, that men in present western society have to put up with.
Ive never beaten my wife or any other woman, but if the law said I could, I probably would, but only in the sense of kicking her up the butt which I do sometimes anyway, she also does that to me sometimes, if it makes you feel better.

I dont see myself as a wife beater, a wife beater hates his wife for some reason or another, I just admire how the Romans cut through all the bullshit, that men in present western society have to put up with.
Ive never beaten my wife or any other woman, but if the law said I could, I probably would, but only in the sense of kicking her up the butt which I do sometimes anyway, she also does that to me sometimes, if it makes you feel better.

There is never a valid reason to beat your wife.

I dont see myself as a wife beater, a wife beater hates his wife for some reason or another, I just admire how the Romans cut through all the bullshit, that men in present western society have to put up with.
Ive never beaten my wife or any other woman, but if the law said I could, I probably would, but only in the sense of kicking her up the butt which I do sometimes anyway, she also does that to me sometimes, if it makes you feel better.
Lol you bad mouth western society why putting forth roam as a moral beacon that is hilarious (both for their famed “moral decay” AND because they were so instrumental in creating western society as it is now)

The only thing women are good for is cooking, cleaning and bearing kids.
They can be amusing and bewitching sometimes, but shouldnt be taken that seriously.
You mighten like it, but sorry its the truth.
Let's flip that coin and say something ridiculous like,

"The only thing men are good for are impregnating women and bringing home the bacon. They might be amusing and bewitching sometimes, but shouldn't be taken that seriously."

:rolleyes:

In any case, either Mutated Sea Bass is a troll, or a complete mysoginist (or both), and really, someone with that kind of deep prejudice really isn't worth talking to.

Unfortunately, women's boyfriends, common-law husbands and stepfathers of children commit a substantial share of violence against children in families. Fortunately, biological fathers perpetrate a relatively insignificant share of it.

Yeah, tell that to my boyfriend, his dad beat him and his brother until he grew up enough to tell his dad that if he ever laid a hand on him or his brother, he would kill him.

He still doesn't like it when someone touches his face or neck because of it.

I dont see myself as a wife beater, a wife beater hates his wife for some reason or another, I just admire how the Romans cut through all the bullshit, that men in present western society have to put up with.
Ive never beaten my wife or any other woman, but if the law said I could, I probably would, but only in the sense of kicking her up the butt which I do sometimes anyway, she also does that to me sometimes, if it makes you feel better.
Yeah, want to see what I would do if the law said I coudl beat trash like you?

I really get teh feeling that these people married women they thought were submissive, tried to act like they owned their wives, their wives left them and now they're bitter about women because they refuse to be property.

Originally Posted by Fathers for life
Violence against women in families is a relatively minor portion of all family violence.
Families headed by two married parents (one of each sex) are, short of widowhood, the safest and least violent environment of all for women, by far.
The sad thruth is that the most violent domestic relationships occur in "families" of which men are no part, between partnered lesbians.

I find this amusing. I wonder where these guys got their "facts" from. Maybe read them in tea leaves?

Originally Posted by Mutated Sea Bass
The only thing women are good for is cooking, cleaning and bearing kids.
They can be amusing and bewitching sometimes, but shouldnt be taken that seriously.
You mighten like it, but sorry its the truth.

ROFL!!!

The caucasian white straight male is any way superior to any other human life form? Interesting *eyes the last PISA studies* You realize that the whites fucked up there pretty much, right? Also, historically... please... the whites were the last ones to invent anything. So, if someone's superior to the whites, it's us asians. So on your knees, stupid white man.

Funny... I'm pretty certain I could kick him from here to Texas and back again without problems.

And well, the only thing such men are good for is to get their little thing up once (after a few dozen problems with jamming) to impregnate their wife, and that's it, more they can't do with their usually fat ass.

I really get teh feeling that these people married women they thought were submissive, tried to act like they owned their wives, their wives left them and now they're bitter about women because they refuse to be property.

No, they're bitter because they can't sexually satisfy a woman - let alone treat her like a human being.

I'm quite ashamed that this is a Canadian site:(
Wow, you useless Canadians finally do something right..

I know you're being glib. But all the crap like Title IX and the "leveling of the playing field." Who's expense do you think that comes at? The alpha males? The boys with the social network that provides the competative advantage? No. They're unaffected. It comes at the expense of the boys at the bottom. Their oppotunities are halved, and their pressures doubled. You should check out The War Against Boys.
So you're saying that women need to be kept barefoot and pregnant just so men can have their nice jobs they like so much? What kind of idiocy is this? If men can't compete with women (or minorities for that matter) then fuck 'em. As it stands now, women are at a disadvantage when it comes to moving up corporate ladders as male bosses are unwilling to promote them as quickly due to biases and stereotypes.

That said, children do need a parent of each gender. Are two moms and two dads better than perpetual abuse in an apathetic foster system?
No, they don't. And yes, two parents of the same gender do just fine, as studies have shown. The only difference between children raised by homosexual parents than those raised by heterosexual parents is that they tend to be more accepting of people with different sexualities.

What's worse are single parents, and god forbid it's a single mother raising a son. Feminism has given women a pass, particularly in the raising of children. Much like religion, it's permission to not take responsability.
What the hell are you talking about? You're saying that women don't have to take responsability, yet they shouldn't be allowed to be single parents. How the hell is being a single parent not being responsable?

I wish that women would take a real hard look at the statistics. Take the time to normalize them, and see what cost of the divergance between the practice and theory of "feminism" really is. Or don't, everyone should have a prison in their backyard.
What you said did not even make sense.

Title IX is the law in the US that said that public high schools have to provide equal opportunities for both genders in all school activities.

Title IX (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm)
... and this is bad how?

Smack Yo' bitch up

Wow, you useless Canadians finally do something right..
Wow...two insults in one sentence...

Just a quick reminder to everyone here, please keep it cordial. Bashing extreme views just makes you look like an ass. People WITH extreme views (backed up by prejudice rather than facts) ALREADY look like asses. If someone is just here to make outrageous claims or statments, but refuses to back them up, why bother feeding their ignorance with attacks? Ignore the willingly ignorant...it's the only thing that guarantees their powerlessness.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

I learned a new word on this site! The Gynarchia! Apparently this is a new world order ruled by gynecologists...or maybe by vaginas....?

The Gynuminati. O_o

The Gynuminati. O_o
Bahaa!

I like that...

Also how much longer do you think western society will be around for?
In its current state of moral decay, caused by feminism and other liberal ways of thought, I give it less than fifty years, do you think China, the worlds next power, will tolerate feminism, gay rights etc, if you do, think again.
do you know anything about china?

I wonder what the stance of some of these guys would be if suddenly their right to control their own destiny was taken away. It's all well and good to take away the rights of women when you're a man. Then the rights of gay people when you're straight. What happens when it's the rights of short people and you're not tall enough? Or more likely it's the rights of unreasonable people, cuz we've all noticed where they fall on that spectrum.

i wonder too, jocabia. im sure they fall in to that special category of people who can never end up on the wrong end of these things.

but why do they get all macho about this stuff? its not going to do them any good. no one is going to go back to what it used to be. no one really WANTS to go back. women like having a bit of economic independance, gay people like being able to be who they are. why would they ever go back? and why would anyone want them to?

do you know anything about china?
Yeah, good point actually. Women have a lot of power in the family, and in society in China.

but why do they get all macho about this stuff? its not going to do them any good. no one is going to go back to what it used to be. no one really WANTS to go back. women like having a bit of economic independance, gay people like being able to be who they are. why would they ever go back? and why would anyone want them to?
And don't forget...a lot of men are quite happy that the full burden of supporting a family financial is no longer solely theirs, that women are more liberated sexually (meaning more sexual satisfaction for both in the relationship), and as gender roles loosen up, they are more able to bond with their children, go into professions once considered 'feminine', be more open emotionally, and be able to ask for support from their partner when it is needed (and EVERYONE needs it sometimes) without it being considered a weakness. This 'opening up' helps us ALL. It's healthy and necessary.

No gay rights? I find it amusing he mentions Rome as the model, where gay acts were a regular part of society so much so that they weren't called gay, just normal.

The only thing women are good for is cooking, cleaning and bearing kids.
They can be amusing and bewitching sometimes, but shouldnt be taken that seriously.
You mighten like it, but sorry its the truth.
.... except that it isn't the truth.

edit: and now I have someone to add to the ignore list. I think the only other person I put on there was banned for trolling shortly afterwards I get the feeling this guy will follow suit.

And don't forget...a lot of men are quite happy that the full burden of supporting a family financial is no longer solely theirs, that women are more liberated sexually (meaning more sexual satisfaction for both in the relationship), and as gender roles loosen up, they are more able to bond with their children, go into professions once considered 'feminine', be more open emotionally, and be able to ask for support from their partner when it is needed (and EVERYONE needs it sometimes) without it being considered a weakness. This 'opening up' helps us ALL. It's healthy and necessary.
so true. why would any man want it to be the way it was (if it ever really was that way)? we have all benefitted from the feminist revolution.

LMFAO! I've never seen such ludicrous logic, especially in the off-site articles they link to on the anti-gay stuff from that islam online site. They attempt to shoot down science but in reality completely back it up. This is a funny run at a hate site.

Also how much longer do you think western society will be around for?
In its current state of moral decay, caused by feminism and other liberal ways of thought, I give it less than fifty years, do you think China, the worlds next power, will tolerate feminism, gay rights etc, if you do, think again.
:rolleyes: That's all I need to say really. Go back to whatever hole you crawled from.

Let's flip that coin and say something ridiculous like,

"The only thing men are good for are impregnating women and bringing home the bacon. They might be amusing and bewitching sometimes, but shouldn't be taken that seriously."

:rolleyes:
well, it really isn't that offensive since bashing men is not politically incorrect.(sorry, double negative)

Though I agree with neither statement, it is worth pointing that out. You may want to add 'fixing stuff with duct-tape and moving furniture' on the men line.

I think this thread got way off from it's original message and content - though I can't blame people for responding to the chauvinist troll. Too bad too, because an intelligent conversation on that original topic would have been nice. I only wish I had arrived before rational discourse disintigrated.

Also how much longer do you think western society will be around for?
In its current state of moral decay, caused by feminism and other liberal ways of thought, I give it less than fifty years, do you think China, the worlds next power, will tolerate feminism, gay rights etc, if you do, think again.


I AGREE WITH THAT 100%, NOTICE THE BALL BREAKING FEMINIST WONT ANSWER THAT..CONSIDERING THE WHITE WESTERN WORLD IS IN MORAL DECAY FROM ALL THE DISGUSTING RACE TRAITORS , HOW LONG DO THEY THINK IT WILL BE BEFORE THE ASIAN COMMUNIST RULERS DONT EXTERMINATE THEM LIKE THE JEWISH OLIGARCHS IN RUSSIA DID TO OVER 50MILLION WHITE PEOPLE?...

FEMINISM IS A BAD IDEA..

OUR SOCIETIES WERE ONCE DECENT PLACES BECAUSE THE WOMEN STAYED HOME AND LOOKED AFTER THE KIDS AND THEY ALSO MADE THE AREAS THEY RESIDED IN GOOD SOCIAL GATHERING PLACES, NOW THE WOMEN WORK , THE KIDS ARE FERALS, THE COMMUNITIES ARE A SHIT HOLE...AND WOMEN ARE STILL BEING TREATED AS SEXUAL OBJECTS(THERE OWN DOING)

AS THEY SAY LADIES, YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW....NOW THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST....LOL

Also how much longer do you think western society will be around for?
In its current state of moral decay, caused by feminism and other liberal ways of thought, I give it less than fifty years, do you think China, the worlds next power, will tolerate feminism, gay rights etc, if you do, think again.


I AGREE WITH THAT 100%, NOTICE THE BALL BREAKING FEMINIST WONT ANSWER THAT..CONSIDERING THE WHITE WESTERN WORLD IS IN MORAL DECAY FROM ALL THE DISGUSTING RACE TRAITORS , HOW LONG DO THEY THINK IT WILL BE BEFORE THE ASIAN COMMUNIST RULERS DONT EXTERMINATE THEM LIKE THE JEWISH OLIGARCHS IN RUSSIA DID TO OVER 50MILLION WHITE PEOPLE?...

FEMINISM IS A BAD IDEA..

OUR SOCIETIES WERE ONCE DECENT PLACES BECAUSE THE WOMEN STAYED HOME AND LOOKED AFTER THE KIDS AND THEY ALSO MADE THE AREAS THEY RESIDED IN GOOD SOCIAL GATHERING PLACES, NOW THE WOMEN WORK , THE KIDS ARE FERALS, THE COMMUNITIES ARE A SHIT HOLE...AND WOMEN ARE STILL BEING TREATED AS SEXUAL OBJECTS(THERE OWN DOING)

AS THEY SAY LADIES, YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW....NOW THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST....LOL


Above is a man who clearly does not like pussy and does not want to get laid. Bravo old paint, show us how involuntary celibacy works!

Also how much longer do you think western society will be around for?
In its current state of moral decay, caused by feminism and other liberal ways of thought, I give it less than fifty years, do you think China, the worlds next power, will tolerate feminism, gay rights etc, if you do, think again.


I AGREE WITH THAT 100%, NOTICE THE BALL BREAKING FEMINIST WONT ANSWER THAT..CONSIDERING THE WHITE WESTERN WORLD IS IN MORAL DECAY FROM ALL THE DISGUSTING RACE TRAITORS , HOW LONG DO THEY THINK IT WILL BE BEFORE THE ASIAN COMMUNIST RULERS DONT EXTERMINATE THEM LIKE THE JEWISH OLIGARCHS IN RUSSIA DID TO OVER 50MILLION WHITE PEOPLE?...

FEMINISM IS A BAD IDEA..

OUR SOCIETIES WERE ONCE DECENT PLACES BECAUSE THE WOMEN STAYED HOME AND LOOKED AFTER THE KIDS AND THEY ALSO MADE THE AREAS THEY RESIDED IN GOOD SOCIAL GATHERING PLACES, NOW THE WOMEN WORK , THE KIDS ARE FERALS, THE COMMUNITIES ARE A SHIT HOLE...AND WOMEN ARE STILL BEING TREATED AS SEXUAL OBJECTS(THERE OWN DOING)

AS THEY SAY LADIES, YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW....NOW THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST....LOL

I like to think that if western society goes down it's at least gonna take the rest of the world with it. But maybe thats just wishful thinking.

I have no problem with women who want equality. What I have a problem with is women who "pick and choose" which kinds of equality they want.

Woman: I'll have higher pay, better jobs, and the children. You can keep the draft, staying in the burning house until everyones out, and I'll give you taking care of the kids and cooking dinner.

^that's the kind of feminism I don't like.

I have no problem with women who want equality. What I have a problem with is women who "pick and choose" which kinds of equality they want.

Woman: I'll have higher pay, better jobs, and the children. You can keep the draft, staying in the burning house until everyones out, and I'll give you taking care of the kids and cooking dinner.

^that's the kind of feminism I don't like.
Now why I am all for as much social equality as possible the fireman comment does not follow reality (generally because the strength it takes)
There are a few in our firehouse sure but lowering the standards so there are an equal number is NOT an option

Also how much longer do you think western society will be around for?
In its current state of moral decay, caused by feminism and other liberal ways of thought, I give it less than fifty years, do you think China, the worlds next power, will tolerate feminism, gay rights etc, if you do, think again.


I AGREE WITH THAT 100%, NOTICE THE BALL BREAKING FEMINIST WONT ANSWER THAT..CONSIDERING THE WHITE WESTERN WORLD IS IN MORAL DECAY FROM ALL THE DISGUSTING RACE TRAITORS , HOW LONG DO THEY THINK IT WILL BE BEFORE THE ASIAN COMMUNIST RULERS DONT EXTERMINATE THEM LIKE THE JEWISH OLIGARCHS IN RUSSIA DID TO OVER 50MILLION WHITE PEOPLE?...

FEMINISM IS A BAD IDEA..

OUR SOCIETIES WERE ONCE DECENT PLACES BECAUSE THE WOMEN STAYED HOME AND LOOKED AFTER THE KIDS AND THEY ALSO MADE THE AREAS THEY RESIDED IN GOOD SOCIAL GATHERING PLACES, NOW THE WOMEN WORK , THE KIDS ARE FERALS, THE COMMUNITIES ARE A SHIT HOLE...AND WOMEN ARE STILL BEING TREATED AS SEXUAL OBJECTS(THERE OWN DOING)

AS THEY SAY LADIES, YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW....NOW THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST....LOL


Silly troll :fluffle:

Silly troll :fluffle:

Wow. The troll got around quickly too.

Been permabanned by Fris for "[s]pamming, flaming, flamebaiting, trolling, copy-paste spam, and other generally rule-breaking behavior" just one other thread.

This is the third he went off in!

I have no problem with women who want equality. What I have a problem with is women who "pick and choose" which kinds of equality they want.

Woman: I'll have higher pay, better jobs, and the children. You can keep the draft, staying in the burning house until everyones out, and I'll give you taking care of the kids and cooking dinner.

^that's the kind of feminism I don't like.

Yeah. I hate those fictional feminists. They suck.

Where else can we find some straw to beat on?

Wow. The troll got around quickly too.

Been permabanned by Fris for "[s]pamming, flaming, flamebaiting, trolling, copy-paste spam, and other generally rule-breaking behavior" just one other thread.

This is the third he went off in!
Thought I saw him in moderation

those sites were friggin hillarious


thanks everyone for giving me a good laugh

:rolleyes: That's all I need to say really. Go back to whatever hole you crawled from.

Flamings not tolerated on here by the mods Preebles, if you 've got nothing nice to say, then dont bother.

Flamings not tolerated on here by the mods Preebles, if you 've got nothing nice to say, then dont bother.
Hahaha.

How's this?

"I love sexism... OH please, send me back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant..." :rolleyes:

Flamings not tolerated on here by the mods Preebles, if you 've got nothing nice to say, then dont bother.
Non flaming != being nice

A lot of times they coincide but sometimes they are different (not trying to pick on you just making it clear)

Hahaha.

How's this?

"I love sexism... OH please, send me back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant..." :rolleyes:

When I get pregnant, I'm going to make my man put my shoes on for me, so I don't have to be barefoot all the time. ;-)

well, it really isn't that offensive since bashing men is not politically incorrect.(sorry, double negative)
I'll overlook the double negative this once:)

Bashing ANYONE is politically incorrect. Try to put my quote in a text book, even as a joke, and see how quick it gets pulled.



I think this thread got way off from it's original message and content - though I can't blame people for responding to the chauvinist troll. Too bad too, because an intelligent conversation on that original topic would have been nice. I only wish I had arrived before rational discourse disintigrated.
There is always time to pull this thread back together again. Think of it as diverging wildly from the current conversation...threads do this all the time:) Don't bemoan...ACT!

When I get pregnant, I'm going to make my man put my shoes on for me, so I don't have to be barefoot all the time. ;-)
I would personally prefer house slippers :p

When I get pregnant, I'm going to make my man put my shoes on for me, so I don't have to be barefoot all the time. ;-)
lol. There's a good idea... Although, that said, I LIKE being barefoot... I can always get my man to give me foot massages... :D

*snip*
Just so everyone knows...this troll has been permabanned by Fris.

You all realise that the whole barefoot thing is generally because women's feet swell up and no longer fit in her shoes? I wore my husband's size 10s for a while until I finally went back to a 6 1/2. I looked like a clown. Barefoot was much better. Also, I hung out in the kitchen a lot because the floor was cooler there and reduced the swelling. I didn't DO much in the kitchen, but I was certainly barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...:)

You all realise that the whole barefoot thing is generally because women's feet swell up and no longer fit in her shoes? I wore my husband's size 10s for a while until I finally went back to a 6 1/2. I looked like a clown. Barefoot was much better. Also, I hung out in the kitchen a lot because the floor was cooler there and reduced the swelling. I didn't DO much in the kitchen, but I was certainly barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...:)

my wife always steals my flip flops when she has swollen feet...

a great mental image of the cliche though Sinuhue

You all realise that the whole barefoot thing is generally because women's feet swell up and no longer fit in her shoes? I wore my husband's size 10s for a while until I finally went back to a 6 1/2. I looked like a clown. Barefoot was much better. Also, I hung out in the kitchen a lot because the floor was cooler there and reduced the swelling. I didn't DO much in the kitchen, but I was certainly barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen...:)
You LIE you wernt pregnant! it was a fake tummy!!1! :p

J/k :fluffle:

You LIE you wernt pregnant! it was a fake tummy!!1! :p

J/k :fluffle:
Hey I have a question for all of you. There's this car in town that has a bumper sticker I just can't figure out. It says, "It's not a baby if you're not pregnant". Seriously. I don't understand!!??

Hey I have a question for all of you. There's this car in town that has a bumper sticker I just can't figure out. It says, "It's not a baby if you're not pregnant". Seriously. I don't understand!!??
I dont know maybe something to do with contracption?

I dont know maybe something to do with contracption?
At first I thought it was an insensitive comment about fat women, but fat women don't usually run around claiming to be pregnant...

My husband thinks it's something about abortion, but we can't figure out the angle.

I always want to stop the guy and get an explanation, but he's kind of neandrathal looking (look at me giving into stereotypes based on physical features...sheesh).

At first I thought it was an insensitive comment about fat women, but fat women don't usually run around claiming to be pregnant...

My husband thinks it's something about abortion, but we can't figure out the angle.

I always want to stop the guy and get an explanation, but he's kind of neandrathal looking (look at me giving into stereotypes based on physical features...sheesh).

It's probably in response to the "It's not a choice, it's a baby" bumper sticker.

The reply being that it isn't a baby if it isn't there (I suppose).

At first I thought it was an insensitive comment about fat women, but fat women don't usually run around claiming to be pregnant...

My husband thinks it's something about abortion, but we can't figure out the angle.

I always want to stop the guy and get an explanation, but he's kind of neandrathal looking (look at me giving into stereotypes based on physical features...sheesh).
I found this (http://www.christianshirts.net/bumperPregnant.php) in a Google search, so maybe its taking the piss out of it. Or something.

I found this (http://www.christianshirts.net/bumperPregnant.php) in a Google search, so maybe its taking the piss out of it. Or something.
Aha! Thanks for clearing that up! It's been bugging me for a while. I get it now.

Hey I have a question for all of you. There's this car in town that has a bumper sticker I just can't figure out. It says, "It's not a baby if you're not pregnant". Seriously. I don't understand!!??
It sounds like it's either saying that only non-pregnant women or women who have never been pregnant support the right to choose.

Or, it sounds like something about the morning after pill, which if taken while pregnant will not do anything, but if taken after conception but before pregnancy, will casue the product of conception to flush through the woman's system.

It sounds like it's either saying that only non-pregnant women or women who have never been pregnant support the right to choose.

Or, it sounds like something about the morning after pill, which if taken while pregnant will not do anything, but if taken after conception but before pregnancy, will casue the product of conception to flush through the woman's system.
Actually, now I think it's saying, abortion is wrong, because as soon as you are 'pregnant', it's a baby, a human. So if you don't consider it to be a baby, then you aren't pregnant. Or something.

I think it means, since some people think abortion is okay, they must also think it isnt a baby they have inside them since they would be willing to kill it so they cant call themselves pregnant.

Not quite sure how that matters really but i never was that good at understanding the religous mind.

Actually, now I think it's saying, abortion is wrong, because as soon as you are 'pregnant', it's a baby, a human. So if you don't consider it to be a baby, then you aren't pregnant. Or something.
Yeah, that's how I interpreted it. Bullshit though, because I know people who've been pregnant who support the right to choose. So nyah! :p

Hahaha.
How's this?
"I love sexism... OH please, send me back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant..." :rolleyes:

Nothing would give me greater pleasure. :)

Nothing would give me greater pleasure. :)

*obtains drugs from hospital and makes poison cookies*

*obtains drugs from hospital and makes poison cookies*

What makes you think your leaving the house?
Back to fetching beer woman!

All women are not whores, despite what you've heard me scream on way home on Saturday night.
It was you!!!!????
Stop waking me up in the middle of the night :mad:

Down With The Oppression!!!