NationStates Jolt Archive

So what does everyone think of feminism? Personally, I hate it.

Modern feminism seems to be based off, largely, a bunch of lies. 73cents to the dollar? A lie. It's actually around equal, but that study was done using the median (middle number) rather than the average.

ie:

ManPay 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 = 28
WomynPay 1,3,3,3,5,6,7 = 28

The median for manpay is 4.
The median for womynpay is 3.

Both add up to 28. Equal total pay, different median.

Domestic Violence is another biggie. Look at just about any domestic violence website, and it'll say that 90% of domestic violence is man on women. Wrong. It's around equal, again. Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm. As you can see, the guy has compiles around 340 different studies. Women may get hurt more often, but they are 3 times more likely to use a weapon and also more likely to attack while their partner is asleep.

Two lies that impact heavily on mens lives. This is one of the main reasons I hate feminism.

Liberal Feminism (No it's got nothing to do with "dirty liberal commies") is simply interested in equality between the sexes and is admirable.

Radical Feminism, on the other hand, is pretty extreme and fairly crazy. It's radical feminists who believe in female supremacy, that domestic abuse is always committed by men on women and if a woman does it she is justified and that, ultimately, men should be rounded up and sacrificed to amazon goddesses. Well, maybe not that far, but I wouldn't put it past the bigoted dykes.

Nevertheless, I don't see how something called FEMINism could possibly stand for equality between males and females. In fact, another large gripe I have with feminism is that it deals in collectives and not individuals. Take Sweden for example, they are considered to be the country that's closest to equality, however the feminist parties there have REMOVED URINALS FROM TOILETS and have tried to have a MAN ONLY TAX put in place (The man only tax, because according to them only men commit domestic violence. Feminism, IMO, was a great thing to kick off the whole equality movement, but it should have died after that to be replaced by a genunine equality movement (equalitarian?).

Egalitarianism is IIRC the correct term for equality between men and women. Feminism is the wish to increase women's rights, masculism ditto for men.

Or so my social studies teacher says, at least.

Nevertheless, I don't see how something called FEMINism could possibly stand for equality between males and females. In fact, another large gripe I have with feminism is that it deals in collectives and not individuals. Take Sweden for example, they are considered to be the country that's closest to equality, however the feminist parties there have REMOVED URINALS FROM TOILETS and have tried to have a MAN ONLY TAX put in place (The man only tax, because according to them only men commit domestic violence. Feminism, IMO, was a great thing to kick off the whole equality movement, but it should have died after that to be replaced by a genunine equality movement (equalitarian?).
Things do appear to have tipped over the edge. Where Females are under represented in fields of employment there exist all sorts of schemes to increase the numbers, however in fields such as Nursing and Primary school teaching where females are vastly over represented there are no such moves to increase the number of males.
It appears ok to accept that males do not want to do some jobs the the reverse does is not true.
Saying all this I do think we need to watch we do not make assumptions about people based on thier sex. As has been posted we should see people as individuals.

Feminism, IMO, was a great thing to kick off the whole equality movement, but it should have died after that to be replaced by a genunine equality movement (equalitarian?).

I'll second that.

Really, any of these movements that seek to make things fairer by being aggressive towards the currently dominant group (i.e. white vs. non-white, male vs. female) just make the problem worse. I wish I could remember the proper word for things like quota systems, but I can't.

Another thing that pisses me off is organisations like the Black Policeman's Association. WTF? You couldn't have a White Policeman's Assocaition, now could you? How is that fair?

A large number of male feminists refer to themselves as "pro-feminists". In an equality movement, you'd expect them to feel comfortable calling themselves feminists, wouldn't you?

"MAN ONLY TAX"

Hehehehe - what a fantastic idea - hehehehe :D

"MAN ONLY TAX"

Hehehehe - what a fantastic idea - hehehehe :D

What!!! I'm all in favour of women taking over the world, and enslaving men (at least it seems like a good idea) but I'm not paying more taxes for it!!!

You know, radical feminism is actually a good argument for those who believe that men should have kept women _under_ for good. For apparently, now that men are no longer suppressing women, they in turn want to use that freedom to suppress _men_. Or at least, that's the impression the radical feminists give.

*sigh* Humans. Who can understand them. ;)

Modern feminism seems to be based off, largely, a bunch of lies. 73cents to the dollar? A lie. It's actually around equal, but that study was done using the median (middle number) rather than the average.

You're an idiot.

In a skewed distribution (such as pay) the median is the more accurate measure of the average score. The mean estimates the central point of a distribution. The median is the central point of a distribution.

Basic statistics.

I'll second that.

Really, any of these movements that seek to make things fairer by being aggressive towards the currently dominant group (i.e. white vs. non-white, male vs. female) just make the problem worse. I wish I could remember the proper word for things like quota systems, but I can't.

Another thing that pisses me off is organisations like the Black Policeman's Association. WTF? You couldn't have a White Policeman's Assocaition, now could you? How is that fair?


I hear ya, The Group who gets accused the most are White, Straight Men. Your Rascist, Your a Homophobe, Your a Male Chauvinist. We're just trying to get by like eveyone else. If we started the White Straight Men Only something it would get shut down so fast that you wouldn't even know it existed. But you can have all these other groups we can't join and nobody seems to care.

You're an idiot.

In a skewed distribution (such as pay) the median is the more accurate measure of the average score. The mean estimates the central point of a distribution. The median is the central point of a distribution.

Basic statistics.

I'm aware of the AnarchyeL. Not everyone knows mean, median and mode, but most people see the average as the mean. Notice how I wrote "(middle number)" next to median? Did you consider that I'm helping people along in understanding what I was writing? Congratulations on your absolutely brilliant post.

Honestly, if people are going to criticise feminism it would help if they actually had some clue about feminism.

The fact that radical feminism appears to be more common that every other feminist effort, is because it is outrageous. Much like the story of a man biting a dog being more likely to recieve attention than a dog biting a man, radical efforts in general are more likely to get noticed and be talked about. Meanwhile large numbers of feminists are more interested in academic pursuits (adding to the body of information about human beings, but specialising in information relating to females), support services (like sitting around with cups of tea coming up with ways of improving the lives of women and finding better ways to achieve the tasks women might be interested in, often in ways that actually are not related to male vs female rights), and other activities that recieve little or no attention simply because the activities are so reasonable and non-radical.

To suggest that feminism means a disinterest in equality but rather an interest in only female well-being is just plain silly. Specialising does not require that one only cares for what one is specialising in. Pediatricians do not suddenly loose interest in any and all health care not directly related to children. They simply recognise that their resources are limited and that to which they could apply their resources virtually unlimited. The most efficient use of their resources can be achieved through specialisation. Many feminists are active in other humanist endeavours such as activism in favour of men, participation and promotion of their religion, or striving to improve the lot of the elderly, or participating in activities that promote education. The word feminism is descriptive, not proscriptive. To take an interest in the specialised area of female concerns, does not require that one have no other interests, nor does it require one to suddenly forget that the well being of their father, brothers, sons, husbands, friends, lovers, etc, directly contributes to their own well being.

The fact is most people really do not know what the larger number of feminists spend their time and efforts doing, because for a start most feminists dont even realise that they themselves are feminists, but instead have come to believe that feminist refers to those radicals who call themselves feminists, but in fact hold veiws and act in ways, contrary to feminism.

If you have ever said "Although I agree with equality, I am not a feminist", you were exactly half right.

I'm aware of the AnarchyeL.
If you are aware of the fact that the median is the more accurate measure, then why would you call its results a "lie" compared to the mean?

As you must know, when you have two distributions with similar means but very different median points, the scores "cluster" very differently on each distribution.

One distribution with a large number of low scores can have a few very high scores that throw off the mean.

Another distribution with clustering around middle or high scores can have a few very low scores that throw off the mean.

The median, however, is not affected by the extremity of scores. If scores cluster low, the median will be low. If scores cluster high, the median will be high.

Thus, if one wants to know something like "how does the salary of the average woman (i.e. any woman I am statistically likely to pick out at random) compare to that of the average man (whom I am statistically likely to pick out at random)" the median is the better measure... because it tells me something about where I am going to find most women and most men.

You are equivocating on the word "average." In one meaning, it is interchangeable with "mean." Thus, the "average" of a distribution. But that is not the same thing as a description of the "average member" of a population.

Not by a long shot.

It remains true that the average woman makes less than the average man. (And this gap actually increases when one narrows the sample to specific professions.)

Yet feminist pressure groups still manage to push through blatantly discriminatory things like VAWA. Yet men still don't have the right to terminate legal fatherhood obligations due to the same feminist pressure groups. Yet feminism is the theory that men and women aren't balanced in their pros and cons. There's already a term for equality between the sexes (as someone said earlier). Why do we supposedly need another whose name is "feminism".

In effect, feminism is like communism and anarchy... They can only really work in a utopian society. People say "Oh, but that's not what MY feminism means", but then another person starts frothing at the mouth about how all sex is rape.

By the way, I'm not tackling the issue of abuse, primarily for the reason that the issues of variable-definition are too complex for a forum such as this. The statistics are highly dependent on how one operationalizes such difficult variables as "abuse."

I say, let the professional scientists fight that one out... I'll be willing to go with whatever is the settled (or at least dominant) opinion of the field.

What was that, again?

If you are aware of the fact that the median is the more accurate measure, then why would you call its results a "lie" compared to the mean?

As you must know, when you have two distributions with similar means but very different median points, the scores "cluster" very differently on each distribution.

One distribution with a large number of low scores can have a few very high scores that throw off the mean.

Another distribution with clustering around middle or high scores can have a few very low scores that throw off the mean.

The median, however, is not affected by the extremity of scores. If scores cluster low, the median will be low. If scores cluster high, the median will be high.

Thus, if one wants to know something like "how does the salary of the average woman (i.e. any woman I am statistically likely to pick out at random) compare to that of the average man (whom I am statistically likely to pick out at random)" the median is the better measure... because it tells me something about where I am going to find most women and most men.

You are equivocating on the word "average." In one meaning, it is interchangeable with "mean." Thus, the "average" of a distribution. But that is not the same thing as a description of the "average member" of a population.

Not by a long shot.

It remains true that the average woman makes less than the average man. (And this gap actually increases when one narrows the sample to specific professions.)

:headbang: *yawn*

I salute you, Zagat. That's exactly it. :)

:headbang: *yawn*

The fact that valid statistical analysis is boring doesn't mean you can go making things up. ;)

What I meant by "I'm aware of that" is the maths lesson you've given everyone, anarchy, not that the median is the better way to judge the average pay.

Take any two same position walmart employees. One man one woman. Same pay. In fact, there are many position where women generally earn higher than men, just as there are many positions where men earn higher than women

Let's have a look at some other interesting job statistics regarding men and women.

An American city fire department (can't remember which one and I don't live in America) lowered their physical standards to allow more women to join. Now, not only can weaker women join, weaker men can aswell.

Well over 90% of job fatalities are men.

Of the 40 most dangerous jobs, men account for almost every single worker.

:headbang: *yawn*

Heh, maybe, but it's a good point. The original argument against women receiving lower pay was completely wrong, as median is the most accurate measure.

And good post, Zagat. Whenever a lot of people hear the word 'feminism', they just leap on the most absurd, man-hating thing they've ever heard a radical feminist say and claim that that's feminism. Radical feminism is annoying, but so are people who claim that white males are 'oppressed'.

Nothing makes a man more desireable than advertising his hatred of the social and political equality of the sexes. I know I, for one, never assume that such a man is woefully insecure and terrified of losing the male privaledge that has been enjoyed for generations, and I certainly never make unfavorable assumptions about the size of that man's genetalia.

A large number of male feminists refer to themselves as "pro-feminists". In an equality movement, you'd expect them to feel comfortable calling themselves feminists, wouldn't you?

that has nothing to do with the movement, and everything to do with the fact that we live in a world where men have to constantly demonstrate their masculinity lest they be declared a faggot and ostracized.

everyone knows i'm a faggot, so i have no difficulty in saying that i am a feminist.

fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

i'm afraid neither of those say anything about abolishing the penis.

young homovox: "mom, why is there a mother's day and a father's day, but no children's day?"
mama homovox: "everyday is children's day"

you, being a straight white male, are in the majority (or dominant group) nearly everywhere you go. you cannot possibly comprehend the alienation and isolation the rest of us endure. i'm white and male, but i feel no need to band together with other white males, because they're everywhere. furthermore, we have no common goals. we already run the world.

The fact that valid statistical analysis is boring doesn't mean you can go making things up. ;)

Ahhhhhhhh I dunno - could be more fun :p

What I meant by "I'm aware of that" is the maths lesson you've given everyone, anarchy, not that the median is the better way to judge the average pay.
Well, you're simply wrong if you think that the mean is the better measure of what the average person earns in a sample. If you don't stop equivocating on the word "average" (and pay attention to what any statistician will tell you), then there will not be much point in continuing this discussion.

Take any two same position walmart employees. One man one woman. Same pay.

Yeah, that happens at minimum wage. Now wait to see which one is more likely to advance to management... oh, and if they both get there, see which one is paid more.

In fact, there are many position where women generally earn higher than men

Porn star? Seriously, I'm going to need examples.

An American city fire department (can't remember which one and I don't live in America) lowered their physical standards to allow more women to join. Now, not only can weaker women join, weaker men can aswell.

Well over 90% of job fatalities are men.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove... that men are thrill-happy buffoons who get themselves killed?

Of the 40 most dangerous jobs, men account for almost every single worker.

So? Wage-gap statistics are regressed for occupation.

Well over 90% of job fatalities are men.

I want backup, and I want statistics of how many people in the force _are_ male. Just because they might allow more women to join doesn't mean that more do.

Also, I don't think that statistic has ANYTHING to do with feminism. What, the female firefighters are killing the male ones? What are you trying to say? Because they lowered their standards for women, women should be blamed and not the people who lowered the standards?

Yet feminist pressure groups still manage to push through blatantly discriminatory things like VAWA.
I have no idea what VAWA is, who pushed for it, yet I rather suspect that those who pushed it through were politicians. Instead of blaming special interest groups, blame the politicians.

Yet men still don't have the right to terminate legal fatherhood obligations due to the same feminist pressure groups.
It may be that some feminists do exert efforts to prevent the termination of legal fatherhood obligations, however it is not specifically a feminist concern, it is a child-welfare concern. Why should a father not be responsible to his child or children? Why should a child not be supported, or is there someone other than a child's father who should be expected to meet this obligations? If it is unfair to make fathers responsible for their children, how is it fair to make other people responsible for the children of irresponsible fathers?

Yet feminism is the theory that men and women aren't balanced in their pros and cons.
No it is not.

There's already a term for equality between the sexes (as someone said earlier). Why do we supposedly need another whose name is "feminism".
The term remains in use because there really is no good reason to create confusion and go to a lot of hassle of changing the linguistic convention. There actually was not a term for equality between the sexes, other than perhaps negative descriptions like 'absurd', 'unnatural', etc. A rose by any name would smell as sweet. The name does not cause feminism to be what it is, and it arose due to historical-social events. It proves nothing about what feminism is, and changing it would be an unnecessary effort, since whatever feminism is called, it means the same thing. The reason feminists call themselves feminists, is because they know that people are familiar with the term and will better understand what they are talking about than if they called themselves equalitivists. Feminist is simply more descriptive and makes clear that one is specifically refering to female issues, rather than say specialising in reducing income disparity.

In effect, feminism is like communism and anarchy... They can only really work in a utopian society. People say "Oh, but that's not what MY feminism means", but then another person starts frothing at the mouth about how all sex is rape.
What? A complete absence of crime can only happen in a utopian society. One person can say theft is bad, and then another person goes and steals something, does that mean that theft isnt bad and law enforcement is a waste of time? I would not have thought so... :confused:

Edit: to the posters who kindly complimented my posts....thanks, you are making me blush!
However I got nothing on Bottle....not only does she get the point across, but she provides high quality humour and entertainment at the same time. Bottle rocks my socks! :D

I have no idea what VAWA is, who pushed for it, yet I rather suspect that those who pushed it through were politicians. Instead of blaming special interest groups, blame the politicians.

He's refering, I believe, to the Violence Against Women Act. Which, despite its name, has NO DISCRIMINATORY LANGUAGE IN THE BODY OF THE LAW. In other words, it benefits victims of domestic abuse, male or female, and has been proven to have reduced violence against both males and females. But "men's rights" organizations (read: bitter ex-husbands) like to cling to the word "women" in the law's name, as though that means more than the actual Act itself.

These fellows also like to point to statistics showing that men are also abused, though they are usually forced to admit that women are abused more often. For some reason, they seem to think it's wrong for us to try to bring DOWN the higher female abuse rates to achieve--at the very least--a gender balance. Instead, they appear to prefer that we inflate the male abuse rates to reach current female abuse rates.

He's refering, I believe, to the Violence Against Women Act. Which, despite its name, has NO DISCRIMINATORY LANGUAGE IN THE BODY OF THE LAW. In other words, it benefits victims of domestic abuse, male or female, and has been proven to have reduced violence against both males and females. But "men's rights" organizations (read: bitter ex-husbands) like to cling to the word "women" in the laws name, as though that means more than the actual Act itself.

Cheers for that, I cheerfully admit that I am not entirely familiar with US legislation.

Really, any of these movements that seek to make things fairer by being aggressive towards the currently dominant group (i.e. white vs. non-white, male vs. female) just make the problem worse.

Hmm... In my experience, it always seems to be members of the dominant group who think so.

A large number of male feminists refer to themselves as "pro-feminists". In an equality movement, you'd expect them to feel comfortable calling themselves feminists, wouldn't you?

A "large number"? Where do you get that?

Personally, I am perfectly happy to call myself feminist. So is every other man that I, personally, know.

Really, any of these movements that seek to make things fairer by being aggressive towards the currently dominant group (i.e. white vs. non-white, male vs. female) just make the problem worse.
Yeah, that Civil Rights Movement totally tanked. Why the hell are all them womenfolks and gayfolks getting so uppity? The blacks won their freedom by shutting up and taking it!

If anyone can point out a single feministic theory i can say i will support it or not but as it is now there is so many different kinds of feministic theories you can not really even begin to take the statement "i am a feminist" seriously.

I know of a heap of different feminist ideologies, a few actually makes sense but most do not. (probably my first and last post on forums)

If anyone can point out a single feministic theory i can say i will support it or not but as it is now there is so many different kinds of feministic theories you can not really even begin to take the statement "i am a feminist" seriously.

I know of a heap of different feminist ideologies, a few actually makes sense but most do not. (probably my first and last post on forums)
Let me simplify things for you:

THE ONLY FEMINIST IDEOLOGY IS BELIEF IN THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF THE SEXES.

Please feel free to correct anybody who tells you it is "feminist" to hate men, want to hurt men, want to take away men's equal rights, or play whiny acoustic guitar music dedicated to her vagina.

Please feel free to correct anybody who tells you it is "feminist" to hate men, want to hurt men, want to take away men's equal rights, or play whiny acoustic guitar music dedicated to her vagina.

... or, for that matter, whiny acoustic guitar music written by her vagina.

;)

Let me simplify things for you:

THE ONLY FEMINIST IDEOLOGY IS BELIEF IN THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF THE SEXES.

Please feel free to correct anybody who tells you it is "feminist" to hate men, want to hurt men, want to take away men's equal rights, or play whiny acoustic guitar music dedicated to her vagina.

I must disagree with your last point, as long as feminists don't infringe men's rights to write whiny acoustic guitar music dedicated to their penises.

It's almost 11PM here and I'm going to bed so I'll just post something quick. To Anarchy and Black, I'll get you the links tommorow.

It may be that some feminists do exert efforts to prevent the termination of legal fatherhood obligations, however it is not specifically a feminist concern, it is a child-welfare concern. Why should a father not be responsible to his child or children? Why should a child not be supported, or is there someone other than a child's father who should be expected to meet this obligations? If it is unfair to make fathers responsible for their children, how is it fair to make other people responsible for the children of irresponsible fathers?

If a woman get's pregnant she has the option of a) aborting it, b) having it.
The man has the option of a) whatever the woman says, and if that means shes keeping it, he has to pay child support. Termination of legal fatherhood obligations is the equivalent of abortion for men.

Violence Against Women Act. Which, despite its name, has NO DISCRIMINATORY LANGUAGE IN THE BODY OF THE LAW
Ah, of course. Yet at the same time, this law means that on the basis of a persons word(womans), the "victim" gets a restraining order. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20050718.shtml# is a good site on it.

Homovox, there is a childrens day. It's celebrated in a few countries in Europe, I believe. At the same time, being underage, I believe I do face discrimation feminists seem to generally think they have. Not that long ago, some students made a suggestion to our member of parliament and he said "That's nice, come back to me when you're old enough to vote".

These fellows also like to point to statistics showing that men are also abused, though they are usually forced to admit that women are abused more often. For some reason, they seem to think it's wrong for us to try to bring DOWN the higher female abuse rates to achieve--at the very least--a gender balance. Instead, they appear to prefer that we inflate the male abuse rates to reach current female abuse rates.
Sorry? I gave you a link to a study that showed that domestic violence is almost equal. I see that you're a feminist through and through, ignoring statistics that disprove your position.

At the same time, if VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT and FEMINISM arent dead giveaways at who these are targetted at, then I don't know what is.

and has been proven to have reduced violence against both males and females
Source please?

Also, I don't think that statistic has ANYTHING to do with feminism. What, the female firefighters are killing the male ones? What are you trying to say? Because they lowered their standards for women, women should be blamed and not the people who lowered the standards?
It was feminist pushed. Peoples lives are now at risk because someone wants the firedepartment to be more politically correct.

I must disagree with your last point, as long as feminists don't infringe men's rights to write whiny acoustic guitar music dedicated to their penises.
No, see, what I'm saying is that people try to include all sorts of random crap in "feminism" that isn't really there. Some feminists may write maudlin guitar music, but that doesn't mean maudlin guitar music is feminist; it's like how some Christians believe the world is flat, but that doesn't mean flat-Earth-belief is Christian.

I must disagree with your last point, as long as feminists don't infringe men's rights to write whiny acoustic guitar music dedicated to their penises.

We feminists don't mind you writing music dedicated to your penises.

But don't mind if we laugh at it. It is really funny.

Sorry? I gave you a link to a study that showed that domestic violence is almost equal. I see that you're a feminist through and through, ignoring statistics that disprove your position.

Well, I guess not all FRA members have the sense to read all the complete research. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you want to claim that men are abused by women as often as women are abused by men then you've got bigger problems than I have time to address.


At the same time, if VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT and FEMINISM arent dead giveaways at who these are targetted at, then I don't know what is.

Why? We use the pronoun "he" even when refering to a non-gender-specific individual, and the word "man" is used to refer to "humans in general" in many situations. Why should "feminism" not mean what it is defined to mean, the belief in the EQUALITY of the sexes? Or are you saying that only women would want the sexes to be equal?


Source please?

Read a book. Any non-"men's rights"-source will show it to you. Here's one direction you can research: domestic abuse-related homicides have dropped massively, and this includes abusive men who might have been killed by their wives or girlfriends. By reducing the abuse, you stop the women from reaching the breaking point and stabbing hubby in his sleep or hitting him with a bat when he goes after Junior.

It was feminist pushed. Peoples lives are now at risk because someone wants the firedepartment to be more politically correct.

Regardless, it's still the Fire Department that actually _did_ it.

I won't even get into how many other things are feminist-pushed that benefit society and people in general.

Regardless, it's still the Fire Department that actually _did_ it.

I won't even get into how many other things are feminist-pushed that benefit society and people in general.
I'd also be interested in finding out if the "reduced standards" actually make the fire fighters less effective; for instance, if they used to have a pushup requirement of a certain number, and they dropped it a bit for the womenfolks, does that actually mean there are worse firefighters on the force? Does the lack of ability to do X number of pushups actually mean somebody isn't as good at their job?

Though I have to say, I don't support the lowering of standards to admit women into any job...that's sexist and insulting, and I would never accept a job where I got to take a "special" entrance exam just because I'm a girl.

If a woman get's pregnant she has the option of a) aborting it, b) having it.
The man has the option of a) whatever the woman says, and if that means shes keeping it, he has to pay child support. Termination of legal fatherhood obligations is the equivalent of abortion for men.

It was feminist pushed. Peoples lives are now at risk because someone wants the firedepartment to be more politically correct.

1) Well, it's the woman who has little parasite growing in her for 9 months, so of course the choice of whether to proceed with the pregnancy should be hers. Termination of legal obligations would be completely unjustified since support of the baby is the responsibility of both parents. It's not equality, but equality would be unfair in this case.

2) Not sure what you mean. So weaker men are now joining the fire department and as a rsult dying? It was their choice. Allowing more men to make dangerous decisions is hardly oppressing us...

Let me simplify things for you:

THE ONLY FEMINIST IDEOLOGY IS BELIEF IN THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF THE SEXES.

Please feel free to correct anybody who tells you it is "feminist" to hate men, want to hurt men, want to take away men's equal rights, or play whiny acoustic guitar music dedicated to her vagina.

In political science you got any number of different feministic ideologies, but with the definition of equality between sexes im all for it. In Sweden we call that "jämställdhet" which means more like "equal value", not "exactly the same". I prefer to use that word over the newer word feminism. Also the different feminist ideologies are based on the question of whether there is a difference between the sexes or not. Another issue is that feministic theory is totally preoccupied with the notion on the control/power balance between sexes which tends to go awry pretty quickly.

I'd also be interested in finding out if the "reduced standards" actually make the fire fighters less effective; for instance, if they used to have a pushup requirement of a certain number, and they dropped it a bit for the womenfolks, does that actually mean there are worse firefighters on the force? Does the lack of ability to do X number of pushups actually mean somebody isn't as good at their job?

Though I have to say, I don't support the lowering of standards to admit women into any job...that's sexist and insulting, and I would never accept a job where I got to take a "special" entrance exam just because I'm a girl.

Don't get me wrong, I am a feminist and proud, but I also accept that there are fundamental differences between the sexes. I want equality, not to be identical, I'm proud of what makes men and women different, that includes the fact that men's bodies are different to ours, they are capable of greater muscle mass, and are therefore often stonger. In certain cases, physical standards have to be different to be equal. I don't know if I'm really making much sense here! Take sports, the 100m sprint say, men can more often run this distance more quickly than women, therefore the target time to qualify for the olympics is faster for men than women. I have no problem with that.

Ok, as for feminism in general, I think many people forget that there has been one hell of a lot of progress in the rich world, but very little in the developing world. In fact, in some cases there has been regression away from the equality of women. You have female circumcision is becoming more prevalent in some places, not less so. In some of the ex-soviet states women have seen a distinct decline in healthcare. Women make up 70% of the world's poor. I could go on and on, essentially my point is that women's rights are not just a matter for us lucky folk in Europe and North America who get to vote at least.

Turkey has made some recent progress in its effort to qualify for entry to the EU, spousal rape is now illegal and "honour killings" are now punishable by a life sentence rather than 2.5 years in prison. Women in other countries are still suffering, the feminist movement has barely got going! There is so much still to do.

The only people who believe that feminism is the desire to dominate men are those men who are insecure and resent that their domination over women is coming to an end. Fact: women are capable of doing more with their lives than raising children and keeping house, all feminists want is the right to exist on a level playing field with men. So-called radical feminists do not represent all of us, they are not even feminists in the true sense of the word. Please see dictionary definitions posted above!

So what does everyone think of feminism? Personally, I hate it.

*stopped reading at this point*

These days it seems quite common for people take cheap shots at feminism, particularly immature underage students with lots of time on their hands. I have a hypothesis that those most opposed to feminism tend to have a hard time getting a date, though that has nothing to do with the current topic.

I wonder if feminisms support of abortion, gay rights and progressive values has anything to do with the current torrent of abuse.

When it comes down to it feminism is one of the most successful movements for equality and advancement in the world (undoing thousands of years of inequality in roughly two centuries). The project is still not finished yet, as western women are still under-represented in politics, the court system, the scientific establishment, and private sector management (thanks in no small way too the career burn-out that is pregnancy and motherhood).

Nor is feminism devoted only to the needs of women. The movement seeks to destroy the bankrupt gender roles that constrain both men and women (it was mentioned that the stigma of being a male nurse needs to be overcome, feminism would most certainly agree). The movement also seeks to allow individuals to express and explore their sexuality free of fear and societies disapproval.

Furthermore I believe a large portion NS posters tend to ignore the grim situation of most women around the world. In the majority of countries women have fewer rights then men, fewer chances for independent advancement, that is if they survive their first year of child hood (in India and other Asian countries it is common for girls to be murdered shortly after birth as the family considers them a burden). They are the most likely to be malnourished. Throughout the Islamic world women are told to put on veils, sit in the corner and shut up (in Arabia we are not even allowed to drive cars). In China men, even if openly unfaithful, get favorable treatment in divorce court (much to the expense of their former wives). The majority of the world's women are suffering as we speak and badly need to be lifted up.

Face it, where just getting started :D !

hello, Im kinda new here. Im confused :( , does feminism mean that your are against women? Thats what it sounds like, and if thats what it means its stupid.

I'd also be interested in finding out if the "reduced standards" actually make the fire fighters less effective; for instance, if they used to have a pushup requirement of a certain number, and they dropped it a bit for the womenfolks, does that actually mean there are worse firefighters on the force? Does the lack of ability to do X number of pushups actually mean somebody isn't as good at their job?


Personally, if I called the fire brigade, the last thing I'd want them to do would be to start showing off at how many press-ups they can do.

In my country one of the ironies with the fire brigade is that given two more or less equally qualified and able candidates, they will pick a smoker over a non-smoker, as they are likely to be able to have less of a physical reaction to being surrounded by and breathing in smoke and fumes. Bizarre, but apparently true.

Amestria']These days it seems quite common for people take cheap shots at feminism, particularly immature underage students with lots of time on their hands. I have a hypothesis that those most opposed to feminism tend to have a hard time getting a date, though that has nothing to do with the current topic.

In my experience the ones making the cheap shots are young reactionaries doing it in order to gain some attention for themselves, however I don't think that the current reaction to feminism can solely be laid at their feet. For all the high ideals of the feminist movement in the 60s, 70s and 80s, it appeared to become lost in the 90s and has yet to regroup after the shattering that happened then. The whole notion of post-feminists (read 'laddettes') is all very well, but essentially a short term and selfish notion. The male kids today who are kicking against feminism likely have little exposure to the rigorous forms of feminism that came before their time: even those on the extreme fringes of the movement (read your Valerie Solanas's and your separatists here) had an intellectual and theoretical ground backed by a philosophical critique which gave at least their arguments a strength, even if their premises were sometimes wildly questionable. Feminism today is marketed for the most part as another MTV commodity, and to many young males it is experienced only as a surface phenomenon.


Yeah, I'm rambling...

hello, Im kinda new here. Im confused :( , does feminism mean that your are against women? Thats what it sounds like, and if thats what it means its stupid.
Nope. A feminist is a person who believes that men and women should be treated equally, both by society and by the laws.

hello, Im kinda new here. Im confused :( , does feminism mean that your are against women? Thats what it sounds like, and if thats what it means its stupid.

Nope. Feminism is arguing for (at least) equal rights for women: you are mistaking it for misogyny.

Nope. Feminism is arguing for (at least) equal rights for women: you are mistaking it for misogyny.
But if you think about it, grammatically that's what the term sounds like; racism is being "against" other races, so feminism sounds like being "against" the feminine.

Nope. A feminist is a person who believes that men and women should be treated equally, both by society and by the laws.

Generally true, but there are certainly figures and movements which belong to feminism which argue that in at least some cases equality alone is not sufficient. We needn't dwell to long on them for fear of scarring the young 'uns.

Personally, if I called the fire brigade, the last thing I'd want them to do would be to start showing off at how many press-ups they can do.

I'm with you. I don't know what standards were lowered in the case in question, and I don't know if lowering those standards actually equates to lowering the expectations for ability of the firefighters...if it does, that's criminal, and if it doesn't it still is stupid and sexist.


In my country one of the ironies with the fire brigade is that given two more or less equally qualified and able candidates, they will pick a smoker over a non-smoker, as they are likely to be able to have less of a physical reaction to being surrounded by and breathing in smoke and fumes. Bizarre, but apparently true.
That's bizarrely logical, in its own way.

Generally true, but there are certainly figures and movements which belong to feminism which argue that in at least some cases equality alone is not sufficient. We needn't dwell to long on them for fear of scarring the young 'uns.
If a person says they are a feminist but then calls for unequal practices based on gender, they are NOT a feminist. It's like how many people who bomb abortion clinics call themselves pro-life, or how the KKK claims to be a Christian organization...they're not, because they are traitors to the fundmental tenets of those belief system.

But if you think about it, grammatically that's what the term sounds like; racism is being "against" other races, so feminism sounds like being "against" the feminine.

Yes, I understood the mistake the poster was making, but 'racism' seems to be the exception here rather than the rule... the terms Marxism, Freudianism, masochism, feminism, racism and the like all essentially function in the same way: they advocate a way of looking at the world and making judgements based on a particular specified outlook or reason for discrimination (as opposed to prejudice).

If a person says they are a feminist but then calls for unequal practices based on gender, they are NOT a feminist.

Biology dictates that there are certain cases where unequal practices based on gender make sense: for example, in the purely medical field. True, but banal, however at least this indicates that feminism as a whole is not just asking for an extention of equal rights to all genders.

Moving on to the thorny matter of separationists, I think excluding them from feminism as a whole on the assumption that because they are not looking for actual equality is a mistaken one: they are instead (so they claim) looking at the world from a female perspective, and if their assumptions were/are correct (at the risk of pastiche - women live better lives when they don't come into contact with men or all men are potential rapists) then their conclusion, that separatism is the correct way forward in order to benefit both men and women, could be a valid one within feminism.

I don't really agree with your position where equality must be the basis of feminism: instead there could be a case where the morally good thing is an actual state of inequality. I guess it all depends how you prioritise your ethical basis.

Liberal Feminism (No it's got nothing to do with "dirty liberal commies") is simply interested in equality between the sexes and is admirable.

Radical Feminism, on the other hand, is pretty extreme and fairly crazy. It's radical feminists who believe in female supremacy, that domestic abuse is always committed by men on women and if a woman does it she is justified and that, ultimately, men should be rounded up and sacrificed to amazon goddesses. Well, maybe not that far, but I wouldn't put it past the bigoted dykes.

Actually the definition you've given for "radical" is more militant or separatist feminism. These groups are rather small and tend to be isolated but they can make a big noise because what they say is often violent or, in my opinion, sexism reversed.

Radical feminism is the notice that gender is a social construct and that if people were educated they could become fully human beings instead of just social roles. It is radical because it assumes that biology does not equal social role, ability, or worth.

Then there are also cultural feminism like Andrea Dworkin who believe that all of culture works to promote and maintain patriarchy and therefore it must be overturned or rejected.

Another poster suggested that Feminism is based on lies. No, feminism is the idea that women as a group have been discriminated against purely because of their biology and that this is wrong.

Specific variations of feminism theory and philosophy may say different things.

Remember it was feminists who helped get women the right to vote in most country. They also worked to get women the right to educations, to own property, to serve on juries. In short, to help women get more legal rights and responsibilities than they had before.

It is no more rational nor helpful to lump all feminism together than it is to lump all Christians, all Moslems, all short people, all thin people, all *insert trait/idea here* people.

I have this follow up question: Why does feminism so upset people? Why does it frighten so many people?

I think it is fear: fear of losing their power, fear of losing their auhority, fear of losing the sense of self, fear of some religious dogma.

It must be horrible to live in such fear.

Oh, and yes, I play a matriarchical nation but frankly it means little given the issue choices. I did to make fun of the idea that patriarchy, matriarchy, any sort of system which discriminates can be a just society. As a historian I think it foolish.

If I'm not mistaken, the changed limit in the fire department was the amount carried and being able to be held. In most states it was shot down since you have to be able to lift the hose by yourself when coiled and be able to handle the pressure of the water through the hose. Not to mention having to carry someone out over your shoulder who is unconsious and is purely dead weight, plus all your gear.

But then, women hate it that men have private clubs and can't join, but then women have their own clubs and hate it when men ask if they can join. I'm not a supporter of male supremecy, but I have known enough feminists to know that it's not about eqality, it's about shutting out the people who were suppressed thousands and thousands of years ago when goddess worship ruled and men were the 'weak' species, and then came back and decided that they might have a turn, and now there's this pointless debate where no one is right or wrong because both sexes are equal in their own right, but have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Get a grip and realize that there are differences in everybody and everything. And that, no matter what, equality can not, in any real world, exist. One person is going to try and say that they are better than the other, and it will start all over again.

Get a grip and realize that there are differences in everybody and everything. And that, no matter what, equality can not, in any real world, exist. One person is going to try and say that they are better than the other, and it will start all over again.

Wow...people really try to use this argument?

No sane person fights for complete equality as in making everyone exactly the same.

People fight for equity. Fairness. And sometimes that means treating people a bit differently. We build ramps for people in wheelchairs. Not building ramps for every single other person on earth is not discrimination.

When people talk about equality, they are talking about equality of opportunity, not making one person less intelligent so that others don't get jealous.

And as a feminist, I make gender issues a very big focus in my life. Women's issues. Men's issues. Transgender issues. I am not unique in this. The small, vocal, and widely vilified group of radical feminists get your attention, and afford you a convenient label to stick on the rest of us. Well, just think of this. How many fanatic, fundamentalist Christians are there out there compared to normal, reasonable Christians? Don't judge a widely diverse group by one element.

But then, women hate it that men have private clubs and can't join, but then women have their own clubs and hate it when men ask if they can join. I'm not a supporter of male supremecy, but I have known enough feminists to know that it's not about eqality, it's about shutting out the people who were suppressed thousands and thousands of years ago when goddess worship ruled and men were the 'weak' species, and then came back and decided that they might have a turn, and now there's this pointless debate where no one is right or wrong because both sexes are equal in their own right, but have their own strengths and weaknesses.

I don't know who you've been talking to or who taught you history, but the majority of feminists honestly want equality, not revenge or supremecy! We can only say it so many times, but it is the honest truth. You don't have to believe it, you can ignore all of us here if you like, that's up to you, but to come out and essentially say that we don't know our own values is absurd.

And most of the world has never seen a time you describe when men were "the 'weak' species", almost every civilisation ever has been dominated by men. Women have seen better treatment in the past than today, true, they have been valued, goddesses worshipped, women looked up to as wise and compassionate (speaking as someone who has thoroughly researched paganism, I might add), but women have never experienced the dominance that men have, not in any civilisation I know of. Men have used biology throughout the ages, to define gender roles and enforce them. I challenge you to find empirical evidence of a time and place where men were considered "weak" and struck back!

Get a grip and realize that there are differences in everybody and everything. And that, no matter what, equality can not, in any real world, exist. One person is going to try and say that they are better than the other, and it will start all over again.

As I said in an earlier post, I do acknowledge the differences between genders, in fact I think those differences are fantastic and essential. No gender is superior, we need each other. Equality can exist in the real world, it isn't easy, minds and traditions need changing, but they can be changed and should be changed. Social evolution is essential to the continuation of the human race, one day the world will wake up and gradually it will change and it will become a better place. Sorry, but I am an idealist, what a gloomy and backward world we would have without idealism! It is those like me that make changes in the world. You don't have to like it, but it is the way it is.

Yes, I understood the mistake the poster was making, but 'racism' seems to be the exception here rather than the rule... the terms Marxism, Freudianism, masochism, feminism, racism and the like all essentially function in the same way: they advocate a way of looking at the world and making judgements based on a particular specified outlook or reason for discrimination (as opposed to prejudice).

Actually, I think there seems to be a generalizable rule.

When the term refers to a particular, as an individual or a class, it is positive (e.g. Marxism, feminism, etc.).

But when it refers to a means of classification (rather than to one of the classes), it involves the notion of attacking a particular class... thus, racism, sexism, and so on.

Feminism = pro-female. (Up to equality in an unequal world.)
Sexism = against one sex.

Feminists make the best sandwiches.

I keed! :p

I unno, I think "feminism" has been hijacked and is more about hating on men than improving situations for women. I think a true "feminist" should also fight for issues that men are clearly disadvantaged in (ie Child Custody, Length of Criminal Sentences) in the spirit of gender equity. Ain't gonna happen, most likely. Chicks hate paying for dinner.

So what does everyone think of feminism? Personally, I hate it.

Modern feminism seems to be based off, largely, a bunch of lies. 73cents to the dollar? A lie. It's actually around equal, but that study was done using the median (middle number) rather than the average.

ie:

ManPay 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 = 28
WomynPay 1,3,3,3,5,6,7 = 28

The median for manpay is 4.
The median for womynpay is 3.

Both add up to 28. Equal total pay, different median.

Domestic Violence is another biggie. Look at just about any domestic violence website, and it'll say that 90% of domestic violence is man on women. Wrong. It's around equal, again.

Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.

As you can see, the guy has compiles around 340 different studies. Women may get hurt more often, but they are 3 times more likely to use a weapon and also more likely to attack while their partner is asleep.

Two lies that impact heavily on mens lives. This is one of the main reasons I hate feminism.

Your misunderstanding and misuse of the "median" has already been exposed.

Let me debunk the other point. Your source does not actually reach a conclusion that domestic violence is equal. That makes you a liar.


1. Don't draw the wrong conclusions from that link. Fiebert himself says that studies "suggesting men are also frequent abust victims should not be used to minimize the threat that women face from abusive boyfriends or spouses." Moreover, he expressly blames the problem of abuse of men on "the culture of patriarchy."

2. Don't draw the wrong conclusions from that link. Feibert claims the list "demonstrate[s] that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners." THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM DEMONSTRATING THAT MEN ARE EQUALLY VICTIMS OF (OR WOMEN PERPETRATORS OF) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I'll explain in detail more later. But these are almost all surveys that measure isolated instances of "aggression" (equating "crying," "stomping out of the room," a single slap, and a beating) not beatings or systematic violence. As one expert has stated: "On the basis of putative equal reports of violence from phone surveys, it is absurd to consider 'husband battering' to be the equivalent of 'wife battering.'" In fact, these sources aren't really about "battered husbands" at all!

3. This is not 170 studies. This is one man's characterization of 170 sources (of which only 134 are even alleged "empirical studies"). I'll get into (a) his credibility and (b) the many flaws in his characterizations in another post. But simply put: don't just accept his sweeping conclusion that these sources all show women are as or more physically aggressive in relationships than men. They don't.

4. That this is one of the sources on his list speaks volumes:

Saenger, G. (1963). Male and female relations in the American comic strip. In D. M. White & R. H. Abel (Eds.), The funnies, an American idiom (pp. 219-231). Glencoe, NY: The Free Press. (Twenty consecutive editions of all comic strips in nine New York City newspapers in October, 1950 were examined. Results reveal that husbands were victims of aggression in 63% of conflict situations while wives were victims in 39% of situations. In addition, wives were more aggressive in 73% of domestic situations, in 10% of situations, husbands and wives were equally aggressive and in only 17% of situations were husbands more violent than wives.)

5. Obviously, this is not a representative sample of the research on domestic violence. It is an admitted cherry-picking of all the sources Dr. Fiebert could find that allegedly "demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners."

A. To get his 170 sources, he had to look hard. He includes sources from 1963 to 2005. That is 42 years of research -- and only 170 sources that even Fiebert can claim (incorrectly) support his thesis in all that time.

Search of Medline for peer-reviewed articles on "domestic violence between 1693 to 2005 shows 21,398 results.

A search re "interpersonal violence" reveals 1776 peer-reviewed studies during that same period.

Search for yourself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

Even if all of his sources were peer-reviewed articles (they aren't), they represent about 0.8% of all of research on "domestic violence" alone (and his sources range beyond that topic).

B. He also had to look far and wide. There are studies here regarding gender violence in many different cultures and at least 14 different countries -- including Korea, Belize, Hong Kong, Mexico, and South Africa.

6. His list has many, many flaws

A. About 20 of these "sources" are unpublished papers or reports. At least a dozen more are not from peer-reviewed sources.

B. Many of these are the same authors or the same study reported different times. This is more than double-counting.

For example, at least seven of the citations in the Fiebert list are based on the National Family Violence Surveys (Straus, 1980; Straus, 1995; Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1981; Straus, & Kaufman Kantor, 1994; Grandin, E. & Lupri, E., 1997; Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W., 1989), and the same samples are used more than once, thus creating an inflated sense of gender equality in rates of violence. Only one of these citations (Straus, 1995), covering the 1975 and 1985 surveys, is needed to describe the rates of violence by gender.

C. Just quickly scanning for repeated names, I discovered about the same 20 authors were responsible for about 87 of these 170 "sources."

D. Just by Fiebert's own summary, 80 of the 134 "empirical studies" rely on the Conflict Tactics Scale. A review of the social science literature indicates that the CTS is, even according to its creators, seriously flawed when used as a comparative measure of male and female domestic victimization (i.e., the way men’s righters and anti-feminists use it).
I'll get into that more in another post.

8. The evidence that Fiebert is wrong is overwhelming

In a seperate thread, I already refuted and provided sources refuting much of his thesis, including many of the sources and underlying research techniques he relies on.

See Misogynist rant - don't believe the hype! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148825&postcount=102); Some REAL statistics from REAL sources (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103)

Here are a bunch more relevant sources:
Are Physical Assaults by Wives and Girlfriends a Major Social Problem? A Review of the Literature (http://www.vadv.org/abw.pdf) (specifically responds to Fiebert list and to articles cited therein)

Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales (http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_ctscrit.pdf)

Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review (http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/malevictims.pdf) (specifically responds to Fiebert list and to articles cited therein)

On “Husband-Battering”; Are Men Equal Victims? (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/06/26/on-husband-battering-are-men-equal-victims/) (critique of "women are just as violent" argument and the CTS)

Claims about Husband Battering (http://www.andvsa.org/Claims%20Husband%20Battering.pdf) (critique of "women are just as violent" argument and the CTS)

Overview of Fiebert's Annotated Domestic Violence Bibliography (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6708/dvsumary.html) (objective brief comment and summary of what studies say -- shows that studies listed by Fiebert don't all support Fiebert's conclusions -- at least 3 actually say that men are more abusive than women and at least 4 of 8 on who suffers injuries say that women suffer more injuries)

Are Heterosexual Men Also Victims of Intimate Partner Abuse? (http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_MaleVictims.php)

Agents of apathy (http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/thelongwar/12eclin-.html) (critique of "women are just as violent" argument and the CTS)

Towards an Understanding of Women's Use of Non-Lethal Violence in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships (http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_womviol.php)

Feminists make the best sandwiches.

I keed! :p

I unno, I think "feminism" has been hijacked and is more about hating on men than improving situations for women. I think a true "feminist" should also fight for issues that men are clearly disadvantaged in (ie Child Custody, Length of Criminal Sentences) in the spirit of gender equity. Ain't gonna happen, most likely. Chicks hate paying for dinner.

That wouldn't be feminism, it's something else. I and many feminists happen to care about those issues for men aswell, but not as a part of being a feminist, which deals with womens rights.

And the last remark - well, it's comments like that that provoke reactions that seem to be men-hating! I have no problem paying for dinner, what usually works out fair is one pays for dinner the other pays for the film! Tell you what, you lay off the sexist remarks and we'll stop responding to them ;-p

Sorry? I gave you a link to a study that showed that domestic violence is almost equal. I see that you're a feminist through and through, ignoring statistics that disprove your position.

Um, who is ignoring real statistics?

*Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (Centers for Disease Control, 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/index.htm))

*The US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm) (February 2003) reports that women were 85% of the victims of intimate violence (other than murder) in 2001. Previously (October 2001), the Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipva99.htm) had also reported that "Women accounted for 85% of the victims from among the more than 790,000 victims of intimate violence in 1999".

*In the United States, researchers estimate that 40% to 70% of female murder victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, frequently in the context of an ongoing abusive relationship. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm)) On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

*The National Institute of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm) found in 2000 that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States." Almost 25% of women, and 7.5% of men, had been raped and/or assaulted by a date or partner at some time in their lives. Women who were assaulted by an intimate sustained a higher number of assaults, and were more likely to have been injured in the most recent attack, than men who were assaulted. In addition, the study found that "503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate partner annually in the United States."

*According the US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vbi.htm) in 1994, "Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000 violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."

*The Study of Injured Victims of Violence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vrithed.htm) (US Department of Justice, 1997) surveyed injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. 4.5% of male victims had been injured by an intimate, compared to 36.8% of the female victims. Of the 243,000 people who had been injured by an intimate, 39,000 (16%) were men and 204,000 (84%) were women. (In 30% of cases, the relationship between the injured person and their attacker was not identified.)

Among more statistics (http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html):
*as many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.
(A Report of the Violence against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995. )

*much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence. (Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1998)).

Note: I cited objective, reliable sources with no feminist agenda. Do I really need to continue or is this sufficient?

Feminists make the best sandwiches.

I keed! :p

I unno, I think "feminism" has been hijacked and is more about hating on men than improving situations for women. I think a true "feminist" should also fight for issues that men are clearly disadvantaged in (ie Child Custody, Length of Criminal Sentences) in the spirit of gender equity. Ain't gonna happen, most likely. Chicks hate paying for dinner.
Yes, let us just ignore the fact that outside of the West, women are still very much at the mercy of patriarchal systems which favour men over women. Heavens forbid the women in those countries fight for women's issues alone, seeing as how the level of inequality is such that men's issues are more in terms of privilege than disadvantage.

And in the West...where levels of inequality are not as extreme, levels of violence against women IS still disproportionate. If we tend to focus on women being abused and murdered by husbands and partners, please forgive us for not abandoning this issue to deal full on with men's prison sentences. Perhaps men could also help with gender equality? I know Cat Tribes does...and he calls himself a feminist *gasp*. Focusing on gender issues, not women's issues alone DOES NOT MEAN we have to deal with ALL gender issues equally. Nor does it make us responsible for every injustice committed against men.

And that last little snipe...is really baseless, and stereotypical. If you are interested in gender equity yourself, perhaps you can stop with the unfounded generalisations? That's a good place to start.

Biology dictates that there are certain cases where unequal practices based on gender make sense: for example, in the purely medical field. True, but banal, however at least this indicates that feminism as a whole is not just asking for an extention of equal rights to all genders.

*eye roll*

No, the medical example doesn't hold true. Women deserve medical care of the same caliber and quality as men, and the fact that we may have some different parts doesn't matter one bit. Some people don't have legs; does that mean we want them to get "unequal" medical care by expecting doctors to notice their lack of legs? Men lack a vagina; that doesn't mean they need "special" medical care, or that doctors should be held to different professional standards when treating men.

Feminism has nothing to do with denying physical differences between the genders. It's about realizing that the difference in the shape of our genitals or hips is no more (or less) significant than any other physical differences; the fact that my genitals are different from your genitals isn't any more or less important than the fact that my breasts are different from another woman's breasts, and we certainly shouldn't be given a different quality of treatment based on those traits. (Note I am using "quality" to mean "caliber" or "how good the treatment is," not refering to the qualities that our particular treatment has...I hate English sometimes...)


Moving on to the thorny matter of separationists, I think excluding them from feminism as a whole on the assumption that because they are not looking for actual equality is a mistaken one: they are instead (so they claim) looking at the world from a female perspective, and if their assumptions were/are correct (at the risk of pastiche - women live better lives when they don't come into contact with men or all men are potential rapists) then their conclusion, that separatism is the correct way forward in order to benefit both men and women, could be a valid one within feminism.
I don't really agree with your position where equality must be the basis of feminism: instead there could be a case where the morally good thing is an actual state of inequality. I guess it all depends how you prioritise your ethical basis.
Sorry, but the definition of "feminism" is "belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes." You may not agree with that definition, but you don't get to make up new definitions to words whenever you please...or, at least, you can make them up, but nobody is required to care.

Sorry, but the definition of "feminism" is "belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes." You may not agree with that definition, but you don't get to make up new definitions to words whenever you please...or, at least, you can make them up, but nobody is required to care.
*applauds*

Sheesh...do you remember when I thought I could never agree with you? I don't.... :fluffle:

And that last little snipe...is really baseless, and stereotypical. If you are interested in gender equity yourself, perhaps you can stop with the unfounded generalisations? That's a good place to start.
Hey, these guys keep telling me I don't like to pay my way...I guess they are really determined to convince me that is the case, so I should probably stop taking my boyfriend out on the town.

Here's a hint, guys: if you don't like having to pay for everything, and if you'd like to be with a woman who can (and will) take care of herself, then stop repeating circa-1900 stereotypes about how all women are helpless wenches who expect a man to pick up the tab.

*applauds*

Sheesh...do you remember when I thought I could never agree with you? I don't.... :fluffle:Well, it's hard for even ME to be on the wrong side when it comes to clearly-dictionary-defined terms.

Of course, since the "liberal media" controls everything we say and think, it's possible that the definition of feminism is being controlled by the razor-lipped uberdykes who are currently conspiring to make everybody into a gay communist abortion doctor. Or whatever the running wingnut theory is these days.

Here's a hint, guys: if you don't like having to pay for everything, and if you'd like to be with a woman who can (and will) take care of herself, then stop repeating circa-1900 stereotypes about how all women are helpless wenches who expect a man to pick up the tab.Hm... I always went by the credo that it was more of a way of being polite than a form of repression...
That said, I'd always have fights with one of my girlfriends as to who would be allowed to pay for the date... I actually wanted to pay for these things, but she wouldn't let me :(

*eye roll*

No, the medical example doesn't hold true. Women deserve medical care of the same caliber and quality as men, and the fact that we may have some different parts doesn't matter one bit.

...

My point in raising that matter was not to build an argument on it, but just to get it out of the way.


Sorry, but the definition of "feminism" is "belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes." You may not agree with that definition, but you don't get to make up new definitions to words whenever you please...or, at least, you can make them up, but nobody is required to care.

I'm not making up new definitions of the word: it is inarguable that since at least the 1970s separatists have been considered part of the feminist movement. They may not fit with your definition or the commonly accepted one, but this shows the problem with recourse to dictionary definitions.

You can stick with your feminism as narrowly defined by "belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes", but in doing so you will be ignoring many of the fringe and radical elements who made up the movement.

Hm... I always went by the credo that it was more of a way of being polite than a form of repression...
That said, I'd always have fights with one of my girlfriends as to who would be allowed to pay for the date... I actually wanted to pay for these things, but she wouldn't let me :(
I tend to pick up the tab when I go out with my boyfriend, but that's because I just happen to have more disposable income right now. He needs to pay of student loans, and can't really afford to go out very much, but I was fortunate enough to get scholarships that left me debt-free. I want to go out, and I can't very well insist that he miss a loan payment so I get to party, so I offer to treat him whenever he will let me.

Since I know he's going to be rich and famous in a few years (he's scary brilliant) I figure the money-karma will swing back my way anyhow...he knows how much I want that Viper...

You can stick with your feminism as narrowly defined by "belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes", but in doing so you will be ignoring many of the fringe and radical elements who made up the movement.Yes, but by that logic every Republican is an ultra-conservative theocrat and every Green is an eco-terrorist...

My point in raising that matter was not to build an argument on it, but just to get it out of the way.

Roger that. Sorry if the eye-roll was undeserved :).


I'm not making up new definitions of the word: it is inarguable that since at least the 1970s separatists have been considered part of the feminist movement. They may not fit with your definition or the commonly accepted one, but this shows the problem with recourse to dictionary definitions.

The KKK has identified itself as a "Christian organization" for quite some time. Organizations dedicated to domestic terrorism and murder have identified as "pro-life" since the beginning of that movement. Just because some wingnuts like to misuse terms doesn't mean we ought to indulge them.


You can stick with your feminism as narrowly defined by "belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes", but in doing so you will be ignoring many of the fringe and radical elements who made up the movement.
That's just the point; feminism SHOULD exclude that fringe, just like how Christians should exclude Jesus-jihad types who like to blow things up in the name of the Holy Ghost. The fringe is a shameful byproduct of a very cool movement, and rather than accomodating the nutters we should kick their asses to the curb.

I tend to pick up the tab when I go out with my boyfriend, but that's because I just happen to have more disposable income right now. He needs to pay of student loans, and can't really afford to go out very much, but I was fortunate enough to get scholarships that left me debt-free. I want to go out, and I can't very well insist that he miss a loan payment so I get to party, so I offer to treat him whenever he will let me.

Since I know he's going to be rich and famous in a few years (he's scary brilliant) I figure the money-karma will swing back my way anyhow...he knows how much I want that Viper...Yeah, I'm a bit young to worry about stuff like that, so it was usually just paying for the movies. She'd beat me too it and I'd find creative ways of slipping her the money when she wasn't paying attention.

I personally think the rule is "I'll pay, but she shouldn't expect it." I don't find it bad for the woman to be paying instead of the guy in some situations, but I personally wouldn't let it happen without putting up a fight or getting back at her later :p

That's just the point; feminism SHOULD exclude that fringe, just like how Christians should exclude Jesus-jihad types who like to blow things up in the name of the Holy Ghost. The fringe is a shameful byproduct of a very cool movement, and rather than accomodating the nutters we should kick their asses to the curb.

As I see it the interesting feminist theory that has stayed contemporary is that which has had its roots on the fringe, whereas the more mainstream strands have delivered the weak and oft-illusory notion of media produced post-feminism. The theories of the fringes may not be acceptable in themselves, but by their very extremism they have been able to survive the dilution that is the 1990s and beyond anti-feminist backlash.

Yeah, I'm a bit young to worry about stuff like that, so it was usually just paying for the movies. She'd beat me too it and I'd find creative ways of slipping her the money when she wasn't paying attention.

Yeah, I certainly don't mind when my boy treats me, either. It's mostly just a matter of us liking to give each other things...I know he wishes he could give me more, just like I wish I could afford to buy him Allysa Millano.


I personally think the rule is "I'll pay, but she shouldn't expect it." I don't find it bad for the woman to be paying instead of the guy in some situations, but I personally wouldn't let it happen without putting up a fight or getting back at her later :p
I don't think EITHER person should assume the other is going to pay for them. I don't. I don't feel entitled to a free meal, and I know my boyfriend is careful to not take my generosity for granted. Every time I go out with ANYBODY I assume that I will be paying for at least my own portion of the check...sometimes I intend to pay for the whole thing, as well, but I always assume that I will be taking care of myself at the very least.

You can stick with your feminism as narrowly defined by "belief in the social and political EQUALITY of the sexes", but in doing so you will be ignoring many of the fringe and radical elements who made up the movement.
Fringe and radical elements do not define a movement.

Fringe and radical elements do not define a movement.

I'm not claiming that they do, but instead that the simple definition offered before isn't wide enough to encompass the many strands of feminism.

I've always paid my own way.

That being said, cultural norms come into play. In my husband's culture, when you invite people out, you are expected to pay. The assumption is, the favour will be returned at some point. That's fine with me. As long as I know beforehand (and actually have the cash:)).

Canadians tend to be more into 'going Dutch', where everyone pays for their own meal or entertainment. Of course, if one of your friends doesn't have the dough, male or female, someone helps out.

On dates? I certainly didn't grow up with any set expectation that males or females had to pay. It was always, 'pay as you can'.

If there are people my age out there who think that men have to pay for the date, or visa versa, that's THEIR perception. I haven't seen this expectation in my generation anywhere in the Western provinces and Territories at least...maybe things are more traditional in the East? :eek:

I'm not claiming that they do, but instead that the simple definition offered before isn't wide enough to encompass the many strands of feminism.
The definition offered defines feminism. Radical and fringe elements redefine feminism to suit their needs. Thus, adjectives are added to the original description. Radical feminism. Feminism. Same base, different spin.

The definition is fine. If you want to discuss a certain fringe element of *insert adjective* feminism, feel free.

The same goes for a term like "liberal". There is a base definition that defines a liberal. Then there are groups that are more or less liberal, or liberal from a certain perspective that need an adjective or a whole new name to define them.

And that last little snipe...is really baseless, and stereotypical. If you are interested in gender equity yourself, perhaps you can stop with the unfounded generalisations? That's a good place to start.

And the last remark - well, it's comments like that that provoke reactions that seem to be men-hating! I have no problem paying for dinner, what usually works out fair is one pays for dinner the other pays for the film! Tell you what, you lay off the sexist remarks and we'll stop responding to them ;-p

LOL, it's called a joke, people. Ya know, it's fun to stir up the pot a bit and rile folks up, it's a part of my personality and a lil' sniping adds to the entertainment of the boards. Laugh at it, or don't. Make a comeback, or don't, but please recognize that my little off-hand remarks are very rarely serious.

Of course, to clarify, when I was referring to "feminism" I was referring to it as we know it within industrialized nations. I'm well aware of the status of women OUTSIDE the 1st world, which is clearly unfair. However, I do think we are approaching a point where we must discuss what role feminism will have as it achieves more of its goals here.

I don't think EITHER person should assume the other is going to pay for them. I don't. I don't feel entitled to a free meal, and I know my boyfriend is careful to not take my generosity for granted. Every time I go out with ANYBODY I assume that I will be paying for at least my own portion of the check...sometimes I intend to pay for the whole thing, as well, but I always assume that I will be taking care of myself at the very least.
I agree with that, except that I feel that I should pay for her too (not that I have to, that I should). What you're saying is the basic assumption of "I'll pay, but she shouldn't expect me to."

LOL, it's called a joke, people. Ya know, it's fun to stir up the pot a bit and rile folks up, it's a part of my personality and a lil' sniping adds to the entertainment of the boards. Laugh at it, or don't. Make a comeback, or don't, but please recognize that my little off-hand remarks are very rarely serious.

Of course, to clarify, when I was referring to "feminism" I was referring to it as we know it within industrialized nations. I'm well aware of the status of women OUTSIDE the 1st world, which is clearly unfair. However, I do think we are approaching a point where we must discuss what role feminism will have as it achieves more of its goals here.
Sounds good. I kind of see more focus on transgender issues in the future in the industrialised world. That's actually kind of been the case in many countries.

What I'd really like to see is people giving up this grudge against feminism, and working WITH feminist on the things they seem to want to blame us for. If there are issues with child custody, feminists alone should not be working on figuring out solutions. Men need to be allowed to bond more with their kids, and take on a more parental role than is traditional. Marriages need more open communication. Agreements need to be made about childcare needs and employment needs.

Feminism started out attacking discimination head on, by making sure such discimination was not legally sanctioned. Now we need to start working on the more difficult aspect of societal attitudes. Harmful stereotypes and gender roles (teaching a boy that his dream of being a nurse means he is a sissy, teaching a girl that she can never build cabinets, and so on...). This is much harder to deal with than laws, and it's going to take various groups working on gender equity.

What I'd really like to see is people giving up this grudge against feminism, and working WITH feminist on the things they seem to want to blame us for. If there are issues with child custody, feminists alone should not be working on figuring out solutions. Men need to be allowed to bond more with their kids, and take on a more parental role than is traditional. Marriages need more open communication. Agreements need to be made about childcare needs and employment needs.

I did a term paper on some of the societal effects of feminism last semester. Interesting lil' piece according to my prof. What I learned after a little research is that many generally view Feminism as a case of positives leading to negatives, rather than a collective of positives. People see those negatives and weigh them against the positives and make decisions. Hence the number of people with grudges so to speak.

For example, while the Sexual Revolution enabled people to engage in traditionally taboo sexual activities, and made it possible for women to be unbound by accidental pregnancy, it also lessened society's need for marriage. The old saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" comes to mind. In and of itself it's not a bad thing.

However, because marriage is no longer the only socially acceptable sexual outlet, many relationships don't have the strong incentive to stay together. This in and of itself is not so bad.

However, any kids that come along the way find themselves carried along for a ride when their parents don't live together. Psychologists note that divorce or the splitting of parents is traumatic for kids, and sometimes these experiences end up influencing the child's own development, and therefore their own children, which for some, but not all, can have very negative connotations.

Some people look at simplified arguments like that and say "Well, damn, if that's the end result we need to go back."

For example, while the Sexual Revolution enabled people to engage in traditionally taboo sexual activities, and made it possible for women to be unbound by accidental pregnancy, it also lessened society's need for marriage. The old saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" comes to mind. In and of itself it's not a bad thing.


However, because marriage is no longer the only socially acceptable sexual outlet, many relationships don't have the strong incentive to stay together. This in and of itself is not so bad.
Marriage was the only socially acceptable sexual outlet for WOMEN. It was quite common, and not all that shocking for men to engage in sex outside the marriage. The woman they dallied with would have a damaged reputation were she to be found out...but rarely was the man held accountable for his part in the affair.

It was traditional to stay together if you were married, even if you hated each other. Even if one partner, or both partners were abusive. Loveless marriages...is that really 'better' than marriages that split up?


However, any kids that come along the way find themselves carried along for a ride when their parents don't live together. Psychologists note that divorce or the splitting of parents is traumatic for kids, and sometimes these experiences end up influencing the child's own development, and therefore their own children, which for some, but not all, can have very negative connotations. And this is the fault of the sexual revolution, and of feminism? Hmmm...where are the men in this mix? Conspicuously absent ...are women the only ones leaving to 'sow their oats' then?

Some people look at simplified arguments like that and say "Well, damn, if that's the end result we need to go back."

You're right. I think you've outlined very well how people look at these things...but it is an erroneous view that lays the blame at the feet of one group, while absolving the other of blame. (which is why I had to comment on the points you brought up)

Well, all it takes to get people thinking about these views is a bit of questioning. And I think that is the role of feminists now. Questioning, pointing out stereotypes, and asking people if they really support that sort of thing. Education is key. Not brainwashing, but critical thinking. Talking openly about relationships for one thing...bringing it out of the realm of 'sexual education' and into just plain 'life skills'.

Well I'm glad that you understood that it was the simple form of the argument, not necessarily my own view.

It was quite common, and not all that shocking for men to engage in sex outside the marriage. The woman they dallied with would have a damaged reputation were she to be found out...but rarely was the man held accountable for his part in the affair

I think as women progressed this became less true, but earlier in time I'll agree. Women were considered temptresses, so men were absolved of responsibility.

And this is the fault of the sexual revolution, and of feminism? Hmmm...where are the men in this mix? Conspicuously absent ...are women the only ones leaving to 'sow their oats' then?

What I forgot to clarify was that this example occured because of feminism, not that feminists were the ones taking part. But I do believe that changes indirectly CAUSED by feminism influenced the situation. I do not consider all feminists to be women, so when I use the term, I don't mean that people blame women for these problems. This is caused by both sexes.

Not brainwashing, but critical thinking. Talking openly about relationships for one thing...bringing it out of the realm of 'sexual education' and into just plain 'life skills'.

Problem is, because of the fringe groups, I and many others see brainwashing. Mainstreamers need to smash those extremists if they want to keep on the path. It'll be interesting as genetics research continues and we can truly see how much is genetic and how much is society when it comes to gender roles.

Problem is, because of the fringe groups, I and many others see brainwashing. Mainstreamers need to smash those extremists if they want to keep on the path. It'll be interesting as genetics research continues and we can truly see how much is genetic and how much is society when it comes to gender roles.
No, I don't think I'll bother wasting my time 'smashing fringe groups'. Instead, why don't people stop expecting feminists to fix it all, hate them when they try, and blame them when they fail? Education is a partnership, so get on board, and try to hammer out a way to deal with real life issues like abusive relationships, sexual pressure, and communication! If feminists are the only ones who are working on this, of course it's easy to sit back and discount it as brainwashing. So get your butt to the table and help!!! ;)

No, I don't think I'll bother wasting my time 'smashing fringe groups'. Instead, why don't people stop expecting feminists to fix it all, hate them when they try, and blame them when they fail?

'Cuz in general, people are lazy. Interest groups get stuff done, so when those fringies start taking charge of all the big name groups, they lose credibility, and that hurts your movment.

Education is a partnership, so get on board, and try to hammer out a way to deal with real life issues like abusive relationships, sexual pressure, and communication! If feminists are the only ones who are working on this, of course it's easy to sit back and discount it as brainwashing. So get your butt to the table and help!!!

Hey, even though I'm a Republican, I won't stand for any of those things, well except communication to some degree. :p I'm not a feminist, per se, but I'm not a fan of people getting screwed unjustly, so as long as it don't get wacky I support it. I think we are very different with our idealogies especially in politics, but it's good to know we have at least some common ground.

"Feminism:the radical notion that women are people too."

"Feminism:the radical notion that women are people too."

AMEN!

So what does everyone think of feminism? Personally, I hate it.

Modern feminism seems to be based off, largely, a bunch of lies. 73cents to the dollar? A lie. It's actually around equal, but that study was done using the median (middle number) rather than the average.

ie:

ManPay 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 = 28
WomynPay 1,3,3,3,5,6,7 = 28

The median for manpay is 4.
The median for womynpay is 3.

Both add up to 28. Equal total pay, different median.

Domestic Violence is another biggie. Look at just about any domestic violence website, and it'll say that 90% of domestic violence is man on women. Wrong. It's around equal, again. Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm. As you can see, the guy has compiles around 340 different studies. Women may get hurt more often, but they are 3 times more likely to use a weapon and also more likely to attack while their partner is asleep.

Two lies that impact heavily on mens lives. This is one of the main reasons I hate feminism.

Having thoroughly obliterated your second point re domestic violence, let me return to your first point.

1. The US Department of Labor (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/compdata.htm) looks at both the median and averages of income (and a third more complex individualized approach) to analyze compensation data for pay equity. Perhaps they know what they are doing as they explain at length here (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/compdata.htm).

2. The facts are overwhelming:

The wage gap between men and women stubbornly remains despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act nearly 40 years ago. Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for comparable work. This disparity not only affects women's spending power; it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in social security and pensions.

The General Accounting Office compiled data from the Current Population Survey regarding the ten industries that employ 71 percent of U.S. women workers and 73 percent of U.S. women managers. The pay gap between full-time working women and men managers widened between 1995 and 2000, in seven of the ten industries examined.

A full-time working woman currently receives only about 73 cents to every dollar received by a man.

African-American women are paid only 65 cents for every dollar received by white men while Hispanic women are paid only 53 cents to the dollar.

If women received the same as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education, union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then these women's annual family income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.

Pay equity in female-dominated jobs (jobs in which women comprise 70 percent or more of the workforce) would increase wages for women by approximately 18 percent.

Fifty-five percent of all women work in female-dominated jobs (jobs in which women comprise 70 percent or more of the workforce) whereas only 8.5 percent of all men work in these occupations. However, these men still receive about 20 percent more than women who work in female-dominated jobs.

Women are paid less in every occupational classification for which sufficient information is available, according to the data analysis in over 300 job classifications provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.

In 1963, the year of the Equal Pay Act's passage, full-time working women were paid 59 cents on average to the dollar received by men, while in 2000 women were paid 73 cents for every dollar received by men. In other words, for the last 37 years, the wage gap has only narrowed by slightly more than one third of a penny per year.

3. The statistics on the wage gap are relatively uniform across numerous sources looking at various data in various ways -- few of which you could call "feminist" and none of which make a simple math mistake:

In January 2005, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation reported that nationally, college-educated women earn only 72 percent as much as college-educated men, a wage gap of 28 cents on the dollar. In every state, a persistent and significant gap exists between the earnings of college-educated, full-time working women and college-educated, full-time working men. The AAUW Educational Foundation’s Gains in Learning, Gaps in Earnings: A Guide to State and National Data (http://www.aauw.org/research/statedata/) is an online resource that examines these discrepancies.

June 4, 2004: Unequal pay takes a significant toll on working women and their families, reports the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Still a Man's Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap" (http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C355.pdf) finds women's total earnings over their prime working years average only 38 percent of what prime-age men earn due to a combination of lower pay, more part-time work and time out of the workforce to care for children. The typical prime-age working woman earned $273,592 between 1983 and 1998 while the typical working man earned $722,693.

June 2004: A Census Bureau report, "Evidence From Census 2000 About Earnings by Detailed Occupation for Men and Women," (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-15.pdf) shows men earning more than women in all 20 of the highest-paid occupations for both sexes as well as in all 20 of the lowest-paid. Overall, among full-time, year-round workers, women's median earnings were 74% of men's, the report shows.

April 20, 2004: The Institute for Women's Policy Research issued a report on Equal Pay Day titled Women's Economic Status in the States: Wide Disparities by Race, Ethnicity, and Region (http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/R260.pdf) which shows that women are paid 68 cents for every dollar white men get.

November 20, 2003: The General Accounting Office's Oct. 2003 report, Women’s Earnings (http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/womenscaucus/2003EarningsReport.pdf), shows the pay gap is real. Women working full-time today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar that men earn, even when accounting for demographic and work-related factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This 20 percent earnings gap cannot be explained due to differences in work patterns or histories.

June 2002: A study by the National Women's Law Center, "Title IX and Equal Opportunity in Vocational and Technical Education: A Promise Still Owed to the Nation's Young Women," (http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/career%20ed%20report%20for%20june%206%20press%20event3.pdf) finds pervasive sex segregation in high school level vocational and technical programs across the country that results in substantial wage disparities between male and female graduates of these programs and inferior educational opportunities for women and girls enrolled in "traditionally female" programs. To illustrate the resulting wage disparities, electricians in a predominantly male field earn a median wage of $19.29 per hour, while the median wage for cosmetologists, in a predominantly female field, is $8.49 per hour.

2004 - Statistics about Professional Women (http://www.pay-equity.org/PDFs/ProfWomen.pdf) from the AFL-CIO's Department for Professional Employees

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2002 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2002.pdf), September 2003

AFF-CIO, Equal Pay for Working Families: National and State Data (http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/equalpay/EqualPayForWorkingFamilies.cfm) & (2004 & 1999)

The President's Council of Economic Advisers, EXPLAINING TRENDS IN THE GENDER WAGE GAP (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/gendergap.html), June 1998

The President's Council of Economic Advisers, OPPORTUNITIES AND GENDER PAY EQUITY IN NEW ECONOMY OCCUPATIONS (http://clinton4.nara.gov/media/pdf/pay_equity_paper_final.pdf), May 11, 2000

So, both of the two "lies" that are the "main reasons" you hate feminisms are actually true. Do you now like feminism? Or is there some other real reason you hate it?

So, both of the two "lies" that are the "main reasons" you hate feminisms are actually true. Do you now like feminism? Or is there some other real reason you hate it?
*waves tiny Cat-Tribe flag while doing the Cat-Tribe Is Awesome Dance*

It's so nice to see that somebody was prepared to do the research to thrash this boy-child in public. I've honestly gotten far too lazy to be bothered on most of these threads, but it doesn't seem like the wingnuts are ever going to do their own reading...it falls to honorable, selfless people like Cat-Tribes to help educate the great unwashed among us...

Even thought the person who started this thread is a fool who should learn to think before they speak, I don't think it is hard to be mislead. Most of the time people will confuse right-minded feminists for militant "feminazis". This is that butch, angry, lesbian steryoype that so many people are used to. But we all have to realize if you believe in equal right for women as for men, then you are a feminist, whether you like it or not.

i just wish that when someone posts a thread like this they would, just for .....oh.....credibiltly.... quote something by an actual feminist writer. something written within the past 5 years by someone acknowledged to be a feminist leader.

then maybe we could have a real discussion of what modern feminism is and isnt.

But we all have to realize if you believe in equal right for women as for men, then you are a feminist, whether you like it or not.
Yeah, TAKE THAT! All you people who value gender equity are just screwed, 'cause Y'ALL ARE FEMINISTS whether you like it or not!! MWA HA HA HA!!!

It's even funnier because the anti-feminists really do consider "feminist" to be an insult. Silly rabbits.

I think as women progressed this became less true, but earlier in time I'll agree. Women were considered temptresses, so men were absolved of responsibility.

I'm not clear what you mean by "as women progressed" or "earlier in time", that's pretty vague. What I can say is that as recently as the 1950s women were held accountable for their sex lives where men were not. While not exactly encouraged, men were not risking much by having extra-marital affairs. Women however, would be risking their reputation, their marriage, their career (if they were lucky enough to have one), everything by having an affair. Mistresses of married men were looked down upon, seen as whores. Women who became pregnant out of wedlock were either forced to marry, shipped off away from the family home or looked down upon by those around her. Women's sex lives have been regulated thoroughly until very recently, whereas men have been relatively free to do as they please and remain so until this very day. Think about it, what names are there for men who sleep with lots of women? Stud? Stallion? And how are these words expressed? With envy, praise, congratulations. How about women, even today? Slut? Easy? And these terms are expressed with derision and scathing. Seems to me that not much has changed.

Well, all it takes to get people thinking about these views is a bit of questioning. And I think that is the role of feminists now. Questioning, pointing out stereotypes, and asking people if they really support that sort of thing. Education is key. Not brainwashing, but critical thinking. Talking openly about relationships for one thing...bringing it out of the realm of 'sexual education' and into just plain 'life skills'.

Absolutley, for me, being a woman and feminist and lucky in that my husband is also a feminist and I have never been a victim of domestic abuse, the things that I can relate to most directly are actually the little things, simple matters of everyday life.

For example, if you fill in a questionnaire and are asked your gender, what are the options? Male/Female right? Well why does "Male" ALWAYS come first? I know this isn't going to be taken seriously by many people, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem. It is indicative of society's assumption that one is a male, unless they're female. It is the very nature of the word "Female" it is "male" with a modifier, as she is of he and woman of man. The language we use can't be overlooked. I don't advocate changes in the language, just examination of it, acceptance that these words have come out of an incredibly long history of dominance by men.

My own personal demon right now is my own name, I'm married but did not change my name or my title, I go by the same name I have always had because it is a major part of my identity. I struggle almost daily against those who assume I am now "Mrs John Smith" (not hubby's name, just an example!). I just had my birthday and got cards from both my family and my in-laws addressed to some imaginary person who is not me, despite the fact that they all know my name and that I kept it! It is these sexist assumptions that need tackling, the rest will naturally follow once people don't just make assumptions about gender roles.

For example, if you fill in a questionnaire and are asked your gender, what are the options? Male/Female right? Well why does "Male" ALWAYS come first? I know this isn't going to be taken seriously by many people, but it is a symptom of a bigger problem. It is indicative of society's assumption that one is a male, unless they're female. It is the very nature of the word "Female" it is "male" with a modifier, as she is of he and woman of man. The language we use can't be overlooked. I don't advocate changes in the language, just examination of it, acceptance that these words have come out of an incredibly long history of dominance by men.

On the other hand, you could view it as "he" is just a part of "she," male just a part of "female," and "man" just a part of "woman." The male is always less than the female, only part of the female whole. In every case, the female is larger and greater.

Now, I'm not saying that's how we SHOULD view it, because I think that's an unhealthy dychotomy as well. But I think that if the language pattern were reversed you would be making my argument about how the female terms were smaller than the male terms, showing how females are supposed to be less than males.



My own personal demon right now is my own name, I'm married but did not change my name or my title, I go by the same name I have always had because it is a major part of my identity. I struggle almost daily against those who assume I am now "Mrs John Smith" (not hubby's name, just an example!). I just had my birthday and got cards from both my family and my in-laws addressed to some imaginary person who is not me, despite the fact that they all know my name and that I kept it! It is these sexist assumptions that need tackling, the rest will naturally follow once people don't just make assumptions about gender roles.
My mom kept her own last name as well, and for my whole life I've had to explain that my parents are not divorced, they are both my biological parents, but they simply do not have the same last name. People can't seem to understand why my parents would think of giving their (mutual) child both of their names...after all, when a woman works on a project with a male coworker they are supposed to just put his name on it, right? *eye roll*

Now that I am old enough to be (theoretically) married, I have also been encountering people who assume my hyphenated last name means I'm married (that the hyphenation is a combination of my father's surname and my husband's) and I have to explain that it's actually my mom's surname along with my dad's (and that it won't be changing when I marry).

Liberal Feminism (No it's got nothing to do with "dirty liberal commies") is simply interested in equality between the sexes and is admirable.

Radical Feminism, on the other hand, is pretty extreme and fairly crazy. It's radical feminists who believe in female supremacy, that domestic abuse is always committed by men on women and if a woman does it she is justified and that, ultimately, men should be rounded up and sacrificed to amazon goddesses. Well, maybe not that far, but I wouldn't put it past the bigoted dykes.


Hear Hear. There are still pay descepancies between men and women in certain areas, but besides this some ppl-radical feminists I suppose take things a bit too far. There was a case a few years ago in Ireland where a woman who was just as qualified as a man for some managerial position-the man got it because the woman was married and pregnant-said in the interview she wanted at least 2-3 more kids. The company would have had to pay for maternity leave for this woman up to 3 times as well as paying for someone to cover for her. There was also a strong possiblity that this woman would have quit after a few years-as a woman I can see where the employer is coming from. While this is against the 'principles of feminism' practicallity has to come into it too. Feminism when it was initally created promoted basic equality such as the right to vote and right to work etc, unfortunately some nuts do take it to the extreme, just like all forms of beliefs, theories and religions.

Hmm... In my experience, it always seems to be members of the dominant group who think so.

So you think it encourages the belief in equality (because if people don't believe in equality, it's never going to happen) to perpetually highlight the differences?

Yeah, that Civil Rights Movement totally tanked. Why the hell are all them womenfolks and gayfolks getting so uppity? The blacks won their freedom by shutting up and taking it!

And you will, of course, notice that "the blacks" are now treated exactly the same as "the whites". Nobody thinks organisations like the Black Policeman's Association are unfair. :rolleyes:

And you will, of course, notice that "the blacks" are now treated exactly the same as "the whites". Nobody thinks organisations like the Black Policeman's Association are unfair. :rolleyes:
Notice how the progress toward racial equality spiked sharply during the "uppity" Civil Rights era, and then plateaued (and possibly even started dropping off) once the black community quieted down...gee, I wonder if that "squeeky wheel + grease" dealie has some truth to it?

Notice how the progress toward racial equality spiked sharply during the "uppity" Civil Rights era, and then plateaued (and possibly even started dropping off) once the black community quieted down...gee, I wonder if that "squeeky wheel + grease" dealie has some truth to it?

Look, my point is that organisations that forbid the entrance of a person based on something as arbritrary as skin colour or gender are wrong. At the end of the day, what gives a black person the right to decree that I cannot join his policeman's association because I'm white, when I can't tell him to get out of my shop because he's black?

(not that I own a shop, work for the police, or would want a person to leave any shop I may own because he's black, but you get the idea)

I don't understand some of these equal pay figures and comparisons.
Person A and person B do the same job they are paid the same money. Person A does a slightly different job to person B they are not.
If A and B do the same job and are paid differently because one is a women then that is wrong, other comparisons are bunk.
Same job same pay, unless you are young and then they will pay you less for doing exactly the same job, now is that fair?

Look, my point is that organisations that forbid the entrance of a person based on something as arbritrary as skin colour or gender are wrong. At the end of the day, what gives a black person the right to decree that I cannot join his policeman's association because I'm white, when I can't tell him to get out of my shop because he's black?

Um, nothing. And nobody here is telling you that he does. This is what we call a straw man argument; see, we are arguing for ACTUAL EQUALITY, and you are pointing to instances of inequality as "proof" that our efforts to reach equality are somehow wrong. Nobody here is arguing that women should have the right to oppress men, or that blacks should have the right to oppress whites, or anything of the sort. We even acknowledge that there are extremists who attach themselves to our movements like lampreys, and we publicly state that we don't support them. We are arguing that all people should be equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc etc etc...why would you interpret that to mean, "we support screwing over white males whenever the opportunity presents itself"?

Um, nothing. And nobody here is telling you that he does. This is what we call a straw man argument; see, we are arguing for ACTUAL EQUALITY, and you are pointing to instances of inequality as "proof" that our efforts to reach equality are somehow wrong. Nobody here is arguing that women should have the right to oppress men, or that blacks should have the right to oppress whites, or anything of the sort. We even acknowledge that there are extremists who attach themselves to our movements like lampreys, and we publicly state that we don't support them. We are arguing that all people should be equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc etc etc...why would you interpret that to mean, "we support screwing over white males whenever the opportunity presents itself"?

So should I interpret this as you also disagreeing fundamentally with any organisation that forbids membership/entrance based on gender/skin colour? And should I also assume that you yourself are not a member of any such organisations, and would actively support the dissolving of all such organisations?

We even acknowledge that there are extremists who attach themselves to our movements like lampreys, and we publicly state that we don't support them.

Well, I wouldn't call the Black Policeman's Association radical, and many other groups that fall under the same category. They don't have to be radical; merely existing is bad enough, inherently damaging to the equality movement they align with (i.e. the BPA is damaging to the cause of racial equality, any organisation that only allows women is damaging to the feminist movement)

It is the very nature of the word "Female" it is "male" with a modifier, as she is of he and woman of man. The language we use can't be overlooked. I don't advocate changes in the language, just examination of it, acceptance that these words have come out of an incredibly long history of dominance by men.


Well, this is a problem that doesn't exist here in Portugal:
Male is Masculino, female is feminino, man is homem, woman is mulher, he is ele and she is ela :)

Overall, I think portuguese is a rather politically correct language when it comes to gender.


Think about it, what names are there for men who sleep with lots of women? Stud? Stallion? And how are these words expressed? With envy, praise, congratulations. How about women, even today? Slut? Easy? And these terms are expressed with derision and scathing. Seems to me that not much has changed.


Now here's something that has bothered me for a while. If a guy gets lots of sex, he's an hero. If a woman does, she's an outcast.


I consider myself a feminist, however I simply can't stand some of the "feminist" public figures around here...

Allow me to explain why:

There's an expression that's used quite often in Law here in Portugal which translates roughly as "good father" and literaly as "good family father". Now, in court, this expression is sometimes used regarding both men and women.

On a TV show, a lady started bashing the use of this expression. A man explained to her that this was merely a cultural matter, with origins in the Latin language, etc, etc. She just kept on going.

Later on, the matter of gentlemanship, someone mentioned it could be considered discriminatory to men. That same woman mentioned that it was merely a cultural matter. :headbang:

And then there's an history teacher I once had... Quite the feminist. She kept on telling us that if we did not mention women's emancipation as a consequence of World War I, she would plough us.

One day, a friend of mine had a little accident in class. While turning around, he accidentally touched a girl's breast... All Hell broke loose.

The guy was pretty much innocent to everyone in the class, except the "victim" and the teacher. Although we managed to calm her down, she had a little piece of advice for the girl:

"If he does that again, kick him in the nuts as hard as you can."


PS: Oh, and regarding my own views on gentlemanship: Women sometimes go through hell to look good. The least we can do is be nice to them ;)

So you think it encourages the belief in equality (because if people don't believe in equality, it's never going to happen) to perpetually highlight the differences?

You're trying to pull a fast one here.

The issue is not highlighting "differences"... it is about attacking inequalities.

At the end of the day, what gives a black person the right to decree that I cannot join his policeman's association because I'm white, when I can't tell him to get out of my shop because he's black?

That's simple.

Your excluding him because he is black is an example of racism.

His organization, on the other hand, is designed to give black people a chance to work together to fight racism. Letting you join would be like letting the boss join the union.

And before you say, "but what if I support their cause and want to help," you should notice that all of us who support minority rights are pretty happy to give them their space when they ask for it.

That's simple.

Your excluding him because he is black is an example of racism.

His organization, on the other hand, is designed to give black people a chance to work together to fight racism. Letting you join would be like letting the boss join the union.

And before you say, "but what if I support their cause and want to help," you should notice that all of us who support minority rights are pretty happy to give them their space when they ask for it.
Why should the boss not join the union? He would not be in charge and they are democratic organisations.
So how black does someone have to be to join, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 or do we just judge on the tone of thier skin? No exclusive organisations that are there to promote a single group are devisive. And they have caused me more problems when trying to explain the role of equality and diversity to white males than anything else.

That's simple.

Your excluding him because he is black is an example of racism.

His organization, on the other hand, is designed to give black people a chance to work together to fight racism. Letting you join would be like letting the boss join the union.

And before you say, "but what if I support their cause and want to help," you should notice that all of us who support minority rights are pretty happy to give them their space when they ask for it.

So he's allowed to be racist but I'm not?

Rock on equality!! :rolleyes:

So should I interpret this as you also disagreeing fundamentally with any organisation that forbids membership/entrance based on gender/skin colour? And should I also assume that you yourself are not a member of any such organisations, and would actively support the dissolving of all such organisations?

Yup.

I even turned down a college scholarship because it was for "woman scientists" only...I don't want to be a "woman scientist," I want to be a good scientist. I want to succeed because I am smart and talented, not because somebody felt the need to give me a leg up due to my having a vagina. I am insulted when people imply I need additional help or "special" rules to be able to compete with males.

Sure, there are jerks in society who try to mess up my life because I'm a girl, and sure I have to face problems that a man probably won't have to face, but so what? I'm too talented and capable for them to be able to stop me, and I've never met a sexist that I couldn't out-compete. The only men who have been jerks, in my experience, are the ones who can't stand that they don't have the power to do anything more than sexually harass me.


Well, I wouldn't call the Black Policeman's Association radical, and many other groups that fall under the same category. They don't have to be radical; merely existing is bad enough, inherently damaging to the equality movement they align with (i.e. the BPA is damaging to the cause of racial equality, any organisation that only allows women is damaging to the feminist movement)
Anybody who believes special treatment should be granted by virtue of skin color is, at the very least, an embarassing reactionary. I consider their views incompatible with the equality movement. The views of anti-male or anti-female organizations are flat out irreconsilable with feminism, since they violate the defining precept.

That's simple.

Your excluding him because he is black is an example of racism.

His organization, on the other hand, is designed to give black people a chance to work together to fight racism. Letting you join would be like letting the boss join the union.

And before you say, "but what if I support their cause and want to help," you should notice that all of us who support minority rights are pretty happy to give them their space when they ask for it.
I gotta disagree on that one. It doesn't matter what a given group is organized to do, they still are racists if they deny membership based only on ethnicity.

They also work to perpetuate stereotypes; for instance, I have a very dark-skinned friend who is NOT African American, but he is constantly told about some unified "black culture" (invariably African in origin) that he belongs to by virtue of the melanin content of his skin cells. Meanwhile, another friend of mine was born and raised in Africa, but she doesn't get to call herself "African American" because her skin cells lack the requisite level of melanin.

Men can help women fight for gender equity. Whites can help blacks fight for racial equality. Christians can help agnostics fight for religious equality. Equality will NEVER be achieved if we all insist on only working with our in-groups.

So should I interpret this as you also disagreeing fundamentally with any organisation that forbids membership/entrance based on gender/skin colour? And should I also assume that you yourself are not a member of any such organisations, and would actively support the dissolving of all such organisations?

Well, I wouldn't call the Black Policeman's Association radical, and many other groups that fall under the same category. They don't have to be radical; merely existing is bad enough, inherently damaging to the equality movement they align with (i.e. the BPA is damaging to the cause of racial equality, any organisation that only allows women is damaging to the feminist movement)

<sigh>

Such pretty strawmen to burn -- and a nice hijack too boot!

1. You realize that all of the same laws that protect minorities and women from discrimination also protect white males from discrimination. They protect against discrimination based on race, sex, skin color, ethnicity, etc --- regardless of the race, sex, skin color, etc.

2. Please provide evidence that their is such a thing as the "Black Policeman's Association" that does not allow anyone to be a member unless they are of a certain race, ethnicity, or skin color. I bet you can't. Similarly, please identify a feminist group that only allows women members. Most such groups allow a wide range of members -- despite the name that you get all worked up about. I, for example, am a white male member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

3. I love how you simply asserted earlier that their was no need for an organization for black officers because blacks no longer face discrimination. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your naivete.

2. Please provide evidence that their is such a thing as the "Black Policeman's Association" that does not allow anyone to be a member unless they are of a certain race, ethnicity, or skin color. I bet you can't. Similarly, please identify a feminist group that only allows women members. Most such groups allow a wide range of members -- despite the name that you get all worked up about. I, for example, am a white male member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Hey, I'm another NAACP-supporting cracker! :)

i just wish that when someone posts a thread like this they would, just for .....oh.....credibiltly.... quote something by an actual feminist writer. something written within the past 5 years by someone acknowledged to be a feminist leader.

then maybe we could have a real discussion of what modern feminism is and isnt.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate feminists because they champion superiority for women, not equality.

I hate feminists because they champion superiority for women, not equality.
Okay, seriously, READ THE LAST FEW PAGES BEFORE POSTING ON A THREAD. You boys are starting to sound like a broken record about castration anxiety.

Hey, I'm another NAACP-supporting cracker! :)

:)

Thanks, btw, for your earlier encouragement and praise. :) I too am starting to get worn out re-explaining the same facts over and over and over to people.

Particularly in threads like "feminism makes my dick hurt"; "white males are the real victims" and "the Supreme Court has been wrong since 1803." :headbang:

I hate feminists because they champion superiority for women, not equality.

Bullshit.

Any evidence? Perhaps from within the last decade or so?

:)

Thanks, btw, for your earlier encouragement and praise. :) I too am starting to get worn out re-explaining the same facts over and over and over to people.

Particularly in threads like "feminism makes my dick hurt"; "white males are the real victims" and "the Supreme Court has been wrong since 1803." :headbang:
I also like "gay people are promiscuous sexual deviants because they are asking to enter permanent monogamous relationships," and "ID pwnz because it's a real-live scientific theory, but evolution is crap because it's just a scientific theory."

Why should the boss not join the union? He would not be in charge and they are democratic organisations.
Why should he not join the union?

For the same reason that when my students complete course evaluations, I cannot be in the room. Indeed, I cannot even look at the forms until after their grades are finalized.

The boss cannot join the union because the union is there to complain about him, and he is in a position to take action against those whose comments he doesn't like. The only thing he can do by joining the union is sabotage it... whether he wanted to or not.

So how black does someone have to be to join, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 or do we just judge on the tone of thier skin?

Ah, more stupid questions. If you identify as black (i.e., you ordinarily call yourself "black"), that alone should be enough. Of course, if you look really white, you are going to raise some eyebrows and have some explaining to do... but then again, I don't know anyone other than Michael Jackson who looks white, but identifies black.

So he's allowed to be racist but I'm not?

It's never racist to fight racism.

I gotta disagree on that one. It doesn't matter what a given group is organized to do, they still are racists if they deny membership based only on ethnicity.

Well, we may have to agree to disagree here. I believe that "racism" always involves efforts to sabotage or disenfranchise a person on the basis of race. Given that currently disenfranchised groups who prefer exclusive membership on the basis of ethnicity, race, or gender are not hurting me by doing so, I do not believe they can ever be labelled "racist."

They also work to perpetuate stereotypes; for instance, I have a very dark-skinned friend who is NOT African American, but he is constantly told about some unified "black culture" (invariably African in origin) that he belongs to by virtue of the melanin content of his skin cells. Meanwhile, another friend of mine was born and raised in Africa, but she doesn't get to call herself "African American" because her skin cells lack the requisite level of melanin.

Here I do agree with you. Identity politics as such is a complicated and largely unhealthy thing. A lot of mistakes have been made as blacks try to figure out "what it means to be black," for instance. On the one hand, many of these attempts have been profoundly helpful in developing a working social theory of race. On the other, they seem bound to set up exclusions and inclusions that can be, on an individual basis, quite bizarre.

They seem likely to be the sort of thing that groups will "grow out of" as we become a more truly egalitarian multicultural/multiracial society.

Men can help women fight for gender equity.

That's true. I happen to be one of them. However, I have found that there are some things that women are only comfortable talking about with other women. When I am at a meeting, for instance, it occasionally occurs that some of the women feel that some of the men are being sexist, or sexually aggressive, or otherwise (often unknowingly) making women uncomfortable.

When the women say, "we'd like a few minutes to ourselves to discuss what's going on and figure out what to do about it," I'm happy to leave. All I would do by staying is hijacking them and making them feel uncomfortable... especially if I happen to have been part of the problem. I certainly do my best, but I think all men are bred and raised into subtle behaviors (like dominating conversation) that they hardly realize they are doing.

So, what is the result of these meetings? Since the other men and I let them do their thing, they are free to discuss the issues. Had I been there, and one of them suggested I was among the men dominating conversation, I would certainly have been defensive. Indeed, I am likely to be defensive when the women as a group return to complain about things... but they are also more likely to get past my defenses when they have already decided as a group what the problem is, and that they wish to combat it.

As I have gotten older, I have become better and better at curbing my male instincts... and I am usually not the one being corrected. (I have also gotten better at accepting correction when it occurs. For the women involved, it is rarely personal... they realize as much as I do that they are trying to change "the way men are," and that individual men are only partly to blame for behaving in a way that society has trained them to behave.) Now, I have to point out the same thing to my own classes... it is always interesting to see which women and which men have the "lightbulb" go off and realize that this happens all the time.

But just because I am becoming a better man does not mean I should get to join the women's meetings. My very presence could make them uncomfortable talking about the sexual advances they are experiencing.

(Incidentally, I was scolded for dominating conversation... and it was one of the most meaningful feminist experiences of my life. It was in a class on "Race, Class and Gender" as an undergraduate (obviously, taking the class, I thought myself very open minded to begin with)... and one of my good friends, Julie, yelled at me after class one day. "What the fuck, can't you shut up when the women want to talk?" She pointed out, among other things, that I was much more likely to try to interrupt a woman than a man. After that, I tried shutting up more... It was a very eye-opening experience.)

Whites can help blacks fight for racial equality. Christians can help agnostics fight for religious equality.

Agreed, see above.

Equality will NEVER be achieved if we all insist on only working with our in-groups.

AGREED! But I also think that sometimes the group against which discrimination is directed needs their own space, away from their oppressors. I am more than happy to give it to them.

2. Please provide evidence that their is such a thing as the "Black Policeman's Association" that does not allow anyone to be a member unless they are of a certain race, ethnicity, or skin color. I bet you can't. Similarly, please identify a feminist group that only allows women members. Most such groups allow a wide range of members -- despite the name that you get all worked up about. I, for example, am a white male member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

(Cat-Tribe, you know I'm on your side... so this is not an attack!) :)

I think you are probably right. I too am a white male member of several such organizations, and off-hand I do not know of any political organizations that demand racial/gender exclusivity. But political organization is a very different thing from localized "consciousness-raising" and efforts to educate one another on racism/sexism.

Thus, I do know of women's groups who get together and do not want male members. I also know of women's studies courses in which, while they cannot intentionally exclude men from taking the course, the professors strongly discourage it... because they want to get their female students to really "open up" about sexism in ways they may not with men around. (Of course, there are plenty of other women's studies courses that these same professors are more than happy to teach to men.)

Also, see my last post on the "women's caucus" notion in any organization.

3. I love how you simply asserted earlier that their was no need for an organization for black officers because blacks no longer face discrimination. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your naivete.

Yeah... I'm torn on the same problem. ;)

I continue to maintain that any organization of oppressed people whose purpose is to fight their oppression cannot possibly be racist/sexist/etc.

EDIT: To be clear, I think that a black organization can be sexist, and a women's organization may be racist. But blacks cannot be racist for excluding their oppressors, and women cannot be sexist for excluding theirs. Racism is a kind of oppression... it simply doesn't work the other way. (Which is not to say that blacks cannot be prejudiced, which is a matter of the way one thinks ... they just cannot be racist, which is a matter of how one treats another race.)

Well, we may have to agree to disagree here. I believe that "racism" always involves efforts to sabotage or disenfranchise a person on the basis of race. Given that currently disenfranchised groups who prefer exclusive membership on the basis of ethnicity, race, or gender are not hurting me by doing so, I do not believe they can ever be labelled "racist."

I believe it's racist to judge a person based on their race, or to afford them different rights, freedoms, courtesies, etc, because of their race.



Here I do agree with you. Identity politics as such is a complicated and largely unhealthy thing. A lot of mistakes have been made as blacks try to figure out "what it means to be black," for instance. On the one hand, many of these attempts have been profoundly helpful in developing a working social theory of race. On the other, they seem bound to set up exclusions and inclusions that can be, on an individual basis, quite bizarre.

They seem likely to be the sort of thing that groups will "grow out of" as we become a more truly egalitarian multicultural/multiracial society.

Here's hoping!


That's true. I happen to be one of them. However, I have found that there are some things that women are only comfortable talking about with other women. When I am at a meeting, for instance, it occasionally occurs that some of the women feel that some of the men are being sexist, or sexually aggressive, or otherwise (often unknowingly) making women uncomfortable.

That's true, and I think the best thing to do is continue to have men around to prove there is no reason for women to have to feel afraid. Women aren't going to learn to open up around men until they see that they CAN do that without fear, and we're not going to teach them that by having men hide from such discussions.


When the women say, "we'd like a few minutes to ourselves to discuss what's going on and figure out what to do about it," I'm happy to leave. All I would do by staying is hijacking them and making them feel uncomfortable... especially if I happen to have been part of the problem. I certainly do my best, but I think all men are bred and raised into subtle behaviors (like dominating conversation) that they hardly realize they are doing.

I see nothing wrong with acting courteously, and I think you are right to leave politely when you are asked politely. There's nothing wrong with giving people a little space, and nothing to be gained from putting your foot down over things like that...after all, why would you want to? No reason not to behave nicely! :)

However, if women wanted to forbid you from participating in their groups simply because you are male, that would be wrong. Everybody gets to ask for space, and I see nothing wrong with that, but if they create a no-boys-allowed club then that's just as sexist as a men-only club. They shouldn't get to call themselves "feminists" if they aren't prepared to practice what they preach...equality is for everybody.


So, what is the result of these meetings? Since the other men and I let them do their thing, they are free to discuss the issues. Had I been there, and one of them suggested I was among the men dominating conversation, I would certainly have been defensive. Indeed, I am likely to be defensive when the women as a group return to complain about things... but they are also more likely to get past my defenses when they have already decided as a group what the problem is, and that they wish to combat it.

I dunno. Personally, I think the problem is with them more than with you. You certainly are being the bigger man about the matter, but I wouldn't put up with that kind of behavior from any group I'm in. I would point out that feminism is about men every bit as much as it is about women. If those women didn't want to discuss things with men in the room, then I would leave with the men.


As I have gotten older, I have become better and better at curbing my male instincts... and I am usually not the one being corrected. (I have also gotten better at accepting correction when it occurs. For the women involved, it is rarely personal... they realize as much as I do that they are trying to change "the way men are," and that individual men are only partly to blame for behaving in a way that society has trained them to behave.) Now, I have to point out the same thing to my own classes... it is always interesting to see which women and which men have the "lightbulb" go off and realize that this happens all the time.

This is true, and I know we have to accomodate a bit because habits are hard to change. I'm not expecting things to get better over night. I just think that segregating people based on gender or race, and promoting clubs that are exclusive based on genitals or skin tone, will only slow down an already-slow process.


But just because I am becoming a better man does not mean I should get to join the women's meetings. My very presence could make them uncomfortable talking about the sexual advances they are experiencing.

It could make them uncomfortable, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't be there. It's uncomfortable to change one's preconceptions, and if you are prepared to join an organization that fights harmful preconceptions then you have the right to ask them to put their theory into practice.


AGREED! But I also think that sometimes the group against which discrimination is directed needs their own space, away from their oppressors. I am more than happy to give it to them.
They have the right to ask for some space, and it's polite and nice to give it to them, and I personally don't have much interest in forcing myself into other people's clubs. However, if they want to form a club that is exclusive based on gender they are sexist. If they want to form a club that is exclusive based on race they are racist. It's just that simple...if they are okay with being sexist or racist then that's the end of it, I just expect them to be honest with themselves about what they are doing.

That's true, and I think the best thing to do is continue to have men around to prove there is no reason for women to have to feel afraid. Women aren't going to learn to open up around men until they see that they CAN do that without fear, and we're not going to teach them that by having men hide from such discussions.

That's a valid point of view. However, I think it has a very different sound coming from a woman than it does from a man. You are certainly within your rights to make that case to other women, and to oppose the "women's caucus" notion of taking "time-out" from men in order to discuss women's issues.

I do not, however, believe it is within my rights to insist to women that I, as a man, should be able to participate when they say they want "time out." I can offer all my efforts in helping to fight sexism, but if they say, "what would really help is if we could just have some time to talk," then it is my feminism itself that demands I respect their wishes.

I do not believe it is men's place to insist that they be allowed into women's groups, and I do not believe it is a white person's place to demand admission to black groups. I believe it is up to them to invite us.

I see nothing wrong with acting courteously, and I think you are right to leave politely when you are asked politely. There's nothing wrong with giving people a little space, and nothing to be gained from putting your foot down over things like that...after all, why would you want to? No reason not to behave nicely! :)

Ahh, that is essentially my point.

However, if women wanted to forbid you from participating in their groups simply because you are male, that would be wrong. Everybody gets to ask for space, and I see nothing wrong with that, but if they create a no-boys-allowed club then that's just as sexist as a men-only club.

See, I just read this as an extended disinvitation... Because if I were to show up to every meeting, and at every meeting they were to say, "would you kindly leave us alone to discuss women's issues?" then at every meeting I would leave. They are just saving us all time by letting me know that the purpose of their group is to discuss sensitive women's issues.

I do think it is foolish (although not unjust) for women to claim that men "cannot" be feminists, or that they want to "run" the entire movement on their own. But I do think they should be given the spaces that they ask for.

They shouldn't get to call themselves "feminists" if they aren't prepared to practice what they preach...equality is for everybody.

That's true. But if having men around when trying to discuss sensitive issues of sexism is going to hurt the cause, then to really practice equality is to exclude us. Again, it is very much like having the boss join the union, or having me present while my students complete evaluations. My very presence might discourage them from being honest, because of the power relationship existing between us.

The important point being that I want my students to be honest, so that when I read their comments later I can use them to become a better teacher.

Thus, while I believe that women have the right to demand their own space, I think it is their responsibility to bring the conclusions of their meetings to the attention of the group at large, including the men. Ultimately, the movement has to include both of us. But along the way, there may be some "all-woman" stops. I have no problem with that.

If those women didn't want to discuss things with men in the room, then I would leave with the men.

And no doubt you and I would have a very interesting discussion in the other room. ;)

That's a valid point of view. However, I think it has a very different sound coming from a woman than it does from a man. You are certainly within your rights to make that case to other women, and to oppose the "women's caucus" notion of taking "time-out" from men in order to discuss women's issues.

I do not, however, believe it is within my rights to insist to women that I, as a man, should be able to participate when they say they want "time out." I can offer all my efforts in helping to fight sexism, but if they say, "what would really help is if we could just have some time to talk," then it is my feminism itself that demands I respect their wishes.

I do not believe it is men's place to insist that they be allowed into women's groups, and I do not believe it is a white person's place to demand admission to black groups. I believe it is up to them to invite us.



Ahh, that is essentially my point.



See, I just read this as an extended disinvitation... Because if I were to show up to every meeting, and at every meeting they were to say, "would you kindly leave us alone to discuss women's issues?" then at every meeting I would leave. They are just saving us all time by letting me know that the purpose of their group is to discuss sensitive women's issues.

I do think it is foolish (although not unjust) for women to claim that men "cannot" be feminists, or that they want to "run" the entire movement on their own. But I do think they should be given the spaces that they ask for.



That's true. But if having men around when trying to discuss sensitive issues of sexism is going to hurt the cause, then to really practice equality is to exclude us. Again, it is very much like having the boss join the union, or having me present while my students complete evaluations. My very presence might discourage them from being honest, because of the power relationship existing between us.

The important point being that I want my students to be honest, so that when I read their comments later I can use them to become a better teacher.

Thus, while I believe that women have the right to demand their own space, I think it is their responsibility to bring the conclusions of their meetings to the attention of the group at large, including the men. Ultimately, the movement has to include both of us. But along the way, there may be some "all-woman" stops. I have no problem with that.



And no doubt you and I would have a very interesting discussion in the other room. ;)

Well crap, it sounds like you're a reasonable and decent human being who believes in treating others with respect. That's just no durn fun. Bring back the penis-crazed woman haters!!!!

Please, I've lived in your masculinist utopia (my father was a psychotic patriarch) and it was hell.

Bring back the penis-crazed woman haters!!!!

They got bored when the rest of us got reasonable. If they can't come up with a reason to beat a woman, I guess they're just not sure what to do with her... of course, it's behavior like this that suggests to me that perhaps their "penis-craze" has more to do with their own repressed homosexuality than they'd like to think.

Poor guys. So many problems, so few people to blame them on.

They got bored when the rest of us got reasonable. If they can't come up with a reason to beat a woman, I guess they're just not sure what to do with her... of course, it's behavior like this that suggests to me that perhaps their "penis-craze" has more to do with their own repressed homosexuality than they'd like to think.

Poor guys. So many problems, so few people to blame them on.
I think it's simply a matter of low self-esteem. If you can get rid of half of the potential competitors in the world by simply debasing them for being female, that's a fantastic way to "win" without actually having to fight. Sure, it's cowardly and pathetic, but we're talking about fellows who believe/know that they're not going to be able to win any other way.

Now, if we could just get women to stop enabling their BS, we'd be able to kill off the annoying little penis-tyrants in no time.

If a woman get's pregnant she has the option of a) aborting it, b) having it.
The man has the option of a) whatever the woman says, and if that means shes keeping it, he has to pay child support. Termination of legal fatherhood obligations is the equivalent of abortion for men.
No it is not.
Men are not (one would hope) unaware of the existence of abortion rights in those times and places where such rights exist. Neither (one would hope) are they generally ignorant about the possible consequences of sticking their penis inside a woman. That being the case they have the option of not sticking their penis somewhere that will result in some outcome they do not like.

As it happens a women's right (or not, depending on the time and place) to an abortion is an entirely seperate issue. An abortion does not create a situation in which a (legally) recognised human being is denied some right or other. Denial of fatherhood responsibilities does deny the rights of a recognised human being. The same is true of motherhood. In fact the standards are applied unequally. Mothers are generally held to a higher standard for the most part than are fathers. This may reflect certain 'social-realities' more than it does an actual legal bias.

Laws compelling parents to care for thier children, are not about males or females, they are about children, unless you believe that most children are female, it should be clear to you that requiring fathers to take responsibility to the children that are born to them, is in the best interests of both sexes.

But if you think about it, grammatically that's what the term sounds like; racism is being "against" other races, so feminism sounds like being "against" the feminine.
That's English for you....a similar problem with the word inflamable apparently led to warning lables being changed, I forget the details, but some people figured if flamable meant it would burn, then inflamable meant it would not....

<sigh>

Such pretty strawmen to burn -- and a nice hijack too boot!

1. You realize that all of the same laws that protect minorities and women from discrimination also protect white males from discrimination. They protect against discrimination based on race, sex, skin color, ethnicity, etc --- regardless of the race, sex, skin color, etc.

Most of them do. However, there are or have been both laws passed and attempts to have such laws passed that require a certain proportion of work forces over a certain size to be from "ethnic minorities". Do I really have to spell out what this means, or can you get there on your own?

3. I love how you simply asserted earlier that their was no need for an organization for black officers because blacks no longer face discrimination. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your naivete.

I think you will find sarcasm 101 is just down the hall. The professor looks something like this: :rolleyes:

It's never racist to fight racism.

Perhaps you would like to know what racism is? Would that help?

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
rac'ist adj. & n.

Perhaps you would like to know what racism is? Would that help?

Patronising references to Internet dictionaries will never trump an actual education in social (in this case race) theory.

Bullshit.

Any evidence? Perhaps from within the last decade or so?

"Womyn". Enough said.

So what does everyone think of feminism? Personally, I hate it.

Modern feminism seems to be based off, largely, a bunch of lies. 73cents to the dollar? A lie. It's actually around equal, but that study was done using the median (middle number) rather than the average.

ie:

ManPay 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 = 28
WomynPay 1,3,3,3,5,6,7 = 28

The median for manpay is 4.
The median for womynpay is 3.

Both add up to 28. Equal total pay, different median.

Domestic Violence is another biggie. Look at just about any domestic violence website, and it'll say that 90% of domestic violence is man on women. Wrong. It's around equal, again. Source: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm. As you can see, the guy has compiles around 340 different studies. Women may get hurt more often, but they are 3 times more likely to use a weapon and also more likely to attack while their partner is asleep.

Two lies that impact heavily on mens lives. This is one of the main reasons I hate feminism.

Show us this survey you claim is done incorrectly

Why should he not join the union?

For the same reason that when my students complete course evaluations, I cannot be in the room. Indeed, I cannot even look at the forms until after their grades are finalized.

The boss cannot join the union because the union is there to complain about him, and he is in a position to take action against those whose comments he doesn't like. The only thing he can do by joining the union is sabotage it... whether he wanted to or not.



Ah, more stupid questions. If you identify as black (i.e., you ordinarily call yourself "black"), that alone should be enough. Of course, if you look really white, you are going to raise some eyebrows and have some explaining to do... but then again, I don't know anyone other than Michael Jackson who looks white, but identifies black.
If the Boss we are talking about owns and runs the company yes him joining may be an issue. If he is an employee, a manager, then there is no reason he should not join. And the purpose of the union is to be a collective voice for the employees to represent them, not as a body to act against the boss. The most successful unions work in partnership with the employer as they are interdependent. Bringing the company to it’s knees very rarely benefits the staff in the long term.

Thanks for the accusation of stupidity, to paraphrase O.W, Questions are never stupid, answers often are! I hope your students are not subjected to such summary and judgmental outbursts, but I suppose they can always complete the course evaluations!

What the question was supposed to illustrate was that as far as race is concerned there are no absolutes, as race is a construct there are no lines that can be drawn that are not fuzzy. We are after all one species. Working in the field of diversity I have found that it exclusive groups and policies that drive groups apart.

There may be times when exclusive groups are appropriate, such as rape support meetings, but these should be the exception. A black only organisation should only be acceptable if it is equally acceptable to have a whites only, or Asians only organisation. An organisation may be formed to support black people suffering discrimination but exclusivity of membership will not help their cause. What of the white police officer married to a black women who wants support, does he form the mixed marriages, white male support group?

Patronising references to Internet dictionaries will never trump an actual education in social (in this case race) theory.

What the hell are you prattling on about? You can't just ignore the fucking dictionary because it makes you wrong. Any decent pen and ink dictionary will tell you exactly the same.

Either grow up and learn to admit when you make mistakes, or fuck off.

If the Boss we are talking about owns and runs the company yes him joining may be an issue. If he is an employee, a manager, then there is no reason he should not join.
Nonsense. If he (or she) is in upper management, her/his job is to get the most out of employees while paying them as little as possible. Moreover, CEOs, Presidents, Vice Presidents and so on tend to identify with the owners rather than the workers... they are likely to exert exactly the kind of influence the union does not want.
And the purpose of the union is to be a collective voice for the employees to represent them, not as a body to act against the boss.
Actually, it's something of both. While it is true that on some things the boss's interests and those of the workers coincide, it remains true that labor must fight for their rights against the interest (profit) of the owners and upper management.

Thus, for instance, I am a member of a faculty union. It does not include administrators.

The most successful unions work in partnership with the employer as they are interdependent.

One cannot generalize so easily about unions. True, some of them have very good working relationships with employers. Others, however, have to deal with owners who are openly hostile to the union. In these cases especially it is important to exclude the owner and her/his representatives, as they may report union activities that result in coercive actions against vocal members and leaders.

In any case, it is up to the union to decide how they want to interact with management, and which levels of management may join the union. Managers have no right to demand membership.

Thanks for the accusation of stupidity,

I didn't call you stupid. Indeed, you very cleverly attempted to distract the discussion by the deflection of a very stupid question.

What the question was supposed to illustrate was that as far as race is concerned there are no absolutes, as race is a construct there are no lines that can be drawn that are not fuzzy.

There are hardly absolutes in anything. Attacking the attempt by marginalized minorities to develop their own space in the midst of oppression on the ground that they cannot establish absolute categories is to attack a very flimsy straw-man. The only one trying to draw hard lines is you.

Working in the field of diversity I have found that it exclusive groups and policies that drive groups apart.

As an (almost) pointless aside, in what "field of diversity" do you work?

There may be times when exclusive groups are appropriate, such as rape support meetings, but these should be the exception.

You are absolutely right: the exceptions occur in the case of victimized groups.

Are you claiming that oppressed minorities have not been victimized?

A black only organisation should only be acceptable if it is equally acceptable to have a whites only, or Asians only organisation.

You may as well argue that a rape support meeting should be acceptable only if it is equally acceptable to have a rapists-only organization.

Of course, if white men want to get together for group therapy (as do, perhaps, sex offenders) in order to become less racist and less sexist... well, I doubt that anyone would complain.

An organisation may be formed to support black people suffering discrimination but exclusivity of membership will not help their cause.

Which are you arguing? Are you complaining that it is not "fair" that you cannot join black or women's organizations (which you so clearly desire to do)? Or are you complaining that it is ineffective for them to exclude you?

The former is a normative issue, and one with which I have already dealt at length. The latter is an empirical question -- an answer to which you will find in my posts to Bottle. Marginalized groups often find that there are things they can discuss alone that they cannot discuss while the dominant group is present. They feel that this helps them... as long as they combine such activities with other programs designed to reach out to diverse allies. Moreover, social scientists tend to agree -- this is a psychologically and culturally healthy endeavor.

What of the white police officer married to a black women who wants support, does he form the mixed marriages, white male support group?

He can if he wants to... although he might not find many members.

More importantly, there will always be many mixed-race organizations fighting for racial equality with which he can cooperate. Meanwhile, when his black friends inform him that they need some space, he should be respectful of that.

What the hell are you prattling on about? You can't just ignore the fucking dictionary because it makes you wrong. Any decent pen and ink dictionary will tell you exactly the same.

A dictionary is an authority... The field of knowledge on which it is an authority is the common usage of terms.

If one wants to understand terms in a deeper sense, one needs to pick up a book with more than two sentences to say on the subject. In the field of race theory, it is a very important question whether the marginalized race can be "racist." I cannot say that every scholar holds my view... However, the dominant opinion is that racism is always a matter of oppression. The oppressed race, therefore, cannot be racist.

Dictionaries only win arguments for high school debate teams.

Either grow up and learn to admit when you make mistakes, or fuck off.

I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the irony of that remark.

Looking back, I see that your first post to this thread complained that feminism is not a "genuine movement for equality."

This strikes me as odd, because if you have such a hard-on for the dictionary, you should know that, according to Merriam-Webster,

One entry found for feminism.
Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

That should have ended your problem right there, no? Because the dictionary is the end of every debate?

A dictionary is an authority... The field of knowledge on which it is an authority is the common usage of terms.

If one wants to understand terms in a deeper sense, one needs to pick up a book with more than two sentences to say on the subject. In the field of race theory, it is a very important question whether the marginalized race can be "racist." I cannot say that every scholar holds my view... However, the dominant opinion is that racism is always a matter of oppression. The oppressed race, therefore, cannot be racist.

Dictionaries only win arguments for high school debate teams.


So instead of beleiving the dictionary you sit there and make up your own definitions? What the fuck is wrong with you? Should I avoid calling you genetically deficient because it's actually true?

Racism isn't just white people discriminating against non-white people, whatever you choose to believe. "racism" is a word. Words are defined by dictionaries. So, like I said before, grow the fuck up. You can continue to believe black people should be able to run organisations that refuse to admit white people, but you cannot deny that those organisations are inherently racist without appearing to be either an idiot or so immature that you ignore facts.

Looking back, I see that your first post to this thread complained that feminism is not a "genuine movement for equality."

This strikes me as odd, because if you have such a hard-on for the dictionary, you should know that, according to Merriam-Webster,



That should have ended your problem right there, no? Because the dictionary is the end of every debate?

Well, almost.

Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted the other poster that I did.

However, if you look at exactly what I said:

I'll second that.

Really, any of these movements that seek to make things fairer by being aggressive towards the currently dominant group (i.e. white vs. non-white, male vs. female) just make the problem worse. I wish I could remember the proper word for things like quota systems, but I can't.

Another thing that pisses me off is organisations like the Black Policeman's Association. WTF? You couldn't have a White Policeman's Assocaition, now could you? How is that fair?

The first line is wrong. Spoken in ignorance. My bad, sorry about that.

The third paragraph is irrelevant to the feminism issue.

The second paragraph is the crucial one. And unless you want to tell me that a moderate feminist is the same as a radica feminazi, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. Sorry about you sucking and everything, but oh well. Next almost-baseless pile of crap, please.

So instead of beleiving the dictionary you sit there and make up your own definitions?

No. Knowledge may begin with the dictionary, but it has a long way to go from there. Ask any political scientist if he/she is satisfied with the dictionary definitions of words like "democracy," "anarchism," "fascism,"... or virtually any other complex term you can imagine.

To think that the only book you need to read is the dictionary is beyond naive.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Should I avoid calling you genetically deficient because it's actually true?

Aww... do you feel better now? Need to beat a pillow?

Racism isn't just white people discriminating against non-white people, whatever you choose to believe.

Actually, I choose to believe that because it is true.... however narrow you allow your worldview to remain.

"racism" is a word. Words are defined by dictionaries.

No, words are defined by usage... and dictionaries do their best to collapse that definition into a few short phrases. For the most part, dictionaries are quite successful. But when it comes to complex, specialized, and/or contentious words, the dictionary falls pitifully short.

Whole shelves of libraries hold books written on the word "racism." If you believe that you can collapse that into ten to fifteen words, then I truly feel sorry for you.

So, like I said before, grow the fuck up.

Resorting to that kind of language usually indicates frustration induced by one's inability to grasp complex arguments.

I apologize for your headache. Really.

You can continue to believe black people should be able to run organisations that refuse to admit white people, but you cannot deny that those organisations are inherently racist without appearing to be either an idiot or so immature that you ignore facts.

You are the one who is coming off as an idiot, but mostly for your apparent inability to maintain a reasonable discourse. Moreover, you ignore the fact that "racism," like "race" itself, is hardly a simply, cut-and-dry term.

People who study such things point out that there is a big difference between racial prejudice and racial profiling -- the former is a state of mind, while the latter involves a relation of power. In order to generally differentiate between a state of mind regarding the differences between races, and the systematic discrimination that occurs do to such beliefs, theorists differentiate between racial prejudice and racism (or racialism).

But that is almost beside the point... as few if any of the marginalized groups requesting their own "space" (as, for instance, a black dorm or a women's caucus) are even prejudiced. Most blacks do not believe that they are superior to whites, just as most women do not believe that they are superior to men. (Meanwhile, many white men believe they are superior to both blacks and women.)

Instead, such groups recognize the need to step back from institutions of racism... to create sheltered spaces in which they can collect themselves, educate one another, and generate a united front against racism.

These are just a few of the facts that you ignore while you bury your nose in your dictionary.

The first line is wrong. Spoken in ignorance. My bad, sorry about that.

The second paragraph is the crucial one.

You mean the one about how groups that are "aggressive" toward dominant groups are making things worse?

PLEASE. Bottle has already torn you a new one on that issue. I have no need to repeat her argument.

So, your first statement was wrong because you're an idiot.

And the second paragraph was simply wrong empirically.

Doesn't sound like you have a leg to stand on.

Moreover, you have (nearly) evaded the key issue, which is this...

When it comes to "feminism," you are perfectly happy to make a discussion beyond the dictionary definition, which is too narrow to suit your agenda.

But when it comes to "racism," you insist that definition begins and ends with the dictionary itself.

You have yet to explain the difference.

No. Knowledge may begin with the dictionary, but it has a long way to go from there. Ask any political scientist if he/she is satisfied with the dictionary definitions of words like "democracy," "anarchism," "fascism,"... or virtually any other complex term you can imagine.

To think that the only book you need to read is the dictionary is beyond naive.

Well, when I want to know what a word means, that's where I go. And you can't pull a dictionary definition to shut me up, then ignore one when it no longer suits.



Aww... do you feel better now? Need to beat a pillow?

My repeated swearing is now counterbalanced by your patronising tone. Hooray, and fuck off.

Actually, I choose to believe that because it is true.... however narrow you allow your worldview to remain.

No, you are wrong. Racism means what it means. Accept that and grow up, or fuck off.


No, words are defined by usage... and dictionaries do their best to collapse that definition into a few short phrases. For the most part, dictionaries are quite successful. But when it comes to complex, specialized, and/or contentious words, the dictionary falls pitifully short.

In other words, the dictionary makes you wrong, so you choose to ignore it. Congratualtions.

Whole shelves of libraries hold books written on the word "racism." If you believe that you can collapse that into ten to fifteen words, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Prove it. Whole shelves to define a single word? Yeah fucking right. I don't doubt that whole shelves are written on the subject (the causes, the problems, the potential solutions, the attempted solutions, specific examples etc.)

Resorting to that kind of language usually indicates frustration induced by one's inability to grasp complex arguments.

Actually, I'm frustrated by your attitude, and your refusal to acknowledge the single most fundamental fact in this debate.


You are the one who is coming off as an idiot, but mostly for your apparent inability to maintain a reasonable discourse. Moreover, you ignore the fact that "racism," like "race" itself, is hardly a simply, cut-and-dry term.

Race isn't simple to define. Racism is. Look up.

Instead, such groups recognize the need to step back from institutions of racism... to create sheltered spaces in which they can collect themselves, educate one another, and generate a united front against racism.

A united front... just as long as you're my colour.

These are just a few of the facts that you ignore while you bury your nose in your dictionary.

I'd rather have my nose in my dictionary than my head up my arse.

You mean the one about how groups that are "aggressive" toward dominant groups are making things worse?

PLEASE. Bottle has already torn you a new one on that issue. I have no need to repeat her argument.

Yet curiously I'm not the one producing massive quantities of shit.

So, your first statement was wrong because you're an idiot.

I was wrong. An idiot, if you insist. Now I know better.

And the second paragraph was simply wrong empirically.

Doesn't sound like you have a leg to stand on.

I'm sat down.

Moreover, you have (nearly) evaded the key issue, which is this...

When it comes to "feminism," you are perfectly happy to make a discussion beyond the dictionary definition, which is too narrow to suit your agenda.

But when it comes to "racism," you insist that definition begins and ends with the dictionary itself.

You have yet to explain the difference.

Listen carefully:

No organisation that prohibits men from joining because they are men can be feminist, by definition of feminism.

Any organisation that prohibits white people from joining because they are white is racist, by definition of racism.

When it comes to "feminism," you are perfectly happy to make a discussion beyond the dictionary definition, which is too narrow to suit your agenda.

But when it comes to "racism," you insist that definition begins and ends with the dictionary itself.

You have yet to explain the difference.
Now that much I have to agree about...H-MW, you do need to explain why the dictionary is enough for you on one count but not on the other.

Well, when I want to know what a word means, that's where I go. And you can't pull a dictionary definition to shut me up, then ignore one when it no longer suits.
Ummm... That's your behavior you are describing, not mine. I'm the one who suggests we should move beyond the simple dictionary definitions, remember? You are the one who posted a definition to shut me up, remember? And then you ignored one when it no longer suited you... remember?

Project much?

No, you are wrong. Racism means what it means. Accept that and grow up, or fuck off.

Interestingly enough, had you read the rest of the page on racism at Answers.com -- the site from which you pulled your dictionary definition -- it would have explained exactly what I am explaining now.

Perhaps you should look into that.

Listen carefully:

No organisation that prohibits men from joining because they are men can be feminist, by definition of feminism.

Any organisation that prohibits white people from joining because they are white is racist, by definition of racism.

LISTEN CAREFULLY: If you look back at your own definition of "racism," the only term that bears consideration here is "discrimination." These groups do discriminate, in a sense, on the basis of race and/or sex.

However, are we talking about the simplest definition of discrimination as "making distinctions," or do we mean what your own Answers.com calls "invidious discrimination?"

Since the point seems to be that this is unfair discrimination -- as opposed to, say, discriminating in medical treatment due to sexual differences, which would be considered perfectly fair discrimination -- it seems that the definition must be referring to unfair discrimination... that is, "invidious discrimination."

Now, in the entry on "discrimination," this is what Answers.com has to say about it:

Invidious discrimination classifies people into different groups in which group members receive distinct and typically unequal treatments and rights without rational justification. Expectations and obligations of group members are also biased by invidious discrimination. If the justification is rational, then the discrimination is not invidious.

Now, I have repeatedly offered a rational justification for the right to exclusivity of marginalized groups -- they need to create their own "space" in which / from which to combat racism/sexism.

Thus, if you want to claim that they are racist -- according to your own damn definition -- you will have to attack this justification on rational grounds... or not at all.

Nothing makes a man more desireable than advertising his hatred of the social and political equality of the sexes. I know I, for one, never assume that such a man is woefully insecure and terrified of losing the male privaledge that has been enjoyed for generations, and I certainly never make unfavorable assumptions about the size of that man's genetalia.
Nothing makes a woman less appealing than a poor attempt at sarcasm in lieu of a worthwhile contribution to a conversation.

Why? We use the pronoun "he" even when refering to a non-gender-specific individual, and the word "man" is used to refer to "humans in general" in many situations. Why should "feminism" not mean what it is defined to mean, the belief in the EQUALITY of the sexes? Or are you saying that only women would want the sexes to be equal?
.

This is an interesting point. I may disagree with it, but I find it intellectually tasty.
Thanks.

*stopped reading at this point*

Takes a lot of effort to avoid challenging your beliefs. Your mind is nearly closed - keep it up.

Listen carefully:

No organisation that prohibits men from joining because they are men can be feminist, by definition of feminism.

Any organisation that prohibits white people from joining because they are white is racist, by definition of racism.

Listen carefully:

You rather tellingly avoided my challenge to prove the existence of any significant "feminist group" that excludes men or any significant civil rights group that excludes whites. Although you had earlier made many arguments based on the assumption that the "Black Policeman's Association" excludes non-blacks, you failed to produce evidence when challenged.

There are some organizations that exclude others based on race or sex. In the US, private organizations have a right to do so under the First Amendment under certain circumstances. Similar to how the Boy Scouts have declared that athiests and homosexuals cannot be members. But you will find there are many such organizations that are white and/or male. Some of them -- like some country clubs and golf courses -- are rather prominent and famous and people defend their right to association.

But your argument about significant "black only" civil rights groups or "women only" feminist groups is purely a strawman.

Ever heard the expression "put up or shut up"?

Takes a lot of effort to avoid challenging your beliefs. Your mind is nearly closed - keep it up.

The irony, the irony.

I would call my self a true feminist (i.e. not one who likes the idea but doesn't follow it through properly) so i treat women exactly the same way as I treat men (well there is one obvious difference due to the whole not being gay but appart from that) this means i will hit a women for the same things I'd hit a man for (and I have)

I admit on the whole I'd discriminate in favour of women in most jobs (probbably not in cooking or science as I've had good and bad women and men in more or less equal amounts in these) as on the whole they have in my experience done the job better.

i'd also save a womans life over that of a mans (as I'd think they were more usefull in general) if all things were equal

I think the sexes should be equal. not one gender getting more privledges than the other and vice versa.

Wow...people really try to use this argument?

No sane person fights for complete equality as in making everyone exactly the same.

People fight for equity. Fairness. And sometimes that means treating people a bit differently. We build ramps for people in wheelchairs. Not building ramps for every single other person on earth is not discrimination.

When people talk about equality, they are talking about equality of opportunity, not making one person less intelligent so that others don't get jealous.

And as a feminist, I make gender issues a very big focus in my life. Women's issues. Men's issues. Transgender issues. I am not unique in this. The small, vocal, and widely vilified group of radical feminists get your attention, and afford you a convenient label to stick on the rest of us. Well, just think of this. How many fanatic, fundamentalist Christians are there out there compared to normal, reasonable Christians? Don't judge a widely diverse group by one element.

quite possibly one of your best posts - ever.

It would be hard to find a single example in history in which a group that cast more than 50% of the vote got away with calling itself the victim. Or an example of an oppressed group which chooses to vote for their "oppressors" more than it chooses to have its own members take responsibility for running. Women are the only minority group that is a majority, the only group that calls itself "oppressed" that is able to control who is elected to every office in virtually every community in the country. Power is not in who holds the office, power is in who chooses who holds the office. Blacks, Irish, and Jews never had more than 50% of America's vote.

quite possibly one of your best posts - ever.

agreed

quite possibly one of your best posts - ever.
*falls over in complete and utter shock at having Bozzy AGREE with me....*

Wow. Just....wow :eek: :fluffle:

It would be hard to find a single example in history in which a group that cast more than 50% of the vote got away with calling itself the victim. Or an example of an oppressed group which chooses to vote for their "oppressors" more than it chooses to have its own members take responsibility for running. Women are the only minority group that is a majority, the only group that calls itself "oppressed" that is able to control who is elected to every office in virtually every community in the country. Power is not in who holds the office, power is in who chooses who holds the office. Blacks, Irish, and Jews never had more than 50% of America's vote.

Wow. So women have never been discriminated against as a group -- at least since they got the right to vote? I did not know that.

The female hive-mind is really not doing its job in making more of its units run for office, vote as a block, and pass female-oriented legislation. Obviously the hive-mind should be held responsible for any disadvantages or inequities suffered by any woman on account of her sex. (Oh, I forgot, no inequities exist.)

I learn so much from you, B0zzy. **the MORE you KNOW**

It would be hard to find a single example in history in which a group that cast more than 50% of the vote got away with calling itself the victim. Or an example of an oppressed group which chooses to vote for their "oppressors" more than it chooses to have its own members take responsibility for running. Women are the only minority group that is a majority, the only group that calls itself "oppressed" that is able to control who is elected to every office in virtually every community in the country. Power is not in who holds the office, power is in who chooses who holds the office. Blacks, Irish, and Jews never had more than 50% of America's vote.
First of all, women are not referred to as a minority (this is the first time I've seen anyone claim they are). Generally the phrase goes like this, "minorities, and women...."

Secondly, the right to vote, for women, is a fairly recent political power in the grande scheme of things....and a power that many women in the world still lack. The right to vote does not guarantee that female politicians, or politicians with gender issues on their mind will be available to vote for. Representative democracies further remove the possibility of having direct representation based on constituent desires, as candidates carry the party platform or risk being run out of the party altogether. You're right...power is in who choses to hold office...but it's also in whether or not parties choose to run male or female candidates.

And finally, women have existed in equal, or even greater numbers than men all through human history. If numbers alone meant power, we would have nothing to fight about....women would never have been an oppressed class...would not continue to be an oppressed class in many nations.

First of all, women are not referred to as a minority (this is the first time I've seen anyone claim they are). Generally the phrase goes like this, "minorities, and women...."

Yes, or if one desires a more general term, "marginalized groups."

*snip*

The other problem with the vote is that bloc/issue voting requires a significant degree of organization. It is simply not true that in a democracy if X people support a proposal or a politician, and Y oppose her/him/it, with X>Y, then the proposal will pass or the politician will be elected.

For the first 50 years or so of women's suffrage, their exclusion from much of public life (including most professions), among other factors (e.g. dominance by a husband) prevented them from forming effective organizations capable of mobilizing a vote.

Today, men continue to control most of the wealthiest and most organized groups (e.g major industries).

Also, there have been other examples of oppressed majorities, as for instance blacks in apartheid South Africa.

We all know that the reason Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated near the top of her class from Stanford Law School (2nd even?), could not find a job as a lawyer in the private sector (but was instead offered jobs as a legal secretary) is because she did not try hard enough.

These women need to take responsibility. Silly girls.

Porn star? Seriously, I'm going to need examples. (edit: relating to where do women earn more than men)

Certainly,

Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineers. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males.


I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove... that men are thrill-happy buffoons who get themselves killed?

How sensitive and completely enlightened of you when discussing the disposable sex.

Virtually 100% of the firefighters and police officers who gave their lives at the World Trade Center would be men; that 100% of the recently trapped coal miners were men; that in the Gulf War men were killed at a 27 to 1 ratio over women (even though women constituted 11% of the military); that, overall, 93% of the people who are killed at work are men, a figure that has remained stable. To this day, the more a profession is a "Death Profession", the more it is comprised of men: construction; lumberjacking; welder; cab driver; garbage collector; coal miner; trucking; firefighter. Virtually no large office building or bridge is built without a man dying in its construction, whether as a coal miner, lumberjack, trucker, welder, roofer, or construction worker.

We all know that the reason Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated near the top of her class from Stanford Law School (2nd even?), could not find a job as a lawyer in the private sector (but was instead offered jobs as a legal secretary) is because she did not try hard enough.

She graduated third in her class... although she finished in only two years, rather than the traditional three. ;)

Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineers. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males.

Now I'm going to need sources. :)


How sensitive and completely enlightened of you when discussing the disposable sex.

That we are... that we are. ;)

Virtually 100% of the firefighters and police officers who gave their lives at the World Trade Center would be men; that 100% of the recently trapped coal miners were men; that in the Gulf War men were killed at a 27 to 1 ratio over women (even though women constituted 11% of the military); that, overall, 93% of the people who are killed at work are men, a figure that has remained stable. To this day, the more a profession is a "Death Profession", the more it is comprised of men: construction; lumberjacking; welder; cab driver; garbage collector; coal miner; trucking; firefighter. Virtually no large office building or bridge is built without a man dying in its construction, whether as a coal miner, lumberjack, trucker, welder, roofer, or construction worker.

That still doesn't answer my initial question: so what?

*snip*

I already gave multiple, independent sources, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, and the Council of Economic Advisors, regarding the wage gap and inequality in employment disfavoring women.

A handful of cryptic and questionable statements without a source aren't going to cut it, B0z.

(And I can guess why you didn't provide a source. Is it Warren Farrell and/or ifeminists perhaps?)

*eye roll*

No, the medical example doesn't hold true. Women deserve medical care of the same caliber and quality as men, and the fact that we may have some different parts doesn't matter one bit. (snip).

I'm not sure where you were going with this or what you were implying. Considering that there are five departments in the government which deal specifically with Women's health. None which deal in the same way with men's health.

Spending on women only health issues are factors higher than on male only health issues.

And, women live roughly 10% longer than men....

That we are... that we are. ;)



That still doesn't answer my initial question: so what?

You misunderstand - the second quote is the verification of societies perception of men as the disposable sex.

Let me simplify things for you:

THE ONLY FEMINIST IDEOLOGY IS BELIEF IN THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF THE SEXES.

Please feel free to correct anybody who tells you it is "feminist" to hate men, want to hurt men, want to take away men's equal rights, or play whiny acoustic guitar music dedicated to her vagina.

You may start here;

http://www.manhaters.com/
http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/games/throwrocks.html

You misunderstand - the second quote is the verification of societies perception of men as the disposable sex.

Ahh, I see.

In that case, I'd say society looks at them both as disposable in one way or another.

We may be willing to kill off our men, but we're also willing to completely banish women and their talents from the public and intellectual fields, so that they can sacrifice themselves to the work of raising another generation of disposable boys and girls. (Meanwhile, we're also more than happy to let these mothers languish in poverty.)

So, in that sense we are both disposable. Our society, in general, is fucked up.

Let's get right to the nitty-gritty here. When it comes to money, what counts between the sexes is what women vs. men have left when their different expenses and liabilities are subtracted from their different incomes and assets--which is called net worth. For example, if one sex earns twice as much but is also the sex expected to pay more child support, alimony, mortgage payments, etc., then it is the net worth, not the gross income, that gives us a sense as to which sex is faring better. Among women and men who are heads of households, women's average net worth is $14,000; men's is $10,000. These are the U.S. Census Bureau figures. Put on a percentage basis, these women have a net worth 141% that of the men.

Centuries ago women were treated as property. What the feminists missed was the understanding that men were treated as less than property. That is, men were expected to die before their property was even hurt. They were expected to protect their property before themselves. If a woman committed a crime under English law, the man went to jail. Feminists never told us about that. Even if a woman spent too much money in running her home, the man went to debtors' prison.
Property was passed down through men because it was the man's responsibility to provide the property. Men's incentive to attain property was partially that no woman who was beautiful and had class would marry a man without property. He was not worthy of this woman--not equal to her--until he provided property.
Providing property was a sign of obligation, not privilege. This, however, did not mean that men had more obligation than women. Women had the obligation--or responsibility--to provide the children. Neither sex had rights--both sexes had obligations and expectations and, if they fulfilled those expectations and obligations well, they received status and privileges.

In other words, men got status for being subservient.

must go now - have to go meet a friend.

g'night

(And I can guess why you didn't provide a source. Is it Warren Farrell and/or ifeminists perhaps?)

Good call, Cat-Tribe... I managed to find that exact paragraph (*tsk-tsk* copying without citation is plagiarism!) in a review of one of Warren Farrell's books.

So, on top of quoting a completely worthless source, it seems our informant may not have even read it for himself... That paragraph probably turned up on his google search, just as it did on mine!!

Spending on women only health issues are factors higher than on male only health issues.

And yet, for some reason, the (generally excellent) health coverage provided by my mother's employer -- a hospital -- pays for my father's colonoscopy, but not a dime for my mother's pap smear.

Considering that these are both recommended (many doctors would say "required") procedures for adults their age, it is unclear why the insurer would pay for one but not the other... unless it has something to do with the sex of the patient.

Among women and men who are heads of households, women's average net worth is $14,000; men's is $10,000. These are the U.S. Census Bureau figures.

You must have invented these figures, since according to the 2000 Census, median net worth among male householders was $24,659, while median net worth among female householders was $23,028.

I do not even need to find the recorded averages to know that your numbers are impossible... since in distributions as positively skewed as individual net worth in the United States, average values are always much higher than median values.

Median values are, in any case, the more accurate measure.

I just mainly see it as outdated. The only possible enemies I see left are the aristocracy and their crazy assorted fringe groups like those really incongruous groups who proclaim to be christian but are hardly following anything of the christ even in their dogma and theology, much less actual living. I see it as mainly there to pad the abortion debate. It certainly isn't making any noise about anything else.

And yet, for some reason, the (generally excellent) health coverage provided by my mother's employer -- a hospital -- pays for my father's colonoscopy, but not a dime for my mother's pap smear.

Considering that these are both recommended (many doctors would say "required") procedures for adults their age, it is unclear why the insurer would pay for one but not the other... unless it has something to do with the sex of the patient.

Again, insurance companies and insurers are biologically, ethically, and morally evil.

Why else would they be such a part of the problem of "Ahmurican" society....

I just mainly see it as outdated. The only possible enemies I see left are the aristocracy and their crazy assorted fringe groups like those really incongruous groups who proclaim to be christian but are hardly following anything of the christ even in their dogma and theology, much less actual living. I see it as mainly there to pad the abortion debate. It certainly isn't making any noise about anything else.
Well, in the USA, another issue would be the whole 'no women in combat' thing.

Here's my blantantly simplistic view of the subject:

I rebuild Oilfield equipment for a living. I'm the youngest guy in the group (average age is 40, I'm 19). Sometimes during lunch, I listen to my old boss (he's a bastard really, but is a good story-teller), he tells stories of his life, about what he's seen, etc., etc., I find it all very interesting.

He told me one story, though, that change dmy view on the whole man vs. female scenarios. He told me about a Drilling Crew that had a woman as a deckhand. She could do everything a deckhand is supposed to do, just as good as any male.

It was rather shocking, as the thought of a woman working on a drilling rig is mind-boggling...although there are many successful woman CEOs heading oil companies around here. All I could do was simply imagine seeing that woman, working right along witht he men, able to take one them down easily, as he told me, haha. If I saw her, I'd respect her...not because she's a woman doing a man's job, but becuase she was a person,doing a damned good job.

I think individual acts like that should pretty much dispell the idea that a woman cannot do a man's job, no matter how dirty and hard it is...and that if a woman chooses to do so, she should be allowed to do so...and paid an honest wage for their work.

As for the abuse issue: my Girlfriend is quite violent towards me...although I pay her back with some kinky sex.

Rawr.

If they can do what's required of them, then they have my respect. Sex has no bearing on capability.

And yet, for some reason, the (generally excellent) health coverage provided by my mother's employer -- a hospital -- pays for my father's colonoscopy, but not a dime for my mother's pap smear.

Considering that these are both recommended (many doctors would say "required") procedures for adults their age, it is unclear why the insurer would pay for one but not the other... unless it has something to do with the sex of the patient.

and your parents unique experience is relevant because um, why?

Good call, Cat-Tribe... I managed to find that exact paragraph (*tsk-tsk* copying without citation is plagiarism!) in a review of one of Warren Farrell's books.

So, on top of quoting a completely worthless source, it seems our informant may not have even read it for himself... That paragraph probably turned up on his google search, just as it did on mine!!

Sloppy dodge, poorly executed. You've not addressed the fact that I provided you direct evidence that there are multiple industries beyond pornography where a woman earns mroe than a man. Coward.

Centuries ago women were treated as property. What the feminists missed was the understanding that men were treated as less than property. That is, men were expected to die before their property was even hurt.
Expected by whom? Themselves, other men? You do realise women were in no position to enforce their expectations, so surely you dont mean them?

They were expected to protect their property before themselves. If a woman committed a crime under English law, the man went to jail. Feminists never told us about that. Even if a woman spent too much money in running her home, the man went to debtors' prison.
Really, and when exactly was that? I know of plenty of occurences in England's history of women being imprisoned, and their husbands not.

How exactly did women manage to run up all this debt you mention when it was not possible for women to get credit without their husband's approval?

I do know that for much of England's history women did not have legal standing, they could not petition the court on their own behalf. In some places this extended to holding husbands legally responsible for their wives actions either equally or in her place, but I did not know that England was ever a place where a man was held accountable in his wive's place. Are you certain you have not gotten England confused with somewhere else?

Property was passed down through men because it was the man's responsibility to provide the property. Men's incentive to attain property was partially that no woman who was beautiful and had class would marry a man without property. He was not worthy of this woman--not equal to her--until he provided property.
Property was passed down through both men and women, however no wife could own property in her own right, as once married what belonged to a women became (like her) the husbands. I dont know when you are referring to, but for most of England's history most men didnt own property worth speaking of. The pre-requisites for marry those men who could hold land rights (the preferred property) revolved around lineage not looks. The property that a women could be expected to inherit was a significant factor in the match, as much as what a man could be expected to bring. Men's incentive to attain property was the same then as it is now, power, prestige, personal comfort etc.

Providing property was a sign of obligation, not privilege. This, however, did not mean that men had more obligation than women. Women had the obligation--or responsibility--to provide the children. Neither sex had rights--both sexes had obligations and expectations and, if they fulfilled those expectations and obligations well, they received status and privileges.
When and where on earth are referring to? :confused:

In other words, men got status for being subservient.
The mind boggles...how could anyone get it so darn wrong? :confused:

Bunch of man haters in my opinion. There is no such thing as perfect equality when both sexes have different traits, strengths, and weaknesses. Thus, after a certain point of time that passed a long time ago, all they are responsible for is the death of chilvary.

Bunch of man haters in my opinion. There is no such thing as perfect equality when both sexes have different traits, strengths, and weaknesses. Thus, after a certain point of time that passed a long time ago, all they are responsible for is the death of chilvary.
Yeah paint a whole massive movement for social (note SOCIAL NOT BIOLOGICAL) equality with the same brush

That’s as bad as saying all atheists or all Christians … or all males …

Sheesh

Bunch of man haters in my opinion. There is no such thing as perfect equality when both sexes have different traits, strengths, and weaknesses. Thus, after a certain point of time that passed a long time ago, all they are responsible for is the death of chilvary.
I can assure you I do not hate men!
Equality and same are not synomonous.
As for chivalry, feminists are not responsible for its death, a more likely candidate would be the end of the feudal system. :rolleyes:

Yeah paint a whole massive movement for social (note SOCIAL NOT BIOLOGICAL) equality with the same brush

That’s as bad as saying all atheists or all Christians … or all males …

Sheesh

Hey you wanted equality. Bam. There you go.


I can assure you I do not hate men!
Equality and same are not synomonous.
As for chivalry, feminists are not responsible for its death, a more likely candidate would be the end of the feudal system.

Funny thing is during the feudal times, the ONLY time chilvary was incorporated was when knights would deal with females of noble familes.

Actual chilvary was indeed alive in America up till, say the 70's. Codes of conduct at that time were:

- Paying for all meals for female counterparts
- Opening the door
- Kissing the hand of a girl
- Helping her out of the door of a car or in earlier times a horse
- Not getting them mixed up in war business
- Not having them do dangerous jobs (one I can agree that could have gone with little problems)
- Among men, physically fighting in certain situations
- Various other curtious gestures such as letting them speak first if in a conversation and you both say something at the same times and etc.

Untill recently, those codes of conduct just disappeared when feminism kind of made everybody not want to get lectured by pissy women. It probably won't end till females get it a common occurance to have men get their tubes tied or something and the whole society just becomes inate because nobody wants to do anything testicular.

Funny thing is during the feudal times, the ONLY time chilvary was incorporated was when knights would deal with females of noble familes.
And not always then as it happens.

Actual chilvary was indeed alive in America up till, say the 70's. Codes of conduct at that time were:
No. What you are calling chivalry were simply social norms.

- Paying for all meals for female counterparts
Some people still do this. It really is a personal decision between the dining parties. Many males who object very strongly to feminism, also object very strongly to paying for meals for female counterparts. At the end of the day there are many people (including females) more than happy to have a free meal, so if you would like to pay, nothing is stopping you. If you choose not to pay, or you choose only to dine with those who prefer you not pay for them, that really is your choice. I suggest holding feminists responsible for your choices, is unrealistic, petty and just plain childish.

- Opening the door
Many people still open doors, for females even. There is no reason why you cannot open a door if you choose to. I have never yet been verbally criticised for opening a door, nor have I seen it happen to anyone else, nor does a single person I know in real life claim to have had it happen to them. As a result of the numerous claims of posters on this site every time the subject is raised stating that they 'get grief' for opening doors, I've even asked quite a few people, and not one of them had ever been verbally criticised for opening a door for someone else to walk through...

- Kissing the hand of a girl
Hand of what girl? Many people do not want to kiss hands considering what we know about germs today. It's not exactly a sensible habit. None the less if you want to kiss hands, and you know someone who will let you, go for broke. If you want to blame feminists for causing a situation in which it is no longer acceptable to assume that there is a right to touch women's bodies whether they want you to or not (under the guise of 'politeness'), then yes, feminism is guilty as charged. However you need not dispair, feminists consider the same courtesy (to bodily integrity) is also the right of men.

- Helping her out of the door of a car or in earlier times a horse
As for doors, I've never heard of or observed anyone being criticised for helping someone out of a car. Perhaps you are going on urban myths here.

- Not getting them mixed up in war business
Do you mean not letting them have any determinition or say in matters that directly effect them? If you mean not inflicting the suffering that comes with war on them....I can only suggest you are describing a fantasy.

- Not having them do dangerous jobs (one I can agree that could have gone with little problems)
Women have been employed in dangerous jobs throughout history.

- Among men, physically fighting in certain situations
Men still physically fight, if you suggesting physical fighting is now either a thing of the past, or restricted to women participants, again you are describing a fantasy.

- Various other curtious gestures such as letting them speak first if in a conversation and you both say something at the same times and etc.
LOL, ok you've really left reality behind now.

Untill recently, those codes of conduct just disappeared when feminism kind of made everybody not want to get lectured by pissy women. It probably won't end till females get it a common occurance to have their tubes tied or something and the whole society just becomes inate because nobody wants to do anything testicular.
My observation based on your post is that you have no idea what you are on about....most of your complaints simply are not true. Nothing is stopping you from being polite. If you want to be polite, be polite, if you dont, then the least you can do is be honest and admit you cant be bothered, rather than try to blame feminists.

Any intelligent man (one who loves and honors his mother, his wife, his sisters, his daughters, etc.) is a feminist. What intelligent man wants those near and dear to him to suffer from discrimination, to be the victims of sexual and other physical abuse, or to be paid less than a man for the equivalent work.

Those men who are not feminists (i. e. who think that the desire of women to be treated as equals is not a good idea) are truly sad individuals.

and your parents unique experience is relevant because um, why?

Because, of course, it is not unique. (To begin with, I am quite sure every other couple with the same insurer faces the same problem.)

You've not addressed the fact that I provided you direct evidence that there are multiple industries beyond pornography where a woman earns mroe than a man.

But you haven't. You've provided a single source (against the dozens offered by Cat-Tribes) that has earned utterly no respect in peer-reviewed journals. (Find me a positive review in a social science journal... if you can.)

Coward.

You are the coward, for refusing to face up to the facts.

Because, of course, it is not unique. (To begin with, I am quite sure every other couple with the same insurer faces the same problem.)

It's definitely not at all unique. Heck, a good friend of mine's insurance provider refuses to pay for birth control pills but is happy to shell out for Viagra and Cialis. It's extraordinarily screwed up. :rolleyes:

Because, of course, it is not unique. (To begin with, I am quite sure every other couple with the same insurer faces the same problem.)

And how exactly did you get this information about the insurers other clients? Either way insurers will try to wriggle out of paying as much as possible, they probably just managed to find some legal loophole that they could use in your mothers case.

At the end of the day there are many people (including females) more than happy to have a free meal

There is no such thing as a free lunch :p .

There is no such thing as a free lunch :p .
Fortunately for those who would feel hard done by if they were not able or allowed to pay for someone else's meal, there's always breakfast and dinner... ;)

What!!! I'm all in favour of women taking over the world, and enslaving men (at least it seems like a good idea) but I'm not paying more taxes for it!!!

If you aren't being sarcastic, you've got THE MOST F***ED UP PRIOTITIES EVER.

In any case, it is up to the union to decide how they want to interact with management, and which levels of management may join the union. Managers have no right to demand membership.
Exactly and as a democratic group bound by a constitution they will decide how they act. If you think it takes an insider for the management to find out who is vocal within a union you are mistaken. Plus the rights of union members and esp reps are protected by law in the UK, any actions against them due to their union activities is illegal.




I didn't call you stupid. Indeed, you very cleverly attempted to distract the discussion by the deflection of a very stupid question.
Accepted.




There are hardly absolutes in anything. Attacking the attempt by marginalized minorities to develop their own space in the midst of oppression on the ground that they cannot establish absolute categories is to attack a very flimsy straw-man. The only one trying to draw hard lines is you.
There is a difference between a rape support group and a black policeman’s group. Why should the police union or rep body need to pigeon hole groups, equality laws are not there to protect any group, they are there to protect every one. Positive discrimination (which is what exclusive groups amount to) is a cause of friction and help racist, sexist people to bend the views of fence sitters.




As an (almost) pointless aside, in what "field of diversity" do you work?
I am a union rep, worked on the local union diversity group, worked as a union learning support officer, I am a harassment advisor for my employer and have been part of the employers diversity program for many years. I have attended and given numerous workshops and presentations on equality and diversity over the last ten years. I have worked on a national cultural change programme for my employer. I have watch the trends within the 'diversity community' swing this way and that, but what has remain constant is the difficulty exclusive groups present when trying to convince heterosexual white males that diversity is a good idea and costs them nothing and takes nothing from them. I find it hard to preach inclusively and acceptance regardless of race, gender and sexuality in the face of groups that do exactly that.




You are absolutely right: the exceptions occur in the case of victimized groups.

Are you claiming that oppressed minorities have not been victimized?
Not at all but you also don't have to be a minority to be victimised.



[/QUOTE]
You may as well argue that a rape support meeting should be acceptable only if it is equally acceptable to have a rapists-only organization.[/QUOTE]
Yes that would be a very good idea as long as the point of the group was to change behaviour for the better.




Which are you arguing? Are you complaining that it is not "fair" that you cannot join black or women's organizations (which you so clearly desire to do)? Or are you complaining that it is ineffective for them to exclude you?
I do not desire to join a black woman’s group, i did however join a transsexual, gay and lesbian group, as a heterosexual male. It help me understand the problems they encountered and help me see the world and how it treats them as many of the group saw it. It also confirmed my conviction that 'minority' groups are diverse and extremes exist in all groups. I sat in on a few session of a multiracial group and also found that by including and inviting others they broadened their support.


The former is a normative issue, and one with which I have already dealt at length. The latter is an empirical question -- an answer to which you will find in my posts to Bottle. Marginalized groups often find that there are things they can discuss alone that they cannot discuss while the dominant group is present. They feel that this helps them... as long as they combine such activities with other programs designed to reach out to diverse allies. Moreover, social scientists tend to agree -- this is a psychologically and culturally healthy endeavor.
So by that theory it could be assumed (however wrongly) that the group saw all members of the dominant group in a negative light. This is indeed the perception of many, it is this feeling that help racism flourish. The fact that it is wrong does not matter once the mind of an individual has been poisoned.
He can if he wants to... although he might not find many members.

More importantly, there will always be many mixed-race organizations fighting for racial equality with which he can cooperate. Meanwhile, when his black friends inform him that they need some space, he should be respectful of that.
He should also ask why the friend see's his colour as an issue when he does not see the friends colour as one.

For example the MOBO awards. Music of Black Origin. If any industry has a very healthy representation of black people it is the music industry. If it were of Asian or oriental origin then that may be another matter. Why the need to group music on the grounds of race, one a the few things in the word that brings people together on an equal footing, that needs no language.

I think that if a black policeman’s organisation is needed then to restrict membership to blacks is to re-enforce and proliferate the thing the group is trying to eliminate.

The fact that some one sees me as a white male rather than as another human being shows that the way they think is no different than those they accuse of being wrong.

and your parents unique experience is relevant because um, why?
Because it's not unique at all. My insurance balked at paying for my papsmear as well, but I was lucky because there were already a large number of customers who were making a stink about their unequal practices and the insurer decided it was cheaper to give women equal medical coverage than to drag out a court battle. My insurance still pays for only half of my birth control pills, though they will cover 100% of a Viagra precription.

Bunch of man haters in my opinion. There is no such thing as perfect equality when both sexes have different traits, strengths, and weaknesses. Thus, after a certain point of time that passed a long time ago, all they are responsible for is the death of chilvary.
In my experience, the only "chivalry" that has been lost was the crap that most women now find insulting and degrading. The good parts of chivalry are alive and well.

You can still treat a woman to dinner, open a door for her, help her from a cab, speak kindly and courteously, offer her your arm as you walk, and act like the gentleman you are. The only things you can't do are touch a woman against her wishes, treat her like a delicate little idiot and tell her it's because she's a "lady," expect her to be sexually "pure" while you philander yourself stupid, or assume a position of automatic control in any situation with a female.

If you really miss being able to treat women like pretty little children, then that just means you're not ready for adult human interaction, and you should wait until you are comfortable enough to be able to interact with other people as equals.

I know that it's scary to think that women are strong, intelligent, potentially critical beings, who can and will reject you if they wish to. It's much easier to reduce them to cute ornaments that you pamper and display at your whim. It's easier to hide behind "courtesy" to keep them in their propper, submissive place, because then you don't have to worry about getting a drink thrown in your face when you blow it...they'll just flutter their little fans and titter girlishly at your manliness.

I know it's even harder for some men to accept that not all women are the same. Yes, we all have some similar parts, but we do not belong to a mutual hive mind. We do not all like and dislike the same things. There is not one magical techinique for pleasing all women. Some women like when you open doors for them, others would just as soon return the favor. Some women like when you pick up the check, others want to pay their own way or even treat you out. Some women like when you kiss their hands, some women think it's creepy or unnecessary.

Yes, this makes things tougher than in the days of ready-made gender-imposed rules of preference, but I'm sure that you big strong manly fellows will be able to deal with the relatively easy solution: TRY TALKING TO A WOMAN. Don't assume a woman is simply a member of The Great Female Collective, assume that she is an individual person who will have thoughts and feelings of her own. If you want to know what she likes, try asking her. If you show interest in her, and appear to be genuinely interested in making her happy, she's going to like that.

Now that much I have to agree about...H-MW, you do need to explain why the dictionary is enough for you on one count but not on the other.

I'm not entirely certain what the problem is. I'm guessing that you were writing this at the same time that I was writing this:

Listen carefully:

No organisation that prohibits men from joining because they are men can be feminist, by definition of feminism.

Any organisation that prohibits white people from joining because they are white is racist, by definition of racism.

My point is that it is harmful to the feminist movement to allow organisations to admit only female members, just as it is harmful to the civil right's movement to allow prganisations that refuse to admit white members. In both cases, the dictionary definitions show that the organisations are running contrary to the most basic principle of the movement (in this case, the civil rights movement being anti-racism). That's all I was trying to say, right from the start.

You rather tellingly avoided my challenge to prove the existence of any significant "feminist group" that excludes men or any significant civil rights group that excludes whites. Although you had earlier made many arguments based on the assumption that the "Black Policeman's Association" excludes non-blacks, you failed to produce evidence when challenged.

I have to admit that I am unable to prove the existance of the black policeman's association, or any organisation of a similar name, directly. The best I have as of right now, is this:

http://banking.senate.gov/97_07hrg/071797a/witness/rbnson.htm

It makes a reference to "the continued existence, since the late 1960s, of the Association of Black Policemen", as well as various other groups containing the word Black as a racial identifier in their title, such as the Congress of National Black Churches. If you don't find that to be a reputable source, there isn't a lot I can do.

The best actual evidence I have that the Association of Black Policemen do not admit white people is this

http://www.bidfrenzy.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Politics;action=print;num=1092385152]http://www.bidfrenzy.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Politics;action=print;num=1092385152[/URL] ]Title: Re: Is this not racist
Post by gollum on Aug 17th, 2004, 6:23pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried to join the Black policeman's association but was turned down.
Is it because I am white. ??? :-/

Sketchy, I know, but it's the best I have.

Further, you cannot deny that calling your organistaion the Association of Black Policemen is not conduicive to a racially harmonious atmosphere.

As for female-only groups that attempt to bring about gender equality, here's one. Not a particularly great example, but you and I both know that there are others. I'm just lazy.

http://www.umu.man.ac.uk/women/womens_group.shtml

Although women have come a great distance in terms of equality, we're still not there. Here at UMSU we acknowledge that and actively work to redress the imbalance.

It's open to all women students.

and a nice hijack too boot!

I never did thank you for that.

Really, any of these movements that seek to make things fairer by being aggressive towards the currently dominant group (i.e. white vs. non-white, male vs. female) just make the problem worse.Yeah, that Civil Rights Movement totally tanked. Why the hell are all them womenfolks and gayfolks getting so uppity? The blacks won their freedom by shutting up and taking it!
Hmm, let's see what MLK has to say:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. "

Yup, looks like he emphasized equality over demonizing white people. Nice try though.

Because it's not unique at all. My insurance balked at paying for my papsmear as well, but I was lucky because there were already a large number of customers who were making a stink about their unequal practices and the insurer decided it was cheaper to give women equal medical coverage than to drag out a court battle. My insurance still pays for only half of my birth control pills, though they will cover 100% of a Viagra precription.
What a crock(the insurance company) ... sheesh BC can be used for everything from cycle regulation to hormonal balancing and can be necessary for good health

and they don’t cover THAT but they cover a medicine that all it really does is make you hard

SHEESH they got their priorities crooked

In my experience, the only "chivalry" that has been lost was the crap that most women now find insulting and degrading. The good parts of chivalry are alive and well.

You can still treat a woman to dinner, open a door for her, help her from a cab, speak kindly and courteously, offer her your arm as you walk, and act like the gentleman you are. The only things you can't do are touch a woman against her wishes, treat her like a delicate little idiot and tell her it's because she's a "lady," expect her to be sexually "pure" while you philander yourself stupid, or assume a position of automatic control in any situation with a female.

If you really miss being able to treat women like pretty little children, then that just means you're not ready for adult human interaction, and you should wait until you are comfortable enough to be able to interact with other people as equals.

I know that it's scary to think that women are strong, intelligent, potentially critical beings, who can and will reject you if they wish to. It's much easier to reduce them to cute ornaments that you pamper and display at your whim. It's easier to hide behind "courtesy" to keep them in their propper, submissive place, because then you don't have to worry about getting a drink thrown in your face when you blow it...they'll just flutter their little fans and titter girlishly at your manliness.

I know it's even harder for some men to accept that not all women are the same. Yes, we all have some similar parts, but we do not belong to a mutual hive mind. We do not all like and dislike the same things. There is not one magical techinique for pleasing all women. Some women like when you open doors for them, others would just as soon return the favor. Some women like when you pick up the check, others want to pay their own way or even treat you out. Some women like when you kiss their hands, some women think it's creepy or unnecessary.

Yes, this makes things tougher than in the days of ready-made gender-imposed rules of preference, but I'm sure that you big strong manly fellows will be able to deal with the relatively easy solution: TRY TALKING TO A WOMAN. Don't assume a woman is simply a member of The Great Female Collective, assume that she is an individual person who will have thoughts and feelings of her own. If you want to know what she likes, try asking her. If you show interest in her, and appear to be genuinely interested in making her happy, she's going to like that.

Fabulous post Bottle, love it!

Hmm, let's see what MLK has to say:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. "

Yup, looks like he emphasized equality over demonizing white people. Nice try though.

Who talked about demonizing white people? Nice straw man.

Try reading MLK's Letter from the Birmingham Jail (http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html), however. He was pretty darn "uppity" and he said some not nice things about some whites that were prepetuating segregation -- particularly those that advised patience over activism. **gasp**

Here are some excerpts:
You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

...

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

...

...My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "******," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
...

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

....

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

...

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

...

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action.

...I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

...

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Fabulous post Bottle, love it!
*blush* Thank you!

I honestly understand why some guys long for "simpler days." Back when all women were expected to like and dislike exactly the same things, it must have been far easier to go a-courting. You could use exactly the same routine on any female, and you were guaranteed a positive response because you followed The Rules. You just had to input a few minor variables into The Formula (like knowing to input "color = green" when praising her gown) and you knew you'd get the Right Answer.

But now women are allowed to be individuals. Now, not all women respond to The Formula. Now, you can't be sure that what worked with your last conquest will succeed on your new target. Now, you have to actually interact with women as though they were autonimous individuals with personalities of their own. And even if you do everything according to The Rules, the woman may reject you. That's scarier, to be sure, and I can see why some guys would lament the loss of the easy answers.

Of course, the sort of guys who I consider "real men" wouldn't flinch from such a challenge. Rather, they welcome a more stimulating, complex, and mutual interaction than the paper-doll chivalry of yesteryear.

Who talked about demonizing white people? Nice straw man.

Okay, knock it off...my Cat-Tribe flag is getting worn out by all the waving...:)

Who talked about demonizing white people?

I believe that was me.

I'll second that.

Really, any of these movements that seek to make things fairer by being aggressive towards the currently dominant group (i.e. white vs. non-white, male vs. female) just make the problem worse. I wish I could remember the proper word for things like quota systems, but I can't.

Another thing that pisses me off is organisations like the Black Policeman's Association. WTF? You couldn't have a White Policeman's Assocaition, now could you? How is that fair?


It's fair in that your talking about groups that are minorities in fields
of employment where they have either been traditionally excluded completely
or where their ability to advance without that field has been artifically
kept down.

Should we ever get to a stage where white people are a minority in
the police force and have a history of been passed over for promotion
above the level of sergeant, then a white policemans association
might be appropriate.

Geez Louise who would have expected white males to be such whiny
pathetic losers.
And please don't lets have a load of responses going I did or everyone else did.
As this white males fragile ego couldn't take it

My point is that it is harmful to the feminist movement to allow organisations to admit only female members, just as it is harmful to the civil right's movement to allow prganisations that refuse to admit white members. In both cases, the dictionary definitions show that the organisations are running contrary to the most basic principle of the movement (in this case, the civil rights movement being anti-racism). That's all I was trying to say, right from the start.

i feel compelled to point out that the is no controlling organization of feminists that gets to decide what women may and may not do. there is no licensing organization that will pull a groups "feminist" license if they do the wrong thing. so to say that some things should not be "allowed" is not useful since it begs the question "allowed by whom?"

there are only individual women and individual groups who do things that seem to them to be right. some of them are great organizations that do wonderful things for women and for society in general. some of them are assholes who things that are good for themselves but bad for the rest of us.

luckily the good far outweighs the bad.

Hmm, let's see what MLK has to say:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. "

Yup, looks like he emphasized equality over demonizing white people. Nice try though.

First of all, unfortunately, that day has not yet come.

Second of all, the question was whether feminist (or black) groups should be "aggressive toward" the dominant group... it had nothing to do with "demonizing" anyone.

And Martin Luther King Jr. was extremely aggressive. That is, of course, why he was killed. (Not to mention why then FBI director J. Edgar Hoover called King "the most dangerous man in America.")

If only there were a civil rights or feminist leader today worthy of such language!!

But you haven't. You've provided a single source (against the dozens offered by Cat-Tribes) that has earned utterly no respect in peer-reviewed journals. (Find me a positive review in a social science journal... if you can.)



You are the coward, for refusing to face up to the facts.

TCT's hyper-protracted thread did not address the very specific question you asked, nor the answer I provided. His typical approach is to pile volumes of fallacy with a few sprinkles of fact into a mammoth post sprinkled liberally with arrogance and self-rightiousness. He then presumes the fact that nobody wants to address his topic-crowded and protracted rant somehow justifies it's validity. Rather than eat one bite at a time he tries to cram the whole turkey down your throat at once - hoping in that manner you don't notice how poorly it was prepared. TCT is the antonym of succinct. When he is capable of civilly discussing rather than sermonizing feature length essays I will be glad to address him - so long as he does so in a courteous way - which also seems to be beyond him.

"Men of few words are the best men" - Shakespear
"A truly wise person uses few words" -Proverbs 17:27
"If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought." - Dennis Roch
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson

Meanwhile; The info I provided is factual and proven. I found a widely reported, distributed and reviewed report and you have done nothing but play dodgeball with it. You must - because apparently you are incapable of admitting that your claim has been proven wrong.

TCT's hyper-protracted thread did not address the very specific question you asked, nor the answer I provided. His typical approach is to pile volumes of fallacy with a few sprinkles of fact into a mammoth post sprinkled liberally with arrogance and self-rightiousness.

If you intend to accuse somebody of providing misinformation along with their research, you should be courteous enough to point out the specific points you feel are incorrect. Until you do so, your accusation is nothing more than useless rudeness.


He then presumes the fact that nobody wants to address his topic-crowded and protracted rant somehow justifies it's validity. Rather than eat one bite at a time he tries to cram the whole turkey down your throat at once - hoping in that manner you don't notice how poorly it was prepared.

I don't see him "cramming" a damn thing. He's set quite an abundant table before us, and even provided links so we can better decide which dishes we find most palatable. If something isn't to your taste then please tell us specifically what it is, and why.


TCT is the antonym of succinct. When he is capable of civilly discussing rather than sermonizing feature length essays I will be glad to address him - so long as he does so in a courteous way - which also seems to be beyond him.

Jocularity and rudeness are sometimes easily confused. My experience with TCT has been a pleasent (though aimiably ribald) one, and I honestly believe that he would not deliberately introduce incivility into a discussion. He certainly will reciprocate (as I myself have learned), but he doesn't seem the type who enjoys needlessly tossing random insults.

Regardless, your personal conflict with a certain poster does not entitle you to simply ignore factual evidence that has been set forth. If it will make you more comfortable, I can quote TCT's posts verbatim so that you can then respond to MY post, and in that way you can answer the specifics without having to lower yourself to an interaction directly with TCT.


"Men of few words are the best men" - Shakespear
"A truly wise person uses few words" -Proverbs 17:27
"If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought." - Dennis Roch
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." - Thomas Jefferson

Yes, there are times when wordiness is a tool used to muddle up what should be a clear and simple matter. However, there are also many cases when thoroughness is preferable. As a student of the sciences, I can assure you that brevity is held up like a Commandment to us, but we still end up with theses the length of novels...this is because there are many times when one word will NOT suffice, and two are necessary. TCT's thoroughness is to be appreciated, not scoffed at, and I would encourage you to attempt such thoroughness in providing specific sources for your own claims.


Meanwhile; The info I provided is factual and proven. I found a widely reported, distributed and reviewed report and you have done nothing but play dodgeball with it. You must - because apparently you are incapable of admitting that your claim has been proven wrong.So you are saying, "I found a report that a lot of people read. Yes, it was only one report, and yes, I failed to mention what people SAID about that report, but it's still more valid than the many, many countersources the opposition has provided."

Explain why your source should trump all the many other sources that contradict it. Explain why the results from one report should be taken as gospel, while the results of numerous other reports should be discarded. Unless you can provide SPECIFIC citations, I'm afraid you're asking us to take your word for it, and that's not really a strong position for argument.

Ahh, I see.

In that case, I'd say society looks at them both as disposable in one way or another.

We may be willing to kill off our men, but we're also willing to completely banish women and their talents from the public and intellectual fields, so that they can sacrifice themselves to the work of raising another generation of disposable boys and girls. (Meanwhile, we're also more than happy to let these mothers languish in poverty.)

So, in that sense we are both disposable. Our society, in general, is fucked up.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I (or any other reasonable people) in the modern world are willing to "completely banish women and their talents from the public and intellectual fields" or "are more than happy to let these mothers languish in poverty." This is a presumptuous, offensive and incorrect statement.

I have never said anything which could be construed as perpetrating women as 'disposable'. Meanwhile you've shared the following sensitivities about men;

men are thrill-happy buffoons who get themselves killed?
and

So? Wage-gap statistics are regressed for occupation.
an incorrect statement in response the the correct observation that Of the 40 most dangerous jobs, men account for almost every single worker.)


Both of which were your response to a post which points out societies 'disposable' presumption of men. Not figuratively, the simple low value placed on a man's life compared to a woman. It is an undeniable fact. "WOMEN and children first..."

i feel compelled to point out that the is no controlling organization of feminists that gets to decide what women may and may not do. there is no licensing organization that will pull a groups "feminist" license if they do the wrong thing. so to say that some things should not be "allowed" is not useful since it begs the question "allowed by whom?"

Okay, fair enough. The point still remains, I think, that the existence of such groups, which sometimes are the most vocal (for evidence, see the ignorance displayed on this thread), is harmful to the movement as a whole. Nobody is "allowing" them except the governments that fail to enforce total equality.

Explain why your source should trump all the many other sources that contradict it.

Find one which specifically contradicts it. Not a general and innacurate overview of national averages. Provice speicific evidence that the occupations which I listed do not pay women more than men on average.

You cannot. Why? because the information is accurate. Why you refuse to accept this is beyond me.

It's fair in that your talking about groups that are minorities in fields
of employment where they have either been traditionally excluded completely
or where their ability to advance without that field has been artifically
kept down.

So inequality is fair? (Please don't make me start my entire argument again.) Black people can be racist, but I can't? Women can be sexist, but I can't? This is fair, is it?

Geez Louise who would have expected white males to be such whiny
pathetic losers.
And please don't lets have a load of responses going I did or everyone else did.
As this white males fragile ego couldn't take it

Check the title of the thread: Feminism. Check the topic of the post imn question, and many other posts made since then: Racism. All I was doing was owning up to the hijack.

And what the hell do you know about my ego? If you or anyone else wants to claim that all straight white males are "Whiny pathetic losers" then feel free, and I won't really care, since neither you nor anyone else here (possibly one or two, but I don't think so), actually knows anything about me.

Also, feel free to fuck off and die. But have a nice day.

Find one which specifically contradicts it. Not a general and innacurate overview of national averages. Provice speicific evidence that the occupations which I listed do not pay women more than men on average.

You have been provided with a comprehensive source list and debunking already. Also, you are dodging your responsibility. If you put forth a theory it is for you to defend it, and you aren't allowed to simply say, "I'm right until somebody else does my homework for me and proves me wrong." That is poor technique.


You cannot. Why? because the information is accurate. Why you refuse to accept this is beyond me.
I don't need to, because the information has already been shown to be flawed. Yes, I refuse to accept flawed data because an annonymous internet stranger tells me it is true.

Yes, there are times when wordiness is a tool used to muddle up what should be a clear and simple matter. However, there are also many cases when thoroughness is preferable. As a student of the sciences, I can assure you that brevity is held up like a Commandment to us, but we still end up with theses the length of novels...this is because there are many times when one word will NOT suffice, and two are necessary. TCT's thoroughness is to be appreciated, not scoffed at, and I would encourage you to attempt such thoroughness in providing specific sources for your own claims.


In an essay, yes. In a conversation - no. I am here to converse, not share essays. TCT likes to bogart a thread with these overdone posts, then ridicule you if you are not willing or fail to address each of his points with a similar length essay of your own. By introducing multiple topics into one overly long thread he assures that nobody will respond to it. Should anyone do so the thread will die quite quickly as most people are here for a conversation. TCTs more abundant posts are not conversation - they are a lecture. I, and most others here, am not here to be lectured to.

I don't see him "cramming" a damn thing. He's set quite an abundant table before us, and even provided links so we can better decide which dishes we find most palatable. If something isn't to your taste then please tell us specifically what it is, and why.

Then let me share a few; For the sake of everyone here I won't bother to quote them since it would take up more pages than these posts are worthy of.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9521589&postcount=215
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9502113&postcount=96
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9500659&postcount=66
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9500680&postcount=68

You will note, along with the inapropriate length of each, the disprespectful tone.

I will courteously address anyone (such as you) who can carry on a respecful discussion. I often ignore or slam those who demonstrated ignorance or rudeness.

Regarding TCT, it is not his job to 'set the table'. If he wishes to have an essay writing contest he is probably in the wrong place. If he can restrain his arrogance and post succiently I would be glad to address his arguments. He often has insightful points - his presentation is simply out of line for this type of media. It is a forum, not a blog.



(btw - I am unaware of TCTs gender, I only use the masculine to be compliant with your prescedent)

You have been provided with a comprehensive source list and debunking already. Also, you are dodging your responsibility. If you put forth a theory it is for you to defend it, and you aren't allowed to simply say, "I'm right until somebody else does my homework for me and proves me wrong." That is poor technique.

Nothing on that source list addressed my point. There is no need or responsibility to address information unrelated to my point. I did not put forth a theory - I put forth a fact. A fact which nobody has yet demonstrated to be flawed.

Here, I found this for you;
ww.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Dodgeball_A_True_Underdog_Story=5dsofdodgeball.wav
(you have to add a 'w' to the front - it won't work as a hyperlink.)
Please take it in the spirit it is intended. :)



I don't need to, because the information has already been shown to be flawed. Yes, I refuse to accept flawed data because an annonymous internet stranger tells me it is true.

It is not from an anonymous internet stranger. It is from a published work titled "Why Men Earn More".
Here is a review;
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050321/21john.htm

Before you go there, you will note that I never said women earn more - I said that women in those specific fields earn more. It was a direct response to the claim that men always make more with the single excepton of porn. As of yet that has not been disproved here or by anyone else, media, academia or otherwise. Why? because it is fact. Your willful attempt to avoid this fact is unbecoming.

And what the hell do you know about my ego? If you or anyone else wants to claim that all straight white males are "Whiny pathetic losers" then feel free, and I won't really care, since neither you nor anyone else here (possibly one or two, but I don't think so), actually knows anything about me.

Also, feel free to fuck off and die. But have a nice day.

Not all straight white men do whinge and whine so obviously not all
are whiny pathetic losers,
Whinging and whining about steps taken in an attempt to put right
the inequalities wrought by sexism(and racism) throughout time up until
the restrictions against females finally began to lift in the 60's and 70's
doesn't do anyone any credit and makes them appear to be
the absolute worst kind of loser.

Your final line merely copper fastens my perception of you.

As an added note
if you read a little more carefully you would realise I did not refer to your
ego at all, but mine.

I don't trust femenist organizations that much. They complain that men tend to make more, yet make no effort to find out why. Maybe men tend to take the riskier and more stressful jobs, possibly due to the fact that men were often brought up to believe that they have to be strong. That's probably why more men are on the front lines in wars than women. It's probably why men are more willing to risk a 500 foot drop in a small box on a high crane for $300 an hour than women. Afterall, there's almost nothing keeping you from falling 500 feet to your death. No safety net. No safety rope. Maybe not even a seat belt. Plus, you'd have to get up there and back down every day. It might even sway back and forth due to wind. Yep. Hormones and social stereo-types. Afterall, if a man complains that a woman is getting paid more unfairly, he's sexist. If he pays a man more for the same job than a woman because the man has more experience, he's sexist. If a white man complains about racism, he's racist. If a black man or a hispanic complain about even slight racism, their victims. If a woman gets paid less, she's a victim. It should bother the minorities when they get treated by the public like they can't do anything for themselves.

Relative Power,

Your post is displaying in a peculiar way - the lines break in odd places... Is that intentional?? Looks almost like poetry... In fact at first I thought you were having fun in relation to a earlier post about men/women singing songs to their organs... But it would seem not.


Also, Heron-Marked Warriors flamed you. A trip to the moderation forum would be a reasonable response.

I don't trust femenist organizations that much. They complain that men tend to make more, yet make no effort to find out why. Maybe men tend to take the riskier and more stressful jobs, possibly due to the fact that men were often brought up to believe that they have to be strong. That's probably why more men are on the front lines in wars than women. It's probably why men are more willing to risk a 500 foot drop in a small box on a high crane for $300 an hour than women. Afterall, there's almost nothing keeping you from falling 500 feet to your death. No safety net. No safety rope. Maybe not even a seat belt. Plus, you'd have to get up there and back down every day. It might even sway back and forth due to wind. Yep. Hormones and social stereo-types. Afterall, if a man complains that a woman is getting paid more unfairly, he's sexist. If he pays a man more for the same job than a woman because the man has more experience, he's sexist. If a white man complains about racism, he's racist. If a black man or a hispanic complain about even slight racism, their victims. If a woman gets paid less, she's a victim. It should bother the minorities when they get treated by the public like they can't do anything for themselves.

This seems to be a fairly young person's perception of the problem, and if so it is considerably insightful.
You are close, but not exact. It certainly could use some refining, but the essence of your point (why men earn more) is similar in many ways to the conclusion of the book by the same title.

You also bring up an intriguing question, do cranes have seat belts?

Meanwhile; The info I provided is factual and proven. I found a widely reported, distributed and reviewed report and you have done nothing but play dodgeball with it. You must - because apparently you are incapable of admitting that your claim has been proven wrong.

Your information is anything but "factual and proven." Yours is a fallacious appeal to authority, because your authority does not in any way represent the dominant opinion in his (or any) field... and from what I can see, his arguments are supported only by a naive view of statistics and a lot of handwaving.

I challenged you to find one positive review of his book in a peer-reviewed journal of social science. (For the record, I have tried the social science database through my university's library, and I have not been able to come up with one.)

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I (or any other reasonable people) in the modern world are willing to "completely banish women and their talents from the public and intellectual fields" or "are more than happy to let these mothers languish in poverty." This is a presumptuous, offensive and incorrect statement.

Actually, it is a statement that was, without qualification, entirely true until quite recently in world history. Today, it is perhaps hyperbole -- but only barely.

Moreover, if progress has been made in making women less disposable in the last fifty to one-hundred years, then the same progress has been made vis-a-vis men. Evidence safety standards for all occupations, and the increased reluctance of democratic populations to see casualties in war.

A few hundred years ago, it was routine to lose hundreds of men in the exploration and colonization of unknown (to the colonizers, at least) lands. Today, we practically shut down the exploration of space when a few men (and, let us not forget, women) die.

The problem with Warren Farrell's book is one of misused statistics. In particular, he commits the fatal error of doing science backwards: this is why he cannot get any recognition from legitimate social scientists, and publishes for a popular rather than a scientific audience.

You see, social scientists use much the same "scientific method" as the physical sciences. Most of you probably know what this is. Briefly, the important point is that one formulates a hypothesis, comes up with a way to test it (preferably mathematically/statistically), then tests it. The data either confirms or disconfirms the hypothesis.

Social scientists, for instance, hypothesized that "men make more than women." To test this hypothesis, they either gathered data on the wages earned by men and women, or they used an existing data set. (In actual fact, this hypothesis has been tested on numerous data sets, and with a variety of statistical techniques.) Further, to obtain the most reliable results, they used the largest data sets they could find, covering the largest number of possible variables (e.g. occupation, age, education, marital status, etc.).

Not surprisingly to the scientists doing this research, the data has consistently supported the hypothesis: men do in fact make more money than women. For most social scientists, the work shifted to the theoretical project, viz. figuring out why men get paid more than women.

Now along comes Warren Farrell, claiming that all this business about men getting paid more than women is nonsense... people have been radically misreading the statistics.

That would be very interesting indeed!! If it were true... which it is not.

You see, Farrell does not form a hypothesis and then try to test it. Rather, he takes the data and searches diligently for anything that makes it look like women earn as much as (or more than) men. Instead of taking the largest available data set into account, he looks for for the exceptions to the rule.

As any scientist will tell you, there are virtually always exceptions... even in the physical sciences, but especially in social science. These can be due to various kinds of sampling errors, idiosyncracies in particular populations, or in the last case genuine exceptions that require scientific explanation.

It is this tendency for exceptions and errors that requires real science to use the largest available data set, and to make its predictions before its measurements.

Thus, Farrell makes such claims as that women are paid more than men in 80 occupations, without specifying that the underlying study included 500 separate occupations. Men earn more than women in the remaining 84%. He claims that never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn... yet fails to mention that this is true only in the 40-64 age-group, an exception to the more general trend.

The important point here is that Farrell could never have predicted this aberration. He did not state reasons to suspect that in the 40-64 age-range such women should earn more than comparable men, then set out to test his hypothesis with a random sample. No... Instead, he took an existing sample and combed it for the exception he required.

This is not valid scientifically. Even having found that statistical trend, he cannot state it as scientific evidence until he has tested it on an independent set of data, thus providing evidence that this was not a "quirk" of this particular data set.

That is how real scientists do science. Warren Farrell may have a Ph.D., but he is no scientist.

As an added note
if you read a little more carefully you would realise I did not refer to your
ego at all, but mine.

Oh well, whatever. I REGRET NOTHING!!!

Relative Power,

Also, Heron-Marked Warriors flamed you. A trip to the moderation forum would be a reasonable response.

No I didn't. I told him he was "free to fuck off and die". That isn't a flame. It might be flamebait, but it isn't a flame.

The problem with Warren Farrell's book is one of misused statistics. In particular, he commits the fatal error of doing science backwards:
Talk about doing science backwards. You are doing the same right now. You have decided that because you dislike the source you will refuse to consider the data. This is called 'willful ignorance' and is far from scientific.
(snip)
Not surprisingly to the scientists doing this research, the data has consistently supported the hypothesis: men do in fact make more money than women.
This I never disputed. In fact I specifically addressed that. You are letting your preconceived conclusion cloud your objectivity you scientist you.


For most social scientists, the work shifted to the theoretical project, viz. figuring out why men get paid more than women.

I believe that is the title of Mr. Farrell's book... So far he's the only one to address it directly. Most others seem to focus on how much more. I've seen precious few that don't blame it on a mysterious 'glass ceiling' or 'conspiracy'. Mr. Farrell is one of the few to address more tangible possibilities.


Now along comes Warren Farrell, claiming that all this business about men getting paid more than women is nonsense... people have been radically misreading the statistics.

To quote you; "That would be very interesting indeed!! If it were true... which it is not." You are now just making stuff up. How very scientific of you. I suppose that is useful in getting the conclusions you prefer. Mr. Farrell makes no such claim. The title of his book alone should be enough to indicate that. Even a five year old would 'get it'. You seem to be over five.

(snip)
It is this tendency for exceptions and errors that requires real science to use the largest available data set, and to make its predictions before its measurements.
Ah, so you endorse 'selective sampling'. Throwing out the 'exceptions' as 'anomolous' data that contradicts the 'norm'. It is much easier to do that than it is to address the anomolous results. Though, it is not very scientific.


Thus, Farrell makes such claims as that women are paid more than men in 80 occupations, without specifying that the underlying study included 500 separate occupations.
Again, I think the title of the book indicates that those results are an exception and not the rule quite well. Do you really need me to remind you what it is? You are a scientist - refer to your notes. I'm sure you wrote it down somewhere...

Men earn more than women in the remaining 84%. He claims that never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn... yet fails to mention that this is true only in the 40-64 age-group, an exception to the more general trend.
Umm, hmm. What age group represents the largest portion of the workforce. Over 65? Nope. Under 18? Nope. 40-64? ding-ding-ding! When are a persons peak earning years? 25? Nope. 75? nope. 40-64? Ding-ding-ding! And this is irrelevant because?? Oh yes, it is an anomolous 'exception' to your pre-determined results. Therefore it is junk data and must be discarded in favore of your pre-determined results... I forget about how 'scientific' you are.


The important point here is that Farrell could never have predicted this aberration. He did not state reasons to suspect that in the 40-64 age-range such women should earn more than comparable men, then set out to test his hypothesis with a random sample. No... Instead, he took an existing sample and combed it for the exception he required.

This is not valid scientifically. Even having found that statistical trend, he cannot state it as scientific evidence until he has tested it on an independent set of data, thus providing evidence that this was not a "quirk" of this particular data set.

That is how real scientists do science. Warren Farrell may have a Ph.D., but he is no scientist.
You are so wrong here I don't even know where to start. Data is data. Your hypothesis prior to collecting it does not have any relevance to it. (at least in real science, not your 'selective data based on expected results' science) You didn't question the 'abberation' when it gave you the concluison that you sought. When someone else took a look at the same data and illustrated a conclusion that you disliked you suddenly decide the data is invalid?? (cough-cough - hypo-cough-crite) Newsflash: The interpretation of data has no bearing on it's validity.

You are so determined to ignore facts that contradict your own preconceptions as to be shameful. Buried deep in this hypocritical rant is your admission that that I had correctly pointed out that you were wrong in your presumption that porn is the only industry that women earn more than men. It was a simple point hardly worth of the frantic avoidance you've perpetrated. If you find it so difficult to admit your own errors then I have difficulty carrying on any conversation with you -- let alone taking you serious as a 'scientist'.

If you cannot conceed 'facts' (let alone discuss my points without changing them to things I never said or implied) then your reasoning is unsound, your logic is flawed, your results are biased and your 'science' is laughable.

No I didn't. I told him he was "free to fuck off and die". That isn't a flame. It might be flamebait, but it isn't a flame.

I'm no mod - but I'll certainly encourage you to test that theory. Place your querie in the moderation forum and lets see what they say.

Actually, it is a statement that was, without qualification, entirely true until quite recently in world history. Today, it is perhaps hyperbole -- but only barely.

Moreover, if progress has been made in making women less disposable in the last fifty to one-hundred years, then the same progress has been made vis-a-vis men. Evidence safety standards for all occupations, and the increased reluctance of democratic populations to see casualties in war.

A few hundred years ago, it was routine to lose hundreds of men in the exploration and colonization of unknown (to the colonizers, at least) lands. Today, we practically shut down the exploration of space when a few men (and, let us not forget, women) die.

Yet, despite all those safety standards, men still have the more dangerous jobs and workplace deaths are still nearly exclusivly men. (who's families I'm sure would not consider it 'hyperbole') Women are not treated 'disposable' in the modern world today at all. Men are treated considerably more so. How women long since dead were treated has little bearing on how men should be treated today.

I'm no mod - but I'll certainly encourage you to test that theory. Place your querie in the moderation forum and lets see what they say.

Yes, lets.

Talk about doing science backwards. You are doing the same right now. You have decided that because you dislike the source you will refuse to consider the data. This is called 'willful ignorance' and is far from scientific.



But AnarchyeL is right about the fact that that study was scientificaly invalid. Taking a huge data set and analysing it for small subsets that disagree with the larger trends is just rubbish. You can't compare that with the fact that AnarchyeL seems to have a preconceived notion that the study wass crap, because there was every reaon to believe the study was crap, as there is very strong evidence that woman are paid less than men for similar work. It's natural to approach any contrary claim with scepticism. If the researcher had followed the scientific method there might be some validity to the study.

Yet, despite all those safety standards, men still have the more dangerous jobs and workplace deaths are still nearly exclusivly men. (who's families I'm sure would not consider it 'hyperbole') Women are not treated 'disposable' in the modern world today at all. Men are treated considerably more so. How women long since dead were treated has little bearing on how men should be treated today.
i know this disparity obsesses you (since you wont let it go and bring it up in every feminism thread) but i fail to see what it has to do with feminism.

there are way more men in dangerous jobs mostly because more men are physically capable of those jobs than women are. and perhaps because of a societal attitude that makes it OK for a man to risk his life even when he has a family.

the more feminists push for equality the less of a disparity there will be between people of similar physical capabilities. isnt that what you want?

i know this disparity obsesses you (since you wont let it go and bring it up in every feminism thread) but i fail to see what it has to do with feminism.
That was a reply to comments several pages back. Check, if you want to follow along.

there are way more men in dangerous jobs mostly because more men are physically capable of those jobs than women are. and perhaps because of a societal attitude that makes it OK for a man to risk his life even when he has a family.
So if I understand your argument, there are jobs for which women are physically not qualified for? I have strong doubts about that... And it is that very same social attitude you mention which I am being critical of. It does not make it OK. Even jobs where women ARE represented (Fireman, Police) the deaths on the job are almost the exclusive territory of men.

the more feminists push for equality the less of a disparity there will be between people of similar physical capabilities. isnt that what you want?
What I want is the acknowledgement that 'equality' is a subjective term. There are roles to which men and women are better suited and mitigating factors which affect their ability to perform them. There are complex factors which cannot be broken down to 'he makes more than she' without gross and inadequate over-simplification.

What I want is the realization that most arguments over income disparity between the sexes are a straw man argument full of abused statistics and hidden agendas. When people are ready to accept critical objection to 'politically correct' pre-determined results then we can say that progress is being made. With the veracity that most here avoid adddressing obvious fact which they fear may threaten these preconceptions - that time is still a long way off.

But AnarchyeL is right about the fact that that study was scientificaly invalid.
There is a considerable difference between validity and political correctness. I strongly suggest you brush up on it. (unless you wish to be the pawn of special interests for the rest of your life). Nobody has illustrated anything beyond their own denial which address the validity of the specific facts I mentioned - let alone invalidates them. Be careful - note my language carefully. I am NOT Warren Farrell. I am quite capable of determining what is fact and what is speculation. If you incorrectly attribute something to me I will be merciless...

Taking a huge data set and analysing it for small subsets that disagree with the larger trends is just rubbish.
LOL! Who taught you science? You are well deserving of a refund. You should talk with your philosophy instructor too. (but regarding spelling I will be kind, I hate grammar nazis.) I certainly hope you never take your 'scientific' method into a place where you could do real damage. Please, stay away from pharmaceutical research. I'd hate to see what happens to a 'small' subset (like single men 40-65 years of age) who have a negative reaction to your medicine.

You can't compare that with the fact that AnarchyeL seems to have a preconceived notion that the study wass crap, because there was every reaon to believe the study was crap,
So you are of the opinion then that the only career where a woman is more likely to make money than a man is porn. How 'enlightened' of you. You should share that opinion with your feminist friends.

as there is very strong evidence that woman are paid less than men for similar work. It's natural to approach any contrary claim with scepticism. If the researcher had followed the scientific method there might be some validity to the study.

You have fallen into the same trap of ignorance as AnarchyeL; you presume a claim is made which has not been because you are threatened by the actual claim. Nobody has claimed that women are not paid less in most fields.

You are arguing against a point which nobody has made. I'm not sure what would make you look more foolish - winning or losing?

So if I understand your argument, there are jobs for which women are physically not qualified for? I have strong doubts about that... And it is that very same social attitude you mention which I am being critical of. It does not make it OK. Even jobs where women ARE represented (Fireman, Police) the deaths on the job are almost the exclusive territory of men.

no, im saying that the physical requirements of certain jobs means that more men will qualify for them than women. consider for a moment king crab fishing--one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. most crab fishers are men. few women WANT the job no matter how much it pays and relatively few women have the physicality required.

however SOME WOMEN DO. and those women should not be barred from taking a job catching king crab. nor should she be paid less than a man doing the same job.

when women are not automatically disqualified for for "men's" jobs, the only disparity between numbers of death by gender will be a reflection of the average physical qualifications of men vs women.


What I want is the acknowledgement that 'equality' is a subjective term. There are roles to which men and women are better suited and mitigating factors which affect their ability to perform them. There are complex factors which cannot be broken down to 'he makes more than she' without gross and inadequate over-simplification.
i assume that what you mean is that since more women will be day care providers and more men will be crab fishermen, to whine about their income disparity is useless. we arent a communist country where all work is paid the same. people make their choices and some jobs pay less than others, its not MEN'S fault that day care is paid less than crab fishing.

that does have to be taken into consideration but its not the whole story.


What I want is the realization that most arguments over income disparity between the sexes are a straw man argument full of abused statistics and hidden agendas. When people are ready to accept critical objection to 'politically correct' pre-determined results then we can say that progress is being made. With the veracity that most here avoid adddressing obvious fact which they fear may threaten these preconceptions - that time is still a long way off.
as long as equal jobs receive equal pay for equal work, ill be satisified. i dont think we're there yet. until that happens its not a strawman.

no, im saying that the physical requirements of certain jobs means that more men will qualify for them than women. consider for a moment king crab fishing--one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. most crab fishers are men. few women WANT the job no matter how much it pays and relatively few women have the physicality required.

A reasonable example. Now - WHY is it, you suppose, that women have no interest in the job? Why is it that men do? I would argue against the physical limitations of women, but that is secondary to my primary question.

however SOME WOMEN DO. and those women should not be barred from taking a job catching king crab. nor should she be paid less than a man doing the same job.

and you have examples of women who were denied employment or pay as KC fisher-people based solely on their gender? You mentioned physical limitation - if this were to preclude a woman from getting the job would it be a fair employment practice? What if the physical limitation had a real possibility of resulting in a safety risk to the crew? Which is the fair way to do things?

Yes, I'm asking hard questions. I told you earlier that equality is a fluid subjective thing. There is no easily packaged one-size-fits-all answer. Even when discussing employment among the same gender. Any attempt to do so is only valid in the realm of fantasy.


when women are not automatically disqualified for for "men's" jobs, the only disparity between numbers of death by gender will be a reflection of the average physical qualifications of men vs women.
You incorrectly assume women in the modern world have been disqualified based on gender. In spite of that - even in fields where women are quite common (like the police and fire dept I mentioned earlier) the on job deaths are nearly exclusive to men. That seems to disprove your theory. Modify or explain.

i assume that what you mean is that since more women will be day care providers and more men will be crab fishermen, to whine about their income disparity is useless. we arent a communist country where all work is paid the same. people make their choices and some jobs pay less than others, its not MEN'S fault that day care is paid less than crab fishing.
You are correct in this example - income by occupation is very fair. There are considerably more factors which affect income beyond this. The scope of which are beyond the scope of this post (hell, there are books on the subject). Just to mention a few in no particular order or detail; work experience, seniority, hours, full/part time, comissions, secondary vs primary household career, additional education/licensing, business ownership, etc. etc. etc. Each could be an entire chapter. It is far more complex than 'he makes more than she' or 'his job pays more than hers'.

as long as equal jobs receive equal pay for equal work, ill be satisified. i dont think we're there yet. until that happens its not a strawman.
Your statement is one more aligned with the flawed concepts of communism and socialism than it is with gender equality. - And that is material for a seperate thread.

A reasonable example. Now - WHY is it, you suppose, that women have no interest in the job? Why is it that men do? I would argue against the physical limitations of women, but that is secondary to my primary question.
.
i have no interest in WHY men take more dangerous jobs.

i wasnt really trying to suggest that there is rampant discrimination in the crab business. i have NO idea how women fare in that field of employment. i was just using it as a non-public employment that is very dangerous.

for all i know there may be NO women willing to take the job no matter how strong they are. lord knows most men are not willing to do it.

nor do i care why more male cops die than female cops (i assume you mean proportionately more).

i just dont see it as a feminist issue. and if it IS due to sex role stereotypes then feminism will only tend to correct it over time.

there is still disparity between equal pay for equal work. this is not as bad as it used to be. im sure you werent even alive when the newspaper classified ads were divided into "male wanted" and "female wanted"

this disparity will continue to diminish over time until there is no longer any reason for statistical differences besides job performance.