NationStates Jolt Archive

Fenism seems to have won the war. Great for them. But then It carried on. So we waited and watched to see what would happen. Now I'm starting to feel that we should have locked ourselves in at true equality. So maybe they're not getting paid as much as men. But they sure seem to be treated better.

Maybe I'm going to start burning a item of 'male-only clothing' instead of bra's in the name of Masculinism.

Fenism seems to have won the war. Great for them. But then It carried on. So we waited and watched to see what would happen. Now I'm starting to feel that we should have locked ourselves in at true equality. So maybe they're not getting paid as much as men. But they sure seem to be treated better.

Maybe I'm going to start burning a item of 'male-only clothing' instead of bra's in the name of Masculinism.
Which article of clothing is male only?

Feminism = True Equality.

Fenism seems to have won the war. Great for them. But then It carried on. So we waited and watched to see what would happen. Now I'm starting to feel that we should have locked ourselves in at true equality. So maybe they're not getting paid as much as men. But they sure seem to be treated better."They sure seem to be treated better" is vague, can you elaborate?

Which article of clothing is male only?

That's my point. Maybe I should go to school in a bra and frenchies.

Fenism seems to have won the war. Great for them. But then It carried on. So we waited and watched to see what would happen. Now I'm starting to feel that we should have locked ourselves in at true equality. So maybe they're not getting paid as much as men. But they sure seem to be treated better.

Maybe I'm going to start burning a item of 'male-only clothing' instead of bra's in the name of Masculinism.

That's a biased, chauvanistic opinion. I can't believe that you would even suggest that women have reached a higher status then men. How many female presidents have served? How many Canadian cabinet members are female? How many men have been brutally raped? How many men have to wear birkhas? The list goes on.

That's my point. Maybe I should go to school in a bra and frenchies.Which would fall under the realm of feminism.

"They sure seem to be treated better" is vague, can you elaborate?

Seconded.

I'm at the point where I just don't give a shit anymore.

Feminism = True Equality.
I think he is referring to the FemiNazi sect of Feminism, were goal is to make women superior to men.

I think he is referring to the FemiNazi sect of Feminism, were goal is to make women superior to men.

That is not feminism.

That's my point. Maybe I should go to school in a bra and frenchies.

Lot's of articles of clothing are designed for males. And, yes, of course women wear them (occasionally). So, yes, men can wear skirts and bras, if they should really like to. But don't blame women if they don't. Blame male insecurity.

Which article of clothing is male only?
I'd say that a cod piece is male-only.

That is not feminism.
But, they claim to be feminists. Confusion between the two is likely to happen.

I'd say that a cod piece is male-only.
What the hell is a cod piece?

I'd say that a cod piece is male-only.

*Tries to burn a cod without success*

Why don't you get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich?! :D
JK JK, I'm for gender equity - equal opportunities, but still with the realization that men and women are different

Feminism = True Equality.
Correct. Anything more is not feminism at all, but female supremacism.

But, they claim to be feminists. Confusion between the two is likely to happen.

I have yet to see a feminist espouse these views which chauvinists claim them to.

Maybe I'm going to start burning a item of 'male-only clothing' instead of bra's in the name of Masculinism.

Jock-strap perhaps?

oh shit, I didn't see the 'true equality' choice. :(

I didn't realize that feminism had waged a war.

"Fenism seems to have won the war. Great for them"

followed by

"So maybe they're not getting paid as much as men"

Hmmm... the second statement kinda cancels out the first, don't you think?

I also don't think of it as a war. At least not in the way you seem to be implying.

Feminism hasn't achieved its cause as long as somewhere, women are still paid less than men for the same or comparable work, as long as there are double standards, and as long as women somewhere have less rights than men.

And I agree with real feminists. People shouldn't be judged differently based on what's in between their legs.

I have yet to see a feminist espouse these views which chauvinists claim them to.
I have once (on TV oddly enough). She basically said: Women will raise up and free themselves from mans oppression and rule the world like the sages we(women) are.

Which article of clothing is male only?
Condoms? :confused:

Condoms? :confused:
Nope, there are female condoms.

That's a biased, chauvanistic opinion.... How many men have been brutally raped? How many men have to wear birkhas? The list goes on.
Actually I was raped. I was fours years old and the girl was my 12 year old next door neighbour. We tried to press charges but even 10 years ago the courts didn't think it possible for a girl to rape a boy. It didn't even reach court. Thankfully the family moved shortly after but that doesn't change what happened to me. So you can shut the fuck up. In big business and politics things are not yet equal but they're getting there. In the day to day life men are expected to suck it up. We're only just getting respected in court when we bring up rape charges. Men are always shown as the great tyrants who have oppressed women since time began. Fuck that. If you're working towards a greater female presence in management and politics or you're working towards more rights for women in third world countries, something that really matters then I fully respect you. But if you're just bitching about how men are always oppressing women, you shut the fuck up. Yes rape is horrible but if I had been a girl justice would have been met. You can't say this is fair so stop saying only women have issues.

Nope, there are female condoms.

Yeah, but they're not quite the same are they. I mean, a woman could certainly try to wear a male condom, but, short of perhaps getting several and forming them into a makeshift glove, I can't see them having much success.

Perhaps one of those sorta flat cloth caps that your average, archetypal farmer would wear (or an old man)? I can't even imagine a woman in one of those, let alone claim to have seen said spectacle.

Nope, there are female condoms.
There's also female underwear, and yet, it is somehow different from that that men usually wear... ;)

Although I agree that in someways women are at a disadvantage, I would agree also with the original poster to the extent. A man is expected to: offer to carry a women's bags, offer to aid her in any situation, be unfeeling when they are screwed over by the woman they love, etc. Now I am all for the man chosing of his own free will to do such things, but a society that expects him to do so, and is critical when he doesn't, has something wrong. I have met women who have a very throwaway feeling towards men, that they can do whatever they like and all it takes is a simper and a mince and they are out of it. I agree that this is not the attitude taken by feminists, however it is a side effect where women want all the benefits of the dying gentleman culture but ALSO the benefits of the new equality culture. You cannot have your cake and eat it, ladies. (not said to anyone is particular, just to those few who act as I have outlined above.)

Equal opportunity without compensation for natural disadvantages.

Although I agree that in someways women are at a disadvantage, I would agree also with the original poster to the extent. A man is expected to: offer to carry a women's bags, offer to aid her in any situation, be unfeeling when they are screwed over by the woman they love, etc. Now I am all for the man chosing of his own free will to do such things, but a society that expects him to do so, and is critical when he doesn't, has something wrong.
Isn't it funny, then, that the customs of society that expect that had nothing to do with feminists and everything to do with old codes of chivalry?

Isn't it funny, then, that the customs of society that expect that had nothing to do with feminists and everything to do with old codes of chivalry?
He did point out that this isn't from Feminists in his reply, but it can be confusing to know how to act when some women are insulted when you act that way and some are insulted when you don't it can feel a little like being caught in the middle.

He did point out that this isn't from Feminists in his reply, but it can be confusing to know how to act when some women are insulted when you act that way and some are insulted when you don't it can feel a little like being caught in the middle.
Ah, I see I didn't get the part I didn't quote. Sorry about that then.

Feminism = True Equality. Feminsm has too much history of being pro-female and neutral-male to be true equality.

The problem is, feminism long ago went beyond simply campaigning for things like equal pay. Feminism has for a while now been dominated by butch, man-hating lesbians who are intent on completely destroying society. Just look at the situation in Britain, which mirrors many other western countries.

Since the 60s, feminist ideas have infected many organs of society, particularly the teaching profession. These days it seems that the idea of boys being boys is something that needs to be destroyed in order for them to be brought up as simpering little fairies. Also look at the way a lot of marxist teachers, using the government's national curriculum and propaganda subjects like PSE (Personal and Social Education) to poison girls' minds to become a bunch of bitter, man hating little dykes who are intent on following their own selfish and hedonistic lifestyles at the expense of their community.

But it isn't just in education that this has happened. Cultural marxism has infected so many areas of our society and it's all been down to successive governments adopting ideas like feminiss. The most ridiculous thing about it is that you have so many of these 'men' in British political parties that support these disgusting ideas. Masculism is needed, and fast.

The problem is, feminism long ago went beyond simply campaigning for things like equal pay. Feminism has for a while now been dominated by butch, man-hating lesbians who are intent on completely destroying society. Just look at the situation in Britain, which mirrors many other western countries.

Since the 60s, feminist ideas have infected many organs of society, particularly the teaching profession. These days it seems that the idea of boys being boys is something that needs to be destroyed in order for them to be brought up as simpering little fairies. Also look at the way a lot of marxist teachers, using the government's national curriculum and propaganda subjects like PSE (Personal and Social Education) to poison girls' minds to become a bunch of bitter, man hating little dykes who are intent on following their own selfish and hedonistic lifestyles at the expense of their community.

But it isn't just in education that this has happened. Cultural marxism has infected so many areas of our society and it's all been down to successive governments adopting ideas like feminiss. The most ridiculous thing about it is that you have so many of these 'men' in British political parties that support these disgusting ideas. Masculism is needed, and fast.
What the hell does this have to do marxism and economic philosophy?

I want true equality.

Women can be masculine or feminine, Men can be masculine or feminine but I don't think we should push the boundry either way. Men and Women are generally very different and that's fine, but they are now and will always be equal.

As far as job pay and what not, I think people who are in equal positions should be payed equally in the beginning. However, there will always be some people that are better, male and female, but that's why you give people raises.

Even though women are more fun to fluffle, unless you are Fass.

The problem is, feminism long ago went beyond simply campaigning for things like equal pay. Feminism has for a while now been dominated by butch, man-hating lesbians who are intent on completely destroying society. Just look at the situation in Britain, which mirrors many other western countries.

Since the 60s, feminist ideas have infected many organs of society, particularly the teaching profession. These days it seems that the idea of boys being boys is something that needs to be destroyed in order for them to be brought up as simpering little fairies. Also look at the way a lot of marxist teachers, using the government's national curriculum and propaganda subjects like PSE (Personal and Social Education) to poison girls' minds to become a bunch of bitter, man hating little dykes who are intent on following their own selfish and hedonistic lifestyles at the expense of their community.

But it isn't just in education that this has happened. Cultural marxism has infected so many areas of our society and it's all been down to successive governments adopting ideas like feminiss. The most ridiculous thing about it is that you have so many of these 'men' in British political parties that support these disgusting ideas. Masculism is needed, and fast.

Admit it! You stole the beertruck.;) :p

What the hell does this have to do marxism and economic philosophy?

Completely agree - i'm sensing a bit of a right wing rant!

*Tries to burn a cod without success*
*retches from the odour*

Consider ... in Eutrusca's case, it would be a "trout-piece"

What the hell does this have to do marxism and economic philosophy?
I should have been more specific. I wasn't speaking of marxism in an economic sense, I meant in more of a cultural one. Feminism and communism have always gone hand in hand since the first feminist movements began. Throughout the 20th century a lot of prominent feminists have been commies and these ideas of 'women's liberation' (i.e. man hating) have often been courted by communist parties. It's a method at bringing about the cultural destruction of a society.

I want true equality.

Women can be masculine or feminine, Men can be masculine or feminine but I don't think we should push the boundry either way. Men and Women are generally very different and that's fine, but they are now and will always be equal.

As far as job pay and what not, I think people who are in equal positions should be payed equally in the beginning. However, there will always be some people that are better, male and female, but that's why you give people raises.

Even though women are more fun to fluffle, unless you are Fass.

Am I right in saying a lot of this has to do with primal instincts and its effects on the human psyche. For example, men tend to be able to be more dominant and controlling in politics, business etc, becasuse thay have broader soldiers, deeper voices and usually are bigger in body mass. For roughly the same reasons they find it easier to get promoted in whatever sector, and a lot of this feminist stuff is just a reaction to the natural advantages men have over women. Of course their are exceptions to this, and I believe that there should be equality but unfortunately men can be better at some things and vis versa

I want true equality.

Women can be masculine or feminine, Men can be masculine or feminine but I don't think we should push the boundry either way. Men and Women are generally very different and that's fine, but they are now and will always be equal.

As far as job pay and what not, I think people who are in equal positions should be payed equally in the beginning. However, there will always be some people that are better, male and female, but that's why you give people raises.

Even though women are more fun to fluffle, unless you are Fass.

Am I right in saying a lot of this has to do with primal instincts and its effects on the human psyche. For example, men tend to be able to be more dominant and controlling in politics, business etc, becasuse thay have broader soldiers, deeper voices and usually are bigger in body mass. For roughly the same reasons they find it easier to get promoted in whatever sector, and a lot of this feminist stuff is just a reaction to the natural advantages men have over women. Of course their are exceptions to this, and I believe that there should be equality but unfortunately men can be better at some things and vis versa

Isn't it funny, then, that the customs of society that expect that had nothing to do with feminists and everything to do with old codes of chivalry?

I agree. Unfortunately the old codes of chivalry came from those who were doing their own equivilent of female equality, trying in their own way to make up for it (although that might not have been true in all cases). In the new society they are no longer needed (though I among others still choose to continue it), there are those who would abuse the situation in this transitional period. I think a certain amount of stability is needed to this system, so this obligation can become the act of the gentleman once again.

The problem is, feminism long ago went beyond simply campaigning for things like equal pay. Feminism has for a while now been dominated by butch, man-hating lesbians who are intent on completely destroying society. Just look at the situation in Britain, which mirrors many other western countries.

Since the 60s, feminist ideas have infected many organs of society, particularly the teaching profession. These days it seems that the idea of boys being boys is something that needs to be destroyed in order for them to be brought up as simpering little fairies. Also look at the way a lot of marxist teachers, using the government's national curriculum and propaganda subjects like PSE (Personal and Social Education) to poison girls' minds to become a bunch of bitter, man hating little dykes who are intent on following their own selfish and hedonistic lifestyles at the expense of their community.

But it isn't just in education that this has happened. Cultural marxism has infected so many areas of our society and it's all been down to successive governments adopting ideas like feminiss. The most ridiculous thing about it is that you have so many of these 'men' in British political parties that support these disgusting ideas. Masculism is needed, and fast.

:D This is a parody, right? Right?

As far as job pay and what not, I think people who are in equal positions should be payed equally in the beginning. However, there will always be some people that are better, male and female, but that's why you give people raises.


One thing that is never considered when the question of women in the work place is that men are naturally more agressive. It's physical, the only way to get rid of it is castration. That means they often push harder than women in the workplace. Not always true but often. Also, as Report on Business said, women often don't want to get as high in the business as they can. Usually they reach a certain point in their advancement where they feel balanced and to go any higher would infringe on other parts of their life. Once again, I'm not making a blanket statement, this is based off of research. True equality is when people have the chance to get what they want and only get what they deserve. Having a 50/50 split on the board of directors doesn't mean equality. The job should go to who deserves it. Btw, its interesting my previous post was totally ignored... some what similar to the courts, eh? lol jking its fine.

True equality. I believe that women should get equal pay for equal work, but i also believe that if there is ever a draft (which i don't believe in), women should also be drafted. I believe that men should be stay at home dads if they want, and it should be just as acceptable for them to play with girl's toys or wear dresses as it is for girls to play with boy's toys and wear more masculine clothes. I believe that women should be able to play in men's leagues, but that men should also be able to play in women's, and each sex should have to abide by the rules of each respective league, etc. I think we should get rid of all double standards, on both sides.

Of course we should acknowlege the differences between men and women, between all people, we should embrace them, but we shouldn't judge people based on them. We may not all be the same, but we are all equal, or at least we should be.

Yeah, but they're not quite the same are they. I mean, a woman could certainly try to wear a male condom, but, short of perhaps getting several and forming them into a makeshift glove, I can't see them having much success.

Perhaps one of those sorta flat cloth caps that your average, archetypal farmer would wear (or an old man)? I can't even imagine a woman in one of those, let alone claim to have seen said spectacle.


That sure gives away your age! I know the type of ugly flat snap brim cap you mean! Back in the 1970s there was a wierd fad of women wearing those damned ugly things! I'm glad they got over it they are not very practical!

If you want, burn ties.

And at any rate, women aren't treated equally yet, I don't know where this bullshit about us getting better treatment comes from. The only reason men have issues with feminism is that they feel deprived of their roles as the breadwinners now that women can do that too, there does need to be some sort of masculinism, but not in the sense of "men need to get more power/better treatment" more along the lines of creating a new identity for men...

I haven't said enough yet. I think that men need an emancipatory movement, not so much from feminists, but from ourselves. It appears that men have way more traditional archetypes and social constraints to live up to. Women have more sexual freedom, for example. It's more acceptable to be a bisexual woman than to be a bisexual man. It's considered normal for straight women to discuss the beauty of other women, but when men do it, they are often considered gay. This is just one example.

I have met women who have a very throwaway feeling towards men, that they can do whatever they like and all it takes is a simper and a mince and they are out of it.
Certainly, but we also must remember that these are just the female versions of the asshole men who have similar attitudes to women.

I should have been more specific. I wasn't speaking of marxism in an economic sense, I meant in more of a cultural one. Feminism and communism have always gone hand in hand since the first feminist movements began. Throughout the 20th century a lot of prominent feminists have been commies and these ideas of 'women's liberation' (i.e. man hating) have often been courted by communist parties. It's a method at bringing about the cultural destruction of a society.
You're just ranting. Economic Marxism is inseparable from cultural Marxism because both are based on equality. What is the destruction of society?

Female supremacists are not feminists or Marxists. They are bitter egomaniacs, and I don't agree with them.

One thing that is never considered when the question of women in the work place is that men are naturally more agressive. It's physical, the only way to get rid of it is castration. That means they often push harder than women in the workplace. Not always true but often. Also, as Report on Business said, women often don't want to get as high in the business as they can. Usually they reach a certain point in their advancement where they feel balanced and to go any higher would infringe on other parts of their life.
Indeed. Remember, real feminism is about letting women make their own choices, not making them follow the "feminist doctrine".

That sure gives away your age! I know the type of ugly flat snap brim cap you mean! Back in the 1970s there was a wierd fad of women wearing those damned ugly things! I'm glad they got over it they are not very practical!

:eek: :eek: :eek: You... you can't be telling the truth can you?! Those things should only ever be worn by male, preferably fairly elderly, farmers!!! Not even a female farmer could get away with it! The thought of your average woman wearing one... even your average man wearing one... *shudder* it doesn't bear thinking about. Boy am I glad I missed the '70s.

Come on though - on a farmer they look fine, especially if said farmer has a shotgun under his arm too - it makes him look repectable, like he knows his farming stuff. Anyone else they just look like a twat.

edit: Incidentally I assume you mean it reveals the fact that I'm pretty young (16 in fact). I pretty much missed the '80s too (16/07/89) - did anything interesting/equally horrifying happen in them?

That's a biased, chauvanistic opinion. I can't believe that you would even suggest that women have reached a higher status then men. How many female presidents have served? How many Canadian cabinet members are female? How many men have been brutally raped? How many men have to wear birkhas? The list goes on.

"How many female presidents have served?"
Well that is really the Womens fault since the majority of voters are women, and there are more women in this country than men now isn't it? You are a female chauvinist that clearly can't take the blame for what females do. Is it our fault the male candidates are better than the women most of the time? When Margret Thatcher II comes along then maybe I'll vote for a woman thank you.

"How many men have been brutally raped?"

between 27-50% of domestic abuse victims are MALE. And we all know that women get off with less punishment in most cases, as we saw earlier with that teacher who had sex with her student in Florida.

"How many men have to wear birkhas? "
How many women have to wear them in the US? That is a WHOLE different culture, and just because you are racist doesn't mean you can mock it, Muslim women are proud of who they are and I suggest you not put them down for it. (NOTE: I despise Islam just to let you know). Why mention another culture anyway, if you don't even mention who the chancellor of Germany is, and who Margret Thatcher was. The head of State of Canada, Great Britian, Australia, New Zealand is FEMALE! She is head of the commonwealth, which has 52 member nations. Is not the Canadian governor general female? get with it woman.


I suggest you read this article by WENDY(yes a woman) McElroy called "Why Men Earn More"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148407,00.html

I suggest you read This article by WENDY McElroy entitled "Gender Bias in Domestic Violence Treatment".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167883,00.html


I suggest you read this Article called "males missing on collage campuses" by WENDY McElroy .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159585,00.html

True equality. I believe that women should get equal pay for equal work, but i also believe that if there is ever a draft (which i don't believe in), women should also be drafted. I believe that men should be stay at home dads if they want, and it should be just as acceptable for them to play with girl's toys or wear dresses as it is for girls to play with boy's toys and wear more masculine clothes. I believe that women should be able to play in men's leagues, but that men should also be able to play in women's, and each sex should have to abide by the rules of each respective league, etc. I think we should get rid of all double standards, on both sides.

Of course we should acknowlege the differences between men and women, between all people, we should embrace them, but we shouldn't judge people based on them. We may not all be the same, but we are all equal, or at least we should be.
Men can wear dresses, they are called kilts;)

If you want, burn ties.

And at any rate, women aren't treated equally yet, I don't know where this bullshit about us getting better treatment comes from. The only reason men have issues with feminism is that they feel deprived of their roles as the breadwinners now that women can do that too, there does need to be some sort of masculinism, but not in the sense of "men need to get more power/better treatment" more along the lines of creating a new identity for men...

I don't think it's quite like that; I don't ever feel like I'm somehow being demeaned because a woman is working at the same place I do. I don't think other men do either. But I do think that a lot of things that men are really good at are devalued to some extent. Male children tend to be more exuberant than girls, so the emphasis in the classroom of sitting quietly and shutting the hell up for the teacher, combined with the loss of gym class and recess, is really a way of rewarding girls at men's expense combined with turning off outlets of boys energy. Same thing with laws ostensibly created to deal with gang violence: what they really do is prevent men from grouping together and doing anything. Same with the current emphasis to always watch your children, keep your children in the house rather than loose in the neighborhood, etc. A lot of societal rules constructed today were not made with explicit anti-men agendas, but rather peace and order, nevertheless have the effect of turning off any meaningful way for young men to do the things that men do: group together and find something constructive to do. And then we wonder why adolescent boys comprise the majority of mental-illness patients, but fortunately we can dope them into submission.

Secondly, it is absolutely incontrovertible that the only two groups you can deliberately insult without fear of retribution in public is fat people and men, usually done together. If you insult a black's skin color, then rightly you are deemed a racist. If you insult a woman for being a woman, then rightly you are deemed sexist. But if you insult a man for being not as smart as a woman, not as capable as a woman, stupid, sloppy, fat, oafish, incompetent, foolish, or irresponsible, then hey, you are talking about 90% of television comedies or ads today. Some of the shows and ads border on blackface minus the makeup. And yet of course, men are supposed to grin, bear it, and say "You're absolutely right, dear."

It's true that this isn't feminism, but rather a perversion of feminism used by capitalists to get women to buy their products and watch their shows. But in light of the fact that we get daily demeaned on television that simply isn't allowed to happen to women, I don't think it's surprising that some men have a bit of a seige mentality.

Do you really think that this is possible. True equal rights is a great dream to have. I think that it is something we sould strive for but really the only way to reach it is by killing everyone. Then we don't have to worry about it god is the only one who has to worry about equal treatment. So let us all come together and nuke humanity. Why should we let all those nukes go to waste. We don't want to be the last country in the world to jump on this band wagon. I mean we started this atom bomb party let's finish it once and for all. To quote Bill Hicks "We are a virus with shoes and nothing more."

I don't think it's quite like that; I don't ever feel like I'm somehow being demeaned because a woman is working at the same place I do. I don't think other men do either.
That's not what I meant. Some men seem to have issues with women in the workplace because they don't feel as though they can contribute as much anymore or aren't as necessary. Women can be the breadwinners or the nurturing mothers, men often don't feel they can fill the second role. This isn't a feminist thing either, I'm sure many women wouldn't mind help around the house... it seems to be a bit where men keep each other from seeing themselves as nurturing human beings.

But I do think that a lot of things that men are really good at are devalued to some extent. Male children tend to be more exuberant than girls, so the emphasis in the classroom of sitting quietly and shutting the hell up for the teacher, combined with the loss of gym class and recess, is really a way of rewarding girls at men's expense combined with turning off outlets of boys energy.
1. Little boys ahve done fine in schools in the past where sitting still was required.
2. Getting rid of gym class and recess are to the detriment of all children, as demonstrated by the rising obesity rates and any kid can't sit still all day, boy or girl.
3. Cutting gym class and recess doesn't have any thign to do with a way of emphasixing thigns girls are good at over boys, it's usually because it's cheaper to not have recess or gym classes.

Same thing with laws ostensibly created to deal with gang violence: what they really do is prevent men from grouping together and doing anything.
...So preventing men from forming violent gangs also prevents men from getting together and say, fo bowling...? You'll have to explain this one a bit better.

Same with the current emphasis to always watch your children, keep your children in the house rather than loose in the neighborhood, etc.
I fail to see how this doesn't affect children of both genders equally.

A lot of societal rules constructed today were not made with explicit anti-men agendas, but rather peace and order, nevertheless have the effect of turning off any meaningful way for young men to do the things that men do: group together and find something constructive to do.
And these girls sequestered in their homes get to get together and form social groups too? I see, how do they do this? Is it that us women have magical psychic powers that allow us to communicate freely from our homes? Do little girls not want to go out and play with their neighbours?

If you want, burn ties.

And at any rate, women aren't treated equally yet, I don't know where this bullshit about us getting better treatment comes from. The only reason men have issues with feminism is that they feel deprived of their roles as the breadwinners now that women can do that too, there does need to be some sort of masculinism, but not in the sense of "men need to get more power/better treatment" more along the lines of creating a new identity for men...
I have to wonder about that myself. There is no greater inherent advantage in the US than being a white male. Belong to any other group and you're struggling uphill, some up a steeper hill than others.

Actually I was raped. I was fours years old and the girl was my 12 year old next door neighbour. We tried to press charges but even 10 years ago the courts didn't think it possible for a girl to rape a boy. It didn't even reach court. Thankfully the family moved shortly after but that doesn't change what happened to me. So you can shut the fuck up. In big business and politics things are not yet equal but they're getting there. In the day to day life men are expected to suck it up. We're only just getting respected in court when we bring up rape charges. Men are always shown as the great tyrants who have oppressed women since time began. Fuck that. If you're working towards a greater female presence in management and politics or you're working towards more rights for women in third world countries, something that really matters then I fully respect you. But if you're just bitching about how men are always oppressing women, you shut the fuck up. Yes rape is horrible but if I had been a girl justice would have been met. You can't say this is fair so stop saying only women have issues.

I'm sorry to have offended you. However, you misunderstood my comment. First off, you were raped as a child, which is a completely different issue. I understand that many young boys face child molestation, which is a serious and tragic issue. In addition, it is possible that a grown man could be molested. I simply meant to point out that, historically speaking, rapes of women are much more common than rapes of men.
In no way did I mean to suggest that only women have issues. My point in speaking out was to remind the OP that men and women are not equal in all walks of life.
Although I commend you for defending your opinion, I also must ask that you try to understand my side of the issue, and read carefully, considering posts more thorougly before you lash out. It's not my fault you were raped. Please don't take your anger out on me.

Actually I was raped. I was fours years old and the girl was my 12 year old next door neighbour. We tried to press charges but even 10 years ago the courts didn't think it possible for a girl to rape a boy.
In other words females were considered incapable of rape - unable to perform something that males could. Of course courts do now accept the possibility that females are capable of committing rape, something that probably never would have happened but for feminism.

It didn't even reach court. Thankfully the family moved shortly after but that doesn't change what happened to me. So you can shut the fuck up. In big business and politics things are not yet equal but they're getting there. In the day to day life men are expected to suck it up.
So are women and children.

We're only just getting respected in court when we bring up rape charges.
Actually rape victims of all kinds are notoriously subject to all kinds of problems when it comes to the courts.

Men are always shown as the great tyrants who have oppressed women since time began. Fuck that. If you're working towards a greater female presence in management and politics or you're working towards more rights for women in third world countries, something that really matters then I fully respect you. But if you're just bitching about how men are always oppressing women, you shut the fuck up. Yes rape is horrible but if I had been a girl justice would have been met. You can't say this is fair so stop saying only women have issues.
Nice strawman.

Although I agree that in someways women are at a disadvantage, I would agree also with the original poster to the extent. A man is expected to: offer to carry a women's bags, offer to aid her in any situation, be unfeeling when they are screwed over by the woman they love, etc.
Expected by whom? I certainly do not have such gender specific expectations, perhaps you do, but that's your issue.

Now I am all for the man chosing of his own free will to do such things, but a society that expects him to do so, and is critical when he doesn't, has something wrong.
I expect people of both genders to offer courteous assistance to others and think less of those who do not regardless of their gender. Plenty of people I know feel the same way. I do know a few that have the expectations you claim, and without exception they are all ambivelent to feminist ideologies.

I have met women who have a very throwaway feeling towards men, that they can do whatever they like and all it takes is a simper and a mince and they are out of it.
I've met men who have a very throwaway feeling towards women, in fact I've met men and women who have a very throwaway feeling towards people. So what?

I agree that this is not the attitude taken by feminists, however it is a side effect where women want all the benefits of the dying gentleman culture but ALSO the benefits of the new equality culture. You cannot have your cake and eat it, ladies. (not said to anyone is particular, just to those few who act as I have outlined above.)
Right so it's not feminism but rather people wishing to experiance the optimisation of their best interests....people being people another words.

I agree. Unfortunately the old codes of chivalry came from those who were doing their own equivilent of female equality, trying in their own way to make up for it (although that might not have been true in all cases).
No they dont, where on earth do people get these ideas?

In the new society they are no longer needed (though I among others still choose to continue it), there are those who would abuse the situation in this transitional period. I think a certain amount of stability is needed to this system, so this obligation can become the act of the gentleman once again.
What on earth are you on about? Holding doors open for others and helping others with cumbersome loads is an act of courtesy that shows a certain social inclination/politeness. It is not manditory, but appreciated by those who have equal tendencies toward politeness and common courtesy. Of course some people dont have such a tendency towards common courtesy and so have other expectations, just as some people have a lesser tendency towards honesty than is considered consistent with generalised courtesy. Your strawman has no particular relevence to feminism.

Secondly, it is absolutely incontrovertible that the only two groups you can deliberately insult without fear of retribution in public is fat people and men, usually done together. If you insult a black's skin color, then rightly you are deemed a racist. If you insult a woman for being a woman, then rightly you are deemed sexist. But if you insult a man for being not as smart as a woman, not as capable as a woman, stupid, sloppy, fat, oafish, incompetent, foolish, or irresponsible, then hey, you are talking about 90% of television comedies or ads today. Some of the shows and ads border on blackface minus the makeup. And yet of course, men are supposed to grin, bear it, and say "You're absolutely right, dear."
It entirely controvertible. Whether or not one can deliberately insult a group without recrimination depends on the audience for a start. As it happens all kinds of groups are in the firing line. Fat women probably a good deal more so than fat men...

"How many female presidents have served?"
Well that is really the Womens fault since the majority of voters are women, and there are more women in this country than men now isn't it? You are a female chauvinist that clearly can't take the blame for what females do. Is it our fault the male candidates are better than the women most of the time? When Margret Thatcher II comes along then maybe I'll vote for a woman thank you.

"How many men have been brutally raped?"

between 27-50% of domestic abuse victims are MALE. And we all know that women get off with less punishment in most cases, as we saw earlier with that teacher who had sex with her student in Florida.

"How many men have to wear birkhas? "
How many women have to wear them in the US? That is a WHOLE different culture, and just because you are racist doesn't mean you can mock it, Muslim women are proud of who they are and I suggest you not put them down for it. (NOTE: I despise Islam just to let you know). Why mention another culture anyway, if you don't even mention who the chancellor of Germany is, and who Margret Thatcher was. The head of State of Canada, Great Britian, Australia, New Zealand is FEMALE! She is head of the commonwealth, which has 52 member nations. Is not the Canadian governor general female? get with it woman.


I suggest you read this article by WENDY(yes a woman) McElroy called "Why Men Earn More"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148407,00.html

I suggest you read This article by WENDY McElroy entitled "Gender Bias in Domestic Violence Treatment".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167883,00.html


I suggest you read this Article called "males missing on collage campuses" by WENDY McElroy .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159585,00.html

Perhaps I misspoke with the rape issue. But that does not negate the validity of my viewpoint.
And, I am not a "racist". If a woman wants to wear a Birkha, she may. However, I think you will find that many women around the world find themselves opressed by the cultures of their nations.
And yes, many nations have female leaders (though I'm not sure I would use a monarch as an example). That's a sign that the world is becoming more progressive. However, I wanted to suggest that nations such as America, who are so fiercely patriotic, might benefit from a little gender equality.
You brought up some important issues, and I appreciate your questions. However, you crossed the line in suggesting that women are to blame for a lack of American female presidents. I don't where your evidence of this is. Perhaps there are a few more females than males in America, but does that really affect things? Women as a whole don't get to choose who runs for president. In fact, it was only 80 years ago that they were even permitted to vote. In the issue of American presidency, I feel no one is trully to blame for a lack of female candidates, except, perhaps, society as a whole.

My opinion on feminism is this: everyone deserves equality. Those who have been discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, gender, or whatever, certainly deserve to get the equality that they have so long been denied.

That being said: Those who hate white Christian males simply because they've been on top for so long are no better than those who did the oppressing in the first place.

Fenism seems to have won the war. Great for them. But then It carried on. So we waited and watched to see what would happen. Now I'm starting to feel that we should have locked ourselves in at true equality. So maybe they're not getting paid as much as men. But they sure seem to be treated better.

Maybe I'm going to start burning a item of 'male-only clothing' instead of bra's in the name of Masculinism.
I think mabye you're confused.
1) Feminism is the beleif that men and women are of inherintly equal value. I guess thats what masculinism would be too. Therefore, feminism, 'masculinism', and 'true equality' are all the same things.
2) There was never a war, feminism is a socio-cultural movment.
3) This movment was sucsessful, however, we've now moved into something called post-modernism, where women lost alot of the equality that they gained. To see proof of this, watch some TV, where women are, once again, objectified and confined to the private sphere.
4) It's not necessary to burn male-only clothing at this point, as virtually all of earth is still a patriarchy.

It appears that men have way more traditional archetypes and social constraints to live up to. Women have more sexual freedom, for example. It's more acceptable to be a bisexual woman than to be a bisexual man. It's considered normal for straight women to discuss the beauty of other women, but when men do it, they are often considered gay. This is just one example.

That's just a manifestation of the rigid heterosexist patriachal heirarchy that constitutes society.

True equality is where guys and girls are treated equally, everyone is created equally, remember? Besides, if we're gonna live on the same planet, we might as well not treat eachother like crap... or differently... Guys and girls were meant to love eachother, remember???:(

"How many female presidents have served?"
Well that is really the Womens fault since the majority of voters are women, and there are more women in this country than men now isn't it? You are a female chauvinist that clearly can't take the blame for what females do. Is it our fault the male candidates are better than the women most of the time? When Margret Thatcher II comes along then maybe I'll vote for a woman thank you. First of all, I'd like to see a source verifying that the majority of voters are women. But its a moot point, the dearth of female political, economic and social leaders with real power is due to social institutions which are largely invisible and noone's fault.
"How many men have been brutally raped?"[/QUOTE}
How many men have been brutaly raped???
[QUOTE]between 27-50% of domestic abuse victims are MALE. And we all know that women get off with less punishment in most cases, as we saw earlier with that teacher who had sex with her student in Florida. A huge majority of women incarcerated for violent crimes were retaliating (often killing) their husbands who abused their children or wives

I suggest you read this article by WENDY(yes a woman) McElroy called "Why Men Earn More"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148407,00.html

I suggest you read This article by WENDY McElroy entitled "Gender Bias in Domestic Violence Treatment".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167883,00.html

I suggest you read this Article called "males missing on collage campuses" by WENDY McElroy .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159585,00.html
You're quoting (the same woman three times) FOX, and expect it to be legitimatly non-sexist? :headbang:

...So preventing men from forming violent gangs also prevents men from getting together and say, fo bowling...? You'll have to explain this one a bit better.
This isn't the best example, as it is from my elementary school(GradesK-7). Anyways, intermediate (Grades4-7) boys were not allowed to "hang out," in groups of 6 or more during recess or lunch. This was school district policy because they thought that a group of 6 or more intermediate boys would just go around and beat up the girls and younger students. Girls did not count towards this six person limit (the called it a person limit even though girls did not count towards it) because a girl would not participate in or encourage violence like that. This policy made it hell for the administration to create a class list for the intermediate students (I remember it took until the end of October for them to solidify the class lists when I was in grade 6) because the boys were only allowed to have 5 friends and parents wanted their kid to have at least one friend in his class. The teachers also could not start teaching until this was dealt with because most of his/her initial class would be changed.

Feminism has for a while now been dominated by butch, man-hating lesbians who are intent on completely destroying society. Who says something like that? That's just one of the more stupid things I've ever heard.
Since the 60s, feminist ideas have infected many organs of society, particularly the teaching profession. Meaning that women now dominate lower levels of education because its socially acceptable because of its similarities to raising children? Or are you refering to all the female university professors who 'infect' their students? (I'm being sarcastic, university level education, where knowledge is created, is still dominated by male teachers)
These days it seems that the idea of boys being boys is something that needs to be destroyed in order for them to be brought up as simpering little fairies. If you'd ever known a boy who was, as you say a 'fairy' you would know that what you just said is not true.
Also look at the way a lot of marxist teachers, using the government's national curriculum and propaganda subjects like PSE (Personal and Social Education) to poison girls' minds to become a bunch of bitter, man hating little dykes who are intent on following their own selfish and hedonistic lifestyles at the expense of their community. OK angry (:headbang: )
But it isn't just in education that this has happened. Cultural marxism has infected so many areas of our society and it's all been down to successive governments adopting ideas like feminiss. The most ridiculous thing about it is that you have so many of these 'men' in British political parties that support these disgusting ideas. Masculism is needed, and fast.So basically. You want to ensure society's rigid heirarchal supression of women, AND the less-abled. I just don't see how someone of the same species as myself can be so insensitive and close minded.

First of all, I'd like to see a source verifying that the majority of voters are women. But its a moot point, the dearth of female political, economic and social leaders with real power is due to social institutions which are largely invisible and noone's fault.

http://www.geohive.com/global/pop_gender.php
If you scroll down a way you will see that the female population of the US (which I assume is what everyone is talking about when they talk about presidents etc etc) is higher than the male population meaning that more women could vote if they wanted to (I understand this doesn't take into account voting age but I dont see why that should change it much, also this doesn't show that more women vote, but should they so wish more could).

That's just a manifestation of the rigid heterosexist patriachal heirarchy that constitutes society.
See this is what makes some men feel angry at, warry of, uncomfortable with or feel persecuted by femminism, people using fancy buzz words to imply that all of the worlds problems are their fault. Even if this isn't the intention it is the result since shit like this seems to inply that men want to keep women in what not down, when most just don't give a damn and only feel threatened because they feel the problems of the world are being blamed on them for their sex. Hell, I'm all for the equal treatment of women and men let them both do what ever they want, but still shit like this raises my hackles because it insinuates that all men want to keep women down when all most really want is to be left the hell alone.

See this is what makes some men feel angry at, warry of, uncomfortable with or feel persecuted by femminism, people using fancy buzz words to imply that all of the worlds problems are their fault. Even if this isn't the intention it is the result since shit like this seems to inply that men want to keep women in what not down, when most just don't give a damn and only feel threatened because they feel the problems of the world are being blamed on them for their sex. Hell, I'm all for the equal treatment of women and men let them both do what ever they want, but still shit like this raises my hackles because it insinuates that all men want to keep women down when all most really want is to be left the hell alone.

Women were blamed for many of the world's previous problems. (eg: The great depression), so don't think that playing the pity card is going to win the issue for you. It's not a competition to see who's more opressed. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with.

Fenism seems to have won the war.
Not exactly a "war"... but on what basis do you claim that feminists have "won"?
Now I'm starting to feel that we should have locked ourselves in at true equality.
When exactly do you think that happened?
So maybe they're not getting paid as much as men.
Now you're just plain contradicting yourself.
But they sure seem to be treated better.
Do elaborate.

Fenism seems to have won the war. Great for them. But then It carried on. So we waited and watched to see what would happen. Now I'm starting to feel that we should have locked ourselves in at true equality. So maybe they're not getting paid as much as men. But they sure seem to be treated better.

Maybe I'm going to start burning a item of 'male-only clothing' instead of bra's in the name of Masculinism.
You know, man has so totally screwed over this planet since the beginning of time, perhaps it is time to install women as the leaders of every country, with mostly women advisors.

Maybe if we do that, then we just might find some "compassionate conservatives". It certainly isn't King George the Lesser.

I think he is referring to the FemiNazi sect of Feminism, were goal is to make women superior to men.
Perhaps you could cite a representative example of such a thinker? I often hear anti-feminists (mis)characterize feminism as female superiority, but I have trouble tracking down anyone who actually espouses this view. At any rate, it seems that such a "sect" is so far from the mainstream of feminism as to make anti-feminist "fears" highly suspect.

But, they claim to be feminists. Confusion between the two is likely to happen.
Isolated lunatics claim to be fish. Therefore, confusion between fish and human beings is likely to happen.

The logic is about as good. Unless you can show me visible examples of people (women, I'd presume) who espouse the view that women should rule the world, any "confusion" is disingenuous at best.

I have once (on TV oddly enough). She basically said: Women will raise up and free themselves from mans oppression and rule the world like the sages we(women) are.

Well, you have once. ONCE?!

Not much reason to worry about such people then, is it? Besides which, it must not have made much of an impression if you cannot remember who this individual was, or the specific context in which she spoke. I guess the rest of us will just have to take your word for it.

Isolated lunatics claim to be fish. Therefore, confusion between fish and human beings is likely to happen.

The logic is about as good. Unless you can show me visible examples of people (women, I'd presume) who espouse the view that women should rule the world, any "confusion" is disingenuous at best.

Haha not that I'm saying its an example of someone saying their a feminist and giving these views but you have to admit the placing of CanuckHeavens post (#72) is funny.

Women were blamed for many of the world's previous problems. (eg: The great depression), so don't think that playing the pity card is going to win the issue for you. It's not a competition to see who's more opressed. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Of course, what I'm saying is there needs to me more dealing and less bitching about the "rigid heterosexual patriarchial hierarchy," if you don't like it go out and do something about it like the women in the 60's. Further more I'm also saying that it would help you get more support from men if you toned your rhetoric so that it didn't appear to be blaming them for all the worlds ills and focused more on finding solutions to said problems. Women aren't being payed as much as men, investigate it see why that is and what can be done to fix it. If the reason is because they ae women fire the people responsible and fix the pay problem if its another reason see what can be done about it. As for your comments about women being blamed for the Great Depression how the hell is that a counter to my complaint that the rhetoric I mentioned seems to blame men for all the worlds problems. I'm assuming that your are saying that it was wrong for that to be done to women, in which case it is just as bloody wrong to do that to men, which was my complaint. That is equality, if its wrong to blame the worlds problem on all women its equaly as wrong to blame all the worlds problems on all men. Or is that not what you mean by equality?

Isolated lunatics claim to be fish. Therefore, confusion between fish and human beings is likely to happen.

The logic is about as good. Unless you can show me visible examples of people (women, I'd presume) who espouse the view that women should rule the world, any "confusion" is disingenuous at best.
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —some Isolated lunatic (the Lesser)
Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000


Seemed appropriate. *nods*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10494903&postcount=76

This isn't the best example, as it is from my elementary school(GradesK-7). Anyways, intermediate (Grades4-7) boys were not allowed to "hang out," in groups of 6 or more during recess or lunch. This was school district policy because they thought that a group of 6 or more intermediate boys would just go around and beat up the girls and younger students. Girls did not count towards this six person limit (the called it a person limit even though girls did not count towards it) because a girl would not participate in or encourage violence like that. This policy made it hell for the administration to create a class list for the intermediate students (I remember it took until the end of October for them to solidify the class lists when I was in grade 6) because the boys were only allowed to have 5 friends and parents wanted their kid to have at least one friend in his class. The teachers also could not start teaching until this was dealt with because most of his/her initial class would be changed.
You're right it's no better example than the one from my youngling's school where it is girls and groups of 4 rather than boys and groups of 5. The rule is equally ridiculous in either case.

See this is what makes some men feel angry at, warry of, uncomfortable with or feel persecuted by femminism, people using fancy buzz words to imply that all of the worlds problems are their fault.
No it isnt. It is their ignorance and/or choice that results in such a perception. The words you refer to are simply the accepted academic terminology, terminology that was arrived at in most cases by primarily male academics.

Even if this isn't the intention it is the result since shit like this seems to inply that men want to keep women in what not down,
Something either does or does not imply something. You are mistaking inferrence for implication. People can infer whatever they choose regardless of whether or not it is implied. In cases such as the one you are referencing, where it is in fact not implied, the choice to infer as you have done is entirely yours and so too is any resonsibility for the inference.

when most just don't give a damn and only feel threatened because they feel the problems of the world are being blamed on them for their sex.
People are responsible for their own feelings.

Hell, I'm all for the equal treatment of women and men let them both do what ever they want, but still shit like this raises my hackles because it insinuates that all men want to keep women down when all most really want is to be left the hell alone.
It insinuates no such thing, rather you are choosing to infer what has not being implied, insinuated or stated. That is entirely your choice, and such responsibility for any consequences is entirely yours.

Actually I was raped.
While your experience is regretable and tragic, your highly emotional response fails to address the issue presented by the poster to whom you reply. First, note that a quantitative question was proposed: "How many" men are raped? While your anecdote demonstrates accurately enough that men and boys are, in fact, sometimes the victims of rape, all available evidence indicates that women are raped in a much more widespread, even systematic fashion. (Yes, systematic. Sociologists have found that many college fraternities are essentially organized rape gangs.) Men may be raped, and it is tragic that our society's prejudices--which, incidentally, feminists are trying to subvert--refuse to pursue their attackers. Still, men do not live with the fear of rape that women do. Men need not be afraid to walk alone at night; they need not worry intently about the drinks handed to them at parties; and, to quote the previous poster "the list goes on."
I was fours years old and the girl was my 12 year old next door neighbour.
Again, I am genuinely sorry for your experience. However, it is important to point out that the poster to whom you respond specified that women are "brutally" raped. If you were violently attacked and held down while this girl shoved her body parts into you, then I am doubly sorry. More likely, like most men who are raped, you did not experience--in addition to the crime of sexual violation--extensive physical abuse, bruises, broken bones, and threats to your life. (If you had, perhaps the local prosecutor would have been more interested in pursuing your attacker for battery and other charges, if not rape.)

My point is that emotionally charged stories such as yours, however genuinely unjust, should not cloud our eyes as to the realities of the male domination of women. Violence against women is neither isolated nor sporadic. It is ubiquitous, and often--surprisingly--organized.

Of course, what I'm saying is there needs to me more dealing and less bitching about the "rigid heterosexual patriarchial hierarchy," if you don't like it go out and do something about it like the women in the 60's. Further more I'm also saying that it would help you get more support from men if you toned your rhetoric so that it didn't appear to be blaming them for all the worlds ills and focused more on finding solutions to said problems. Women aren't being payed as much as men, investigate it see why that is and what can be done to fix it. If the reason is because they ae women fire the people responsible and fix the pay problem if its another reason see what can be done about it. As for your comments about women being blamed for the Great Depression how the hell is that a counter to my complaint that the rhetoric I mentioned seems to blame men for all the worlds problems. I'm assuming that your are saying that it was wrong for that to be done to women, in which case it is just as bloody wrong to do that to men, which was my complaint. That is equality, if its wrong to blame the worlds problem on all women its equaly as wrong to blame all the worlds problems on all men. Or is that not what you mean by equality?
I was saying that complaining about being the cause of problems elicts no sympathy from me, seeing as women have put up with that crap for, i don't know, a couple hundred thousand years. In fact, for the past 2000, women have been cited as the cause of sin and the reason why we no longer live in some wonderful, perfect garden.
I don't want to blame men for our problems; I suggested in an earlier post that gender inequality is society's problem. But I don't exactly feel bad for you because you're a poor, victimized male.

You know, man has so totally screwed over this planet since the beginning of time, perhaps it is time to install women as the leaders of every country, with mostly women advisors.

Maybe if we do that, then we just might find some "compassionate conservatives". It certainly isn't King George the Lesser.
See this is what I'm talking about it isn't men that have screwed up the world its the people in charge that have fucked up. People point to statments like this in the pass in regardes to women and scream sexism, yet tolerate shit like this. Which is why you get people erronously thinking that feminism advocates that women are better than men.

I was saying that complaining about being the cause of problems elicts no sympathy from me, seeing as women have put up with that crap for, i don't know, a couple hundred thousand years. In fact, for the past 2000, women have been cited as the cause of sin and the reason why we no longer live in some wonderful, perfect garden.
I don't want to blame men for our problems; I suggested in an earlier post that gender inequality is society's problem. But I don't exactly feel bad for you because you're a poor, victimized male.

Recorded history being maybe 10,000 years at the most I am interested in how you know this?

A man is expected to: offer to carry a women's bags,
Most women I know don't want men to offer them anything "because they are women."

On the other hand, the fact remains (for a variety of reasons, some of which are more cultural than biological) that men tend to have resources of physical strength that many women do not. In this sense, I expect any person who is physically strong to offer to carry things for those who are weaker. Personally, whenever I see someone struggling with a physical load, I offer assistance--whether the person is male or female. It may happen that men are more often in a situation to offer such assistance to women than the reverse. (On the other hand, if I see a woman carrying her bags or boxes or anything else, and she seems to be doing just fine... well, then I am not likely to offer her any more support than I would offer to a man similarly situated. I am also more than happy to accept help from a woman if I happen to be carrying more than I can transport comfortably.)

offer to aid her in any situation,
I think human beings should be expected to offer human beings assistance, as necessary.

Ironically, it is men who still seem to insist on this notion that "men must help women," but not the reverse. Feminists have been intent on equalizing those assumptions.

be unfeeling when they are screwed over by the woman they love, etc.

Men inflict the hard-hearted "be a man" mentality on themselves. I have never seen or heard of a feminist who insisted that it's "unmanly" to cry. Quite the contrary.

Recorded history being maybe 10,000 years at the most I am interested in how you know this?

I don't know this. It was a hyperbole/estimate.

I was saying that complaining about being the cause of problems elicts no sympathy from me, seeing as women have put up with that crap for, i don't know, a couple hundred thousand years. In fact, for the past 2000, women have been cited as the cause of sin and the reason why we no longer live in some wonderful, perfect garden.
I don't want to blame men for our problems; I suggested in an earlier post that gender inequality is society's problem. But I don't exactly feel bad for you because you're a poor, victimized male.
Ah, so because it was done to women its now allright to do it to men? How the hell is that equality? If it was wrong for women to take the blame, and it was, its wrong to now blame men. Personally I don't feel oppresed and agree that more needs to be done for equality what I'm saying is that your comments are counter productive you are not going to be able to change society by alienating part of it through blaming them for the worlds problems. If you would rationally list diferent issues that still need fixing with information regarding what they are why they occur and so on and than would put forward ways of fixing the problem people will be much more receptive than if you go off on how they are the root of all the worlds problems.

Feminsm has too much history of being pro-female and neutral-male to be true equality.

Well, when all the rest of history has been anti-female and pro-male, a little "pro-female" may be necessary to right the wrongs and untip the balance.

I voted feminism.

Because modern feminism is a fight for 'true equality'

The problem is, feminism long ago went beyond simply campaigning for things like equal pay. Feminism has for a while now been dominated by butch, man-hating lesbians who are intent on completely destroying society.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to demonstrate this "domination" of feminism by "butch, man-hating lesbians." I don't see it.

Ah, so because it was done to women its now allright to do it to men? How the hell is that equality? If it was wrong for women to take the blame, and it was, its wrong to now blame men. Personally I don't feel oppresed and agree that more needs to be done for equality what I'm saying is that your comments are counter productive you are not going to be able to change society by alienating part of it through blaming them for the worlds problems. If you would rationally list diferent issues that still need fixing with information regarding what they are why they occur and so on and than would put forward ways of fixing the problem people will be much more receptive than if you go off on how they are the root of all the worlds problems.

Did you really read my post? I didn't say that it's okay for women to blame men. Gender equality issues are nobody's fault. I just don't really feel sorry for the male gender at this point in time, and for good reason.

Well, when all the rest of history has been anti-female and pro-male, a little "pro-female" may be necessary to right the wrongs and untip the balance.

I don't see why. It wasn't me who did anything more than 17 years ago, why should I be punished for it? Also people alive today didn't suffer from a lot of the things that you would be equalizing for, why should they get benefits?

I don't see why. It wasn't me who did anything more than 17 years ago, why should I be punished for it? Also people alive today didn't suffer from a lot of the things that you would be equalizing for, why should they get benefits?

Yeah, you're right. Women in the middle east have tonnes of rights.

I should have been more specific. I wasn't speaking of marxism in an economic sense, I meant in more of a cultural one. Feminism and communism have always gone hand in hand since the first feminist movements began. Throughout the 20th century a lot of prominent feminists have been commies and these ideas of 'women's liberation' (i.e. man hating) have often been courted by communist parties. It's a method at bringing about the cultural destruction of a society.
George Orwell had a quote about this "One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."
So.
:rolleyes:

Did you really read my post? I didn't say that it's okay for women to blame men. Gender equality issues are nobody's fault. I just don't really feel sorry for the male gender at this point in time, and for good reason.
And your missing my point. I'm not saying that men need sympathy I'm saying that to allow coments that blame men for all the wolds problems as some in this thread have done is counter productive to the achievement of equality, since it alienates people who might otherwise support your goals and while you might not be doing this their are some in this thread who have made comments that can e taken that way.

geeez why are we bitching about feminisim?

i want to know what you would advocate as a "masculinist". what would your platform be? i want specifics of how you would change society for the better.

geeez why are we bitching about feminisim?
i want to know what you would advocate as a "masculinist". what would your platform be? i want specifics of how you would change society for the better.
Because thats what these types of threads always degenerate into?

Yeah, you're right. Women in the middle east have tonnes of rights.

I really don't see where the hell I said they did. All I said was that its not fair to "untip the blance" by punishing the men of today (who had nothing to do with the sexist views of the past). Also it wouldnt be fair to punish me for instance for the lack of rights of women in the middle east, as it has nothing to do with me.

I don't see why. It wasn't me who did anything more than 17 years ago, why should I be punished for it? Also people alive today didn't suffer from a lot of the things that you would be equalizing for, why should they get benefits?

"Pro-female" does not mean "punish men." Neither does it mean "repay today's women for what their grandmothers suffered."

Rather, it means that when you live in a system that routinely exploits and oppresses women, and which includes ubiquitous subconscious cues privileging men, it may take a "pro-woman" attitude to root out all of those inequities of thought. This is, as I said, a matter of untipping the balance--not retribution.

"How many female presidents have served?"
Well that is really the Womens fault since the majority of voters are women, and there are more women in this country than men now isn't it? You are a female chauvinist that clearly can't take the blame for what females do. Is it our fault the male candidates are better than the women most of the time? When Margret Thatcher II comes along then maybe I'll vote for a woman thank you.

"How many men have been brutally raped?"

between 27-50% of domestic abuse victims are MALE. And we all know that women get off with less punishment in most cases, as we saw earlier with that teacher who had sex with her student in Florida.

"How many men have to wear birkhas? "
How many women have to wear them in the US? That is a WHOLE different culture, and just because you are racist doesn't mean you can mock it, Muslim women are proud of who they are and I suggest you not put them down for it. (NOTE: I despise Islam just to let you know). Why mention another culture anyway, if you don't even mention who the chancellor of Germany is, and who Margret Thatcher was. The head of State of Canada, Great Britian, Australia, New Zealand is FEMALE! She is head of the commonwealth, which has 52 member nations. Is not the Canadian governor general female? get with it woman.


I suggest you read this article by WENDY(yes a woman) McElroy called "Why Men Earn More"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148407,00.html

I suggest you read This article by WENDY McElroy entitled "Gender Bias in Domestic Violence Treatment".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167883,00.html


I suggest you read this Article called "males missing on collage campuses" by WENDY McElroy .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159585,00.html



Wow, you are the first person to ever convince me to click on a Fox News Link.

Equal opportunity without compensation for natural disadvantages.

This sounds nice, but just what "natural disadvantages" you have in mind?

Do you mean that there should be no such thing as maternity leave, for instance? As it happens, many feminists argue that the need to take time off from economic life to have a child is only seen as a "natural disadvantage" of women because of our society's inherently patriarchal perspective. We take the man's position in our society as the "standard", and a woman's deviation from that is taken as a (biologically necessary) "weakness."

But why don't we take up the "woman's" perspective? Women need to take time off to have a child, and perhaps in the months immediately after its birth. So, why should men be denied this privilege? Should we not also allow paternity leave, so that men can participate in their partners' late stages of pregnancy, caring for her and preparing for the birth of their child? Should men not be allowed to take off in the early months of their child's life, to care for it and to be an active parent to it?

Oh, wait. In some countries, people already think this way.

But perhaps you mean "natural disadvantages" of physique, such that women are not "physically qualified" to hold some jobs? To the extent that this is true, we agree. However, I think the range of jobs to which this applies is narrower than most people imagine.

Elsewhere, we have discussed differential physical standards for men and women. These are perfectly fair and appropriate where the substantive standard is "physical fitness," since the measures of fitness for a woman are different than those for a man. (In fact, sometimes men score uniformly more poorly than women on fitness tests, such as flexibility... but this does not indicate that they are less healthy than women any more than a woman's lesser capacity to lift heavy weights necessarily indicates her unfitness.)

In other jobs, there may be specific job-related criteria (e.g. 'must be able to lift this girder'). In that case, it does not make sense to use differential standards.

And your missing my point. I'm not saying that men need sympathy I'm saying that to allow coments that blame men for all the wolds problems as some in this thread have done is counter productive to the achievement of equality, since it alienates people who might otherwise support your goals and while you might not be doing this their are some in this thread who have made comments that can e taken that way.
What do you think you mean by allow? Who is allowing, and who could prevent this allowance and how? So far as I can tell unless you are advocating doing away with free speech it isnt a matter of allowance so much has having no capacity to disallow.
At any rate, it would appear that even when such comments are absent, the presentation of fact in entirely neutral terms none the less has the same result as that you are referencing.

By the way, has anyone here read the spread article in Newsweek about "how the educational system is hurting boys"


In relation to the links that I quoted, it really strikes a nerve. I, myself, am a MALE, 4.4GPA, swimmer, STUCO member, Honors French Society, etc. -- I am doing more than well in this "feminist eduaction system".

I may be a political liberal; but, the education system reveals many truths about social Darwinism. If a male child is too stupid to excell in school, it is solely his fault. Don't just go blamining the "feminist agenda".

Also, in that article, it talks about the harms to boys about "female-oriented education materials" with a pathos testimonial about how a boy was forced to read The Secret Life of Bees; and, since it was a girls' book, that it was somehow unfair. I don't remember reading about vehemt opposition to "male-oriented education materials" -- save from the feminists.

Also, to be smart is not to be gifted. It pisses me off to no end when people call me "gifted". I am not "gifted"; I work for what I earn. God nor anybody else 'gave' me what I have accomplished.

"Pro-female" does not mean "punish men." Neither does it mean "repay today's women for what their grandmothers suffered."

Rather, it means that when you live in a system that routinely exploits and oppresses women, and which includes ubiquitous subconscious cues privileging men, it may take a "pro-woman" attitude to root out all of those inequities of thought. This is, as I said, a matter of untipping the balance--not retribution.

Well, when all the rest of history has been anti-female and pro-male, a little "pro-female" may be necessary to right the wrongs and untip the balance.

It was the two bits highlighted in bold which threw me off, I hope you can see the ambiguity that fooled me.

Well I'm not really a supporter of using tactics like this(much the same as I dont like giving certain races privilages above others to try and make up for shortfalls elsewhere) I feel it puts people in the wrong mindset to solve the problem and that they should really be putting their efforts towards being pro-everyone as such.

One thing that is never considered when the question of women in the work place is that men are naturally more agressive. It's physical, the only way to get rid of it is castration. That means they often push harder than women in the workplace.

And since when is "pushing harder" always a natural advantage? Untamed aggression may actually be a disadvantage in delicate negotiations, or in coordinating a team effort, or in any number of other business circumstances. The wage gap and the glass ceiling are not explained away by men's "biological" aggressiveness.

Also, as Report on Business said, women often don't want to get as high in the business as they can.

It's funny how we focus on this when "often" women say these things. I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that "often" men say precisely the same thing. Indeed, most people measure job satisfaction on criteria that do not preference "climbing the corporate ladder."

Once again, I'm not making a blanket statement, this is based off of research.

Yes. And if it's good research, the objective measures themselves are not biased. Where researchers' bias appears is in the questions they choose to ask: everyone wants to know why women don't want to advance, because it "explains" why they do not advance... but this is a biased question if no one bothers to ask why most men also don't want to advance beyond a certain level.

Having a 50/50 split on the board of directors doesn't mean equality.

No, but having a 90/10 split certainly suggests inequality.

It was the two bits highlighted in bold which threw me off, I hope you can see the ambiguity that fooled me.

Well I'm not really a supporter of using tactics like this(much the same as I dont like giving certain races privilages above others to try and make up for shortfalls elsewhere) I feel it puts people in the wrong mindset to solve the problem and that they should really be putting their efforts towards being pro-everyone as such.



Let's talk about Affirmative Action :D


Again, I may be liberal, but I'm also very much Ayn Rand-like.

Also, in that article, it talks about the harms to boys about "female-oriented education materials" with a pathos testimonial about how a boy was forced to read The Secret Life of Bees; and, since it was a girls' book, that it was somehow unfair. I don't remember reading about vehemt opposition to "male-oriented education materials" -- save from the feminists.
Wouldn't that be the book that finally turned Lunatic Goofballs into the abomination he is now?

Wouldn't that be the book that finally turned Lunatic Goofballs into the abominatin he is now?

No comment.

so what y'all are saying is that there is no such thing as masculinism.

there is only feminism and bitching about feminism?

Piggy Piggy says that things are still unequal and that you whine too much.

"How many female presidents have served?"
Well that is really the Womens fault since the majority of voters are women, and there are more women in this country than men now isn't it?

And since when were the voters asked who should run, rather than who should win? Since when were the voters asked who should receive millions of dollars in corporate funding? Since when were the voters asked who should receive editorial endorsements and party approval?

Is it our fault the male candidates are better than the women most of the time?
Considering that in the context of the media "horse-race" frame for electoral politics, "better" usually means "more likely to win," it has little meaning in terms of the quality of the candidates for public office. More to the point, what does it take to become a candidate? How did the candidates get where they are? Answer these questions, and you will begin to see how the deck is stacked against quality female candidates.

between 27-50% of domestic abuse victims are MALE.
Source? The American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence says otherwise: http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html

And we all know that women get off with less punishment in most cases

Could this have something to do with the fact that men beat women worse than women beat men?

I suggest you read this article by WENDY(yes a woman) McElroy called "Why Men Earn More"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148407,00.html
Actually, her "article" is a review of a book by Warren Farrell, who has been widely discredited and writes for a mass audience because he cannot manage to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you want to present scientific evidence, I suggest you try to find some evidence presented by scientists, in scientific outlets.

I suggest you read This article by WENDY McElroy entitled "Gender Bias in Domestic Violence Treatment".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167883,00.html

Relevance? The only attempt she makes to refer to scientific evidence is to cite a list compiled by Professor Martin Fiebert of articles that suggest an equal distribution of domestic violence victims across gender. If one actually looks at this list, one immediately realizes that the number of authors represented is far smaller than the list of articles: in other words, he lists "hundreds" of articles written by a very small minority of scientists. He also does not provide data on how many articles with contravening evidence are out there: the fact of the matter is that even if you take "article" rather than "author" as the unit of analysis, these articles represent a pitiful minority of the scientific work in domestic violence. (If you don't believe me, get to your local library and call up any database of scientific journals, then type in search terms like "domestic violence" and see how many articles appear.)

(I should also note that your post commits the same fallacy as Professor Fiebert's list: you may have three articles, but they are all by the same author! Not only that, but the author is a reporter, not a scientists--or, for that matter, an expert of any kind.)

I suggest you read this Article called "males missing on collage campuses" by WENDY McElroy .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159585,00.html

Admittedly, of the three issues you present, I know the least about this one. I also suspect that it is the only one pointing to a real problem, although the problem is certainly not related to female "domination" of men, or any other such absurdity. For one thing, while men may be a minority on college campuses, consider that they still dominate certain fields, such as engineering. The problem seems to result more from how men perceive themselves, such that "getting a job" after high school seems empowering, while "learning more" does not.

If so-called "masculinists" want to do anything positive, perhaps they should be trying to convince young men that reading books is not so "girly."

Male children tend to be more exuberant than girls, so the emphasis in the classroom of sitting quietly and shutting the hell up for the teacher,
Actually, research has shown that teachers (of both genders) are more likely to call on boys; more likely to praise answers from boys; and more likely to become "concerned" about "quiet" boys than similarly quiet girls. So, they do seem to go out of their way to encourage boys to participate, while discouraging (at least passively) girls. (Perhaps part of the reason that boys are, seemingly, "more exuberant" than girls.)

Same thing with laws ostensibly created to deal with gang violence: what they really do is prevent men from grouping together and doing anything.

Well, if what they want to "do" is violent... well, good.

Same with the current emphasis to always watch your children, keep your children in the house rather than loose in the neighborhood, etc.

I am unaware of this "emphasis," but what I do see is parents who are afraid of their children becoming the victims of violence, and to this extent they seem (justifiably) to be more concerned about restraining girls than boys.

turning off any meaningful way for young men to do the things that men do: group together and find something constructive to do.

When I was growing up, we boys tended more toward the destructive than the constructive. Putting sticks and stones in the street, for instance... or attacking innocent animals. (I never participated in the latter, but it seemed to be a favorite hobby of many of my friends.)

And then we wonder why adolescent boys comprise the majority of mental-illness patients
Source?

But if you insult a man for being not as smart as a woman, not as capable as a woman, stupid, sloppy, fat, oafish, incompetent, foolish, or irresponsible, then hey, you are talking about 90% of television comedies or ads today.
Which, of course, are generally written by men... Have you considered the possibility that the reason men can "take it" is that these images are not part of any actual mode of oppression? Those stereotypes are "funny" largely because we can laugh at them in full knowledge that we're never going to refuse a job to a man based on the prejudice that he is less responsible than a woman.

How often have you faced discrimination because someone judged you according to a male stereotype?

EDIT: The more I think on it, the more I realize that women face just as many, perhaps more destructive stereotypes in television comedies. They are gold-digging and shallow, or over-cultured and "bitchy"... Sit-coms are just one big set of stereotypes, going both ways.

This isn't the best example, as it is from my elementary school(GradesK-7). Anyways, intermediate (Grades4-7) boys were not allowed to "hang out," in groups of 6 or more during recess or lunch. This was school district policy because they thought that a group of 6 or more intermediate boys would just go around and beat up the girls and younger students. Girls did not count towards this six person limit (the called it a person limit even though girls did not count towards it) because a girl would not participate in or encourage violence like that. This policy made it hell for the administration to create a class list for the intermediate students (I remember it took until the end of October for them to solidify the class lists when I was in grade 6) because the boys were only allowed to have 5 friends and parents wanted their kid to have at least one friend in his class. The teachers also could not start teaching until this was dealt with because most of his/her initial class would be changed.

You elementary school needs to be roundhouse kicked into a McDonalds.

Feminism = True Equality.

Precisely my reaction.

This nonsense about so-called "true equality" in opposition to feminism just means that the patriarchy is maintained in a slightly subtler manner.

The story is the same, whether it is gay liberation, black liberation, women's liberation, worker liberation, or any of the others. Always, such movements are trying to secure the "special right" not to be oppressed, and thus, in Orwellian fashion, "equality" becomes the less overt maintenance of their oppression.