NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate to say it and i feel disgusted with myself...
But are women taking it too far?


i mean as it stands women get away with far more than men.

Either they lose some rights or we gain some.

Once again... sowwii!

I think it may help to say what sort of feminism you are talking about.

i mean as it stands women get away with far more than men.

Err, how?

I think it may help to say what sort of feminism you are talking about.

The sort where if you say anything at all the person goes "YOU JUST DONT LIKE WOMEN!!!"
they piss me off but i cant do anything.

Judith Butler pisses me off when she says there are no innate differences between men and women. But shes wrong. Both male and female brains are structured differently for one. Men naturally produce more testosterone. If there were no innate differences then we wouldnt even be physically different which isnt the case. Im for equality. I agree with her on the point that gender identities are to a great extent constructed and bullshit. But when she gets into biology thats where she goes way off the mark.

Err, how?




WELL.
If you cant see it take another look.
Socially, not legally.
Long hair, Skirts (I WANT ONE DAMMIT), Makeup, piercings.
EXAMPLE.
"Take that piercing out, the school doesnt allow it."
"...but the girls have one?"
"Go to Mr. Jones how dare you backchat me."


Ect.

Its basically a load of positive discrimination.

The sort where if you say anything at all the person goes "YOU JUST DONT LIKE WOMEN!!!"
they piss me off but i cant do anything.

Well take your pick then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Feminism_in_many_forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#Subtypes_of_feminism

WELL.
If you cant see it take another look.
Socially, not legally.
Long hair, Skirts (I WANT ONE DAMMIT), Makeup, piercings.
EXAMPLE.
"Take that piercing out, the school doesnt allow it."
"...but the girls have one?"
"Go to Mr. Jones how dare you backchat me."


Ect.

Its basically a load of positive discrimination.

I somehow think that has more to with enforcing traditional gender roles rather then women having more "rights"

I somehow think that has more to with enforcing traditional gender roles rather then women having more "rights"

Ok.
Another example.

Gal cheats on guy, guy kills her.
Life imprisonment.
Guy cheats on Gal, Gal cuts off his dick and then kills him.
Rehab.

WTF!!!!!

Ok.
Another example.

Gal cheats on guy, guy kills her.
Life imprisonment.
Guy cheats on Gal, Gal cuts off his dick and then kills him.
Rehab.

WTF!!!!!

Has this actually happened, and is it a common thing to happen in cases of murder over infidelity?

I can think of a case where a gal cut of a blokes dick an thought it out the window, but the found it and reattached it he has a band now called Frankindick or something like that!

Has this actually happened, and is it a common thing to happen in cases of murder over infidelity?

I found it on a Pro-Male rights website, ive lost the link tho soz. t'ra all

I can think of a case where a gal cut of a blokes dick an thought it out the window, but the found it and reattached it he has a band now called Frankindick or something like that!
Are you positive it wasn't voided itself out of the window?

what about this:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-1215210,00.html

I found it on a Pro-Male rights website, ive lost the link tho soz. t'ra all

Do you have any evidence that this is de rigueur, or was it a one-off case. Since you have provided very little information it is hard to say this is an example of women having more rights, especially since it sounds like a woman who would do such a thing might not have been in sound mind and such sentencing could have been a result of an insanity plea.

Are you positive it wasn't voided itself out of the window?

I heard it some where I think on a Sky One show called 50 Worst Mistakes

Here we go

33. John Wayne Bobbitt cheating on his knife-wielding wife, who exacted revenge by chopping off his willy.

http://www.ordinarygweilo.com/2004/09/50_worst_decisi.html

Europa alpha, I've just talked to my flat mate who is training in this branch of law. He says such things have happened, and that such rulings are due to diminished responsibility and provocation, and that it is a fairly recent thing that the law is catering to women in this way, when it only used to do this for men.

I have to go now, so this is about as much detail as I can go into.

What about how women can get cheaper car insurance than men? Or paternity leave being much shorter than maternity leave? Or mothers almost always getting custody of children after divorces even if they were cheating on the husband or were a worse parent?

closing rant... ... now

The sort where if you say anything at all the person goes "YOU JUST DONT LIKE WOMEN!!!"
they piss me off but i cant do anything.
Logic and reason usually demolishes such inflammatory statements.

WELL.
If you cant see it take another look.
Socially, not legally.
Long hair, Skirts (I WANT ONE DAMMIT), Makeup, piercings.
EXAMPLE.
"Take that piercing out, the school doesnt allow it."
"...but the girls have one?"
"Go to Mr. Jones how dare you backchat me."


Ect.

Its basically a load of positive discrimination.
Feminists are not to blame for this. It's just a cultural double standard.

I can think of a case where a gal cut of a blokes dick an thought it out the window, but the found it and reattached it he has a band now called Frankindick or something like that!
OH MY GOD! Women have telekenesis!
I knew there was something different about them.

I heard it some where I think on a Sky One show called 50 Worst Mistakes
Wrong verb dude.

Ok.
Another example.

Gal cheats on guy, guy kills her.
Life imprisonment.
Guy cheats on Gal, Gal cuts off his dick and then kills him.
Rehab.

WTF!!!!!

Rubbish, the latter was a single, isolated incident, you can't hold it up as a wide-ranging precedent.

Here's a genuine precedent: if a man kills a nagging wife then her incessant nagging can be held up as mitigating circumstances and he'll usually get a reduced sentence.

If a wife kills a physically abusive husband then she usually can't claim mitigation because 'she could have left the relationship at any point'.

Apparently our legal system regards nagging as more serious than abuse.

Overall I'd say rights are now fairly equal, there's a bit of balancing to be done each way but if anyone's losing out it's the women.

I hate to say it and i feel disgusted with myself...
But are women taking it too far?


i mean as it stands women get away with far more than men.

Either they lose some rights or we gain some.
Yeah, how about we start getting paid the same amount as men for the same job... but then that's taking it way too far, right?

Most of the restrictions placed on men are self imposed by their desire to not be seen as "less of a man".

WELL.
If you cant see it take another look.
Socially, not legally.
Long hair, Skirts (I WANT ONE DAMMIT), Makeup, piercings.
EXAMPLE.
"Take that piercing out, the school doesnt allow it."
"...but the girls have one?"
"Go to Mr. Jones how dare you backchat me."


Ect.

Its basically a load of positive discrimination.
Seriously, wear all the skirts and jewlery you want to. Grow your hair to your ass and paint your face all pretty, I'll welcome it.

Hell, feminism is about equality of the sexes and a bit of doing away with established gender roles for those who don't want to follow them. Most of the resistance you'll get to doing something like that (wearing skirts and makeup) will come from chauvist men in the first place.

What about how women can get cheaper car insurance than men?
Statistically, women drive less and are less likely to say, try to race their buddies for fun...

Or paternity leave being much shorter than maternity leave?
Umm... perhaps because there's physical recovery involved in maternity leave, not just bonding time. You try pushing out a bowling ball and see if you want to get off to work asap.

Or mothers almost always getting custody of children after divorces even if they were cheating on the husband or were a worse parent?
Yeah, that's stupid, but it's not based in feminism so much as the existing gender stereotypes of women as nurturers/caretakers.

when it comes to social things....a woman can pierce her navel but a man cant.... it has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with social acceptability. if you want that to change you have to get together with other men and start "piercing your navel". a woman cant do that for you. if you do challenge stereotypes, youll find lots of self identified feminists who support you. (you cant expect all women to support you, not every woman is a feminist)

when it comes to the law, there are few legal inequalities left in western developed countries. it is in the application that the inequality shows. that needs to be worked on in a different way. police and judges need to be chosen for their ability to judge that, for example, a man can be abused by his wife as easily as a woman can be abused by her husband, among other things. the more men are willing to get out and push for equality, the more equality they will get.

men getting equal rights takes nothing away from women any more than women getting equal rights really hurt men. it enhances everyone and gives everyone a better life.

as for lorean bobbit cutting off her husbands penis, it had nothing to do with him cheating on her. it was decided that it was a psychotic reaction to years of rape and abuse.

Umm... perhaps because there's physical recovery involved in maternity leave, not just bonding time. You try pushing out a bowling ball and see if you want to get off to work asap.

Although I see sense in the rest of what you have said, I still feel that paternity leave should be longer. There are 2 weeks paternity leave over here with 6 months maternity leave - which is an enourmaous gap. Besides the rights of the father, I think it would also be beneficial to the mother to have more support at home.

Would this be a good place to stick to worst ( or perhaps best ) sexist joke in I've ever heard?
( twas a response to one of those a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bike thingies )

Although I see sense in the rest of what you have said, I still feel that paternity leave should be longer. There are 2 weeks paternity leave over here with 6 months maternity leave - which is an enourmaous gap. Besides the rights of the father, I think it would also be beneficial to the mother to have more support at home.
cant say that i disagree wiht you, as long as it would be with pay. no family with a new baby can afford to have no income so longer leave for new fathers would be irrelevant if no one can afford to take it.

BUT

thats not the "fault" of feminism. before feminism, there was zero leave for new fathers. fathers werent seen as being involved with the caring of their new babies at all. feminism freed women to leave the home, requiring more effort from men in caring for their children, freeing men to be good fathers from the beginning of their childrens lives

if more paternal leave is needed, men should work towards it (parents should work towards it). women are not holding men back (to bring us back to the thoughts of the original post)

No-one should be judged on their race, sexual preference, age, sex, height, etc etc.

How coem so few people realise that?

No-one should be judged on their race, sexual preference, age, sex, height, etc etc.

How coem so few people realise that?

Because few people will allow themselves to realise things that are contrary to their own interest...

Although I see sense in the rest of what you have said, I still feel that paternity leave should be longer. There are 2 weeks paternity leave over here with 6 months maternity leave - which is an enourmaous gap. Besides the rights of the father, I think it would also be beneficial to the mother to have more support at home.
Oh, I agree with you there.

Hell, do you think that before the feminist movement there was such a thing as paternity leave in the first place?

What about how women can get cheaper car insurance than men?

For the same reason that drivers over a certain age get cheaper car insurance. They are safer.

Rubbish, the latter was a single, isolated incident, you can't hold it up as a wide-ranging precedent.

Here's a genuine precedent: if a man kills a nagging wife then her incessant nagging can be held up as mitigating circumstances and he'll usually get a reduced sentence.

If a wife kills a physically abusive husband then she usually can't claim mitigation because 'she could have left the relationship at any point'.

Apparently our legal system regards nagging as more serious than abuse.

Overall I'd say rights are now fairly equal, there's a bit of balancing to be done each way but if anyone's losing out it's the women.


As I indicated above, this is changing. Women now are successfully pleading for diminished responsibility etc.

Though I still agree with you, the law is still catered towards men.

No-one should be judged on their race, sexual preference, age, sex, height, etc etc.

How coem so few people realise that?

Not that I disagree, but that statement does lead to the tangent question; "What standards do you think people should be judged by?"

Not that I disagree, but that statement does lead to the tangent question; "What standards do you think people should be judged by?"

*groan*
Listen - unless we want case-by-case judgements ( ie a complete abandonment of the Rule of Law ) - we are stuck with the fact that we have GOT to have some preconceived standards, one way or the other.

A while ago, I was reading an article about gender bending in MMORPGs and it seemed to nail down the differences between men and women in society: men treat women better than men, but at the same time, treat them as inferior to men. Instead of striving for equality, the goal of feminism seems to be that women want to be treated better than men and still considered equals.

This seems like a contradiction.

A while ago, I was reading an article about gender bending in MMORPGs and it seemed to nail down the differences between men and women in society: men treat women better than men, but at the same time, treat them as inferior to men. Instead of striving for equality, the goal of feminism seems to be that women want to be treated better than men and still considered equals.

This seems like a contradiction.

Nope. There is no contradiction. It is trying to eat your cake and have it too.
I suppose it could be scolded for being.. hypocrisy.
But suppose it were - why should that actually bother the alleged hypocrites?

EVERYONE tries his best to get the best deal - for himself.

I hate to say it and i feel disgusted with myself...
You should be ashamed.
But are women taking it too far?
No.
i mean as it stands women get away with far more than men.
Bullshit. At the very least, be more specific.
Either they lose some rights or we gain some.
Actually, I think men and women both have rights to gain.

The sort where if you say anything at all the person goes "YOU JUST DONT LIKE WOMEN!!!"
Well, what exactly are you saying?

Have you considered the possibility that maybe you really don't like women? If you seem to be hearing this all the time, perhaps there is something to it? Maybe some careful self-examination is in order?

they piss me off but i cant do anything.
Sure you can:

1. Shut the hell up.
2. Try listening for a change.

Judith Butler pisses me off when she says there are no innate differences between men and women.
Clearly you have misread (or not read) Judith Butler. Her essential claim is NOT that the physiological/chemical differences between male and female bodies are unimportant to human development, but rather that these differences are not sufficient to produce the kind of "core" or "stable" concepts of "gender" that we have.

The simple evidence of this is to notice that there are plenty of people with penises who are not very "masculine" and plenty of people with vaginas who are. More importantly (for Butler), we are all capable of a broad range of behaviors that do not fit neatly into our gendered concepts. Society, however, forces both a misconception and a false performance on us, essentially encouraging us to deny those aspects of ourselves that do not fit the gendered stereotype.

That is a horribly simplistic version of her theory. I apologize to any educated readers who have been offended by my reductions, but it seemed necessary to defend her on this. [In point of fact, I disagree with her in a rather profound way... but our disagreement is not immediately relevant to this discussion.]

Long hair, Skirts (I WANT ONE DAMMIT), Makeup, piercings.
I cannot think of a feminist in the world who would deny you long hair (which you can have anyway... I am a man with long hair), a skirt, makeup, or piercings.

If you want those things, you should be joining the feminists who complain about gender stereotypes, not the anti-feminists who desperately want to enforce them.

Ok.
Another example.

Gal cheats on guy, guy kills her.
Life imprisonment.
Guy cheats on Gal, Gal cuts off his dick and then kills him.
Rehab.

Isolated example. Moreover, if one cared to look, there are probably just as many (if not more) examples of men "getting off easy" after killing their wives than vice versa.

Perhaps more importantly, think of all the abusive husbands/boyfriends who do not get punished at all. Think about the countless rapes that get written off as "the woman's fault" in one way or another.

Women hardly have the advantage when it comes to the criminal law.

What about how women can get cheaper car insurance than men?
That is because, statistically speaking, young women are better drivers than young men. (I am pretty sure the male disadvantage only continues until he is 25 and starts to cool his thrill-riding jets.)

Or paternity leave being much shorter than maternity leave?
Once again, you're fighting the wrong side. Feminists want paternity leave to be longer... so that when it comes to helping with the baby, the man cannot say, "sorry honey, they won't give me any more time away from work." Because of this inequity, women (as usual) are compelled to be responsible for primary childcare even when their male partner wants to help!

So, to reiterate, you're fighting the wrong side. We feminists have your back.

Or mothers almost always getting custody of children after divorces even if they were cheating on the husband or were a worse parent?
This is a problem of inequity. Of course, it would have been resolved by the feminist-supported Equal Rights Amendment, which was defeated by anti-feminists.

Although I see sense in the rest of what you have said, I still feel that paternity leave should be longer. There are 2 weeks paternity leave over here with 6 months maternity leave - which is an enourmaous gap. Besides the rights of the father, I think it would also be beneficial to the mother to have more support at home.

Yep. Most feminists I know would agree with you.

So, I wonder who would disagree...?

That is because, statistically speaking, young women are better drivers than young men. (I am pretty sure the male disadvantage only continues until he is 25 and starts to cool his thrill-riding jets.)


Once again, you're fighting the wrong side. Feminists want paternity leave to be longer... so that when it comes to helping with the baby, the man cannot say, "sorry honey, they won't give me any more time away from work." Because of this inequity, women (as usual) are compelled to be responsible for primary childcare even when their male partner wants to help!

So, to reiterate, you're fighting the wrong side. We feminists have your back.


This is a problem of inequity. Of course, it would have been resolved by the feminist-supported Equal Rights Amendment, which was defeated by anti-feminists.

It seems logically you are not a feminist. You are an equalitist, or something. A feminist would be pro-female, whereas you are pro-equality. I think the problem comes with feminists who want more than their fair share. And with the current PC-legislative problem, they are getting it.

It seems logically you are not a feminist. You are an equalitist, or something. A feminist would be pro-female, whereas you are pro-equality. I think the problem comes with feminists who want more than their fair share. And with the current PC-legislative problem, they are getting it.
No, he's a feminist. You're thinking about female supremacists.

And the word you were looking for there was egalitarian.

No, he's a feminist. You're thinking about female supremacists.

And the word you were looking for there was egalitarian.

I knew I hadn't got the terms quite right. Thanks.

It seems logically you are not a feminist.
No. I am, quite logically, a feminist.
You are an equalitist, or something. A feminist would be pro-female, whereas you are pro-equality.
No, I desire equality... which, in a sexist world, makes me a feminist.

I think the problem comes with feminists who want more than their fair share.
I have yet to encounter this phenomenon. When you find one, be sure to point her/him out to me.

And with the current PC-legislative problem, they are getting it.
Getting what?

Every claim made in this thread by anti-feminists to show inequities toward men has been either roundly debunked as a misreading of reality, or it has been shown that feminists oppose the inequities described, while anti-feminists are the backbone of support for gendered, stereotyped social practices and legislation.

You are on the wrong side of the line, boys.

No. I am, quite logically, a feminist.

No, I desire equality... which, in a sexist world, makes me a feminist.

But where I live, the UK, it isn't a sexist world. I know feminism is the correct term, I was just refering to the fact that if you want to be tecnical, it isn't a very good one. That was all.

I have yet to encounter this phenomenon. When you find one, be sure to point her/him out to me.

I am expected to: pay for dinner, open doors, carry bags, etc. If I get angry and semi-violent with a woman, I am a SOB with his brain in his pants, likely to get sued. If a woman does it, everyone asks me "What did you do to deserve that?" the answer is nothing! I have no problem with doing these things for a woman, but what really pisses me off are the women who think it is a god given right, and any man who doesn't do it is a chavenistic pig.

Every claim made in this thread by anti-feminists to show inequities toward men has been either roundly debunked as a misreading of reality, or [B]it has been shown that feminists oppose the inequities described, while anti-feminists are the backbone of support for gendered, stereotyped social practices and legislation
You are on the wrong side of the line, boys.

I agree feminists are on the equality side. I was merely commenting upon the fact that logically that made them not feminists, based on the meaning of the word. However I do not think it is entirely anti-feminists who are forcing those social expectations that I spoke of earlier, it is the women who want to have their cake and eat it, and have the best of both worlds. However I do agree the anti-feminists who are pushing forward the 'cherish and protect' point of view are also to blame.

Sorry for any confusion caused :)

But where I live, the UK, it isn't a sexist world.
No? Well, I cannot claim to be an expert on sex relations in the UK, so I am in no position to contradict you. I am raising a dubious eyebrow, however.

I know feminism is the correct term, I was just refering to the fact that if you want to be technical, it isn't a very good one.
On the contrary, it is the more "technical" term. Most of us in the United States, the UK, and other Western democracies believe in "egalitarianism" in some form, so it does not communicate very much to tell someone that you are "an egalitarian." Within this broad heading, some of us believe that in order to achieve real equality, we must change the way we deal with sex and gender, and femininity in particular. Technically, that makes us "feminists."

I am expected to: pay for dinner, open doors, carry bags, etc.
And you say the UK is not sexist??? Maybe you should check the definition of "sexism" again. Feminists oppose these social norms... historically, it has been the opponents of feminism who insist on "chivalry" and the "male provider."

If I get angry and semi-violent with a woman, I am a SOB with his brain in his pants, likely to get sued.
If you get "semi-violent" with someone, I should hope you do get sued.

If a woman does it, everyone asks me "What did you do to deserve that?" the answer is nothing!
Oh, so when you get angry there is a good reason... while women are just over-emotional and freak out over "nothing"?

It seems you need to work out your own sexist thinking before you complain about anyone else's.

I have no problem with doing these things for a woman,
Personally, I have no problem opening a door for anyone who is walking with me, or who is carrying bags, or for any other reason needs a door opened for her/him. Nor do I mind paying for dinner if I happen to have more money. (If not, then we'd better have another arrangement... or we can stop going out for dinner.)

but what really pisses me off are the women who think it is a god given right, and any man who doesn't do it is a chavenistic pig.

These women are not feminists. Remember, being a woman does not make one a feminist.

I agree feminists are on the equality side. I was merely commenting upon the fact that logically that made them not feminists, based on the meaning of the word.

While I hate to refer you to the dictionary, for a matter of common usage where else can one go?
Feminism: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

What other meaning could there be besides the one listed in the dictionary, which (for once) happens to agree with the self-description of people calling themselves "feminists"?

However I do not think it is entirely anti-feminists who are forcing those social expectations that I spoke of earlier, it is the women who want to have their cake and eat it, and have the best of both worlds. However I do agree the anti-feminists who are pushing forward the 'cherish and protect' point of view are also to blame.

Right... Anti-feminists... and anti-feminists. So why would you want to be on their side by attacking feminists?

EDIT: Sorry, misread the first part of that paragraph. To answer your assertion, what makes you "think" that it is not "entirely" anti-feminists who are forcing gendered social expectations? That is the very definition of "anti-feminist"!!

What about how women can get cheaper car insurance than men? Or paternity leave being much shorter than maternity leave? Or mothers almost always getting custody of children after divorces even if they were cheating on the husband or were a worse parent?

closing rant... ... now
In general men tend to be more agressive than women, that is why car insurance is more expensive for them. Paternity leave is shorter because men don't actually give birth. A friend of mine's parents were divorced. She lived with her father, so mothers don't always get custody.

But where I live, the UK, it isn't a sexist world.

Ha, hardly.

I suggest Gillian Pacall for you to read. She's a bit off the mark sometimes, but she has an interesting perspective.

That is because, statistically speaking, young women are better drivers than young men. (I am pretty sure the male disadvantage only continues until he is 25 and starts to cool his thrill-riding jets.)

So? What does statistics have to do with it? I was under the assumption that my right not to be discriminated on based on gender would extend past statistics.... I'm not hot headed at all, I'm a male aged between 16 and 25, why should I have to pay more? If statistics are the basis then you can hardly complain about women getting paid less, they are statisticly more likely to take long paid maternity leave and therefore the business must compensate for that.


I have yet to encounter this phenomenon. When you find one, be sure to point her/him out to me.

Valerie Solanis :D . Well more bat shit crazy than anything else but oh well.

So? What does statistics have to do with it?

The whole basis of the insurance industry is statistics. You pay based on how likely you are to get in an accident.

With respect to gender, this is allowed partly because it is a well-established fact that, all things being equal, gender (and age) predicts your driving habits. Of course, there are exceptions as well... and the other caveat to the method is that the insurance companies use a wide range of measures (not just this one) to calculate your premium.

Health and life insurance is an easier one to wrap your head around, since it is not trying to predict "behavior." Men and women differ in terms of which ailments they are likely to get, and men generally do not live as long as women. This affects their premiums, even for men who never get sick and manage to live to be 90... It is not "fair" for them, but it is also NOT "sexist."

I was under the assumption that my right not to be discriminated on based on gender would extend past statistics....

You are not being discriminated against, so get over it. (I also happen to fall into the affected demographic, so I'm arguing against my "interest" here, at least for the time-being.)

If statistics are the basis then you can hardly complain about women getting paid less, they are statisticly more likely to take long paid maternity leave and therefore the business must compensate for that.

I would not complain, if the issue were that simple. But there are two problems with the analogy:

1) Scientists who have been studying the wage gap have found that the numbers do not "add up". That is, while women may take maternity leave and time off to raise children, these factors do NOT account for the wage gap.

2) One of the reasons women take leave more often than man is the gendered expectations of our society... and the fact that men are usually not ALLOWED to take long parental leave. Thus, you are mistaking the effect for the cause.

...
Socially, not legally...

Long hair, Skirts (I WANT ONE DAMMIT), Makeup, piercings...


I'm a six-foot-four guy who used to do the nightclub scene in three of those four...

No? Well, I cannot claim to be an expert on sex relations in the UK, so I am in no position to contradict you. I am raising a dubious eyebrow, however.

I may be incorrect. However little sexism is apparent to me when I examine the society around me, at least not anti-female sexism.

On the contrary, it is the more "technical" term. Most of us in the United States, the UK, and other Western democracies believe in "egalitarianism" in some form, so it does not communicate very much to tell someone that you are "an egalitarian." Within this broad heading, some of us believe that in order to achieve real equality, we must change the way we deal with sex and gender, and femininity in particular. Technically, that makes us "feminists."

Ah, got you. I did not know how this phrase had arisen. I concede the point. (Which was more in the way of a light-hearted side point, but there we are...)

And you say the UK is not sexist??? Maybe you should check the definition of "sexism" again. Feminists oppose these social norms... historically, it has been the opponents of feminism who insist on "chivalry" and the "male provider."

I was wrong. I meant anti-female sexism. I concede there is the other kind apparent to me (which is why I am posting here :p )

If you get "semi-violent" with someone, I should hope you do get sued.

Oh, so when you get angry there is a good reason... while women are just over-emotional and freak out over "nothing"?

Ah. Here I'm afraid there is an inconsistency. How come you feel I could have had no reason in the first case (or at least not a mitigating one), but she must have had one in the second? What if in the first she had killed my parents before my eyes, I think I am justified in getting angry and semi-violent. Also in the second it could have been something as trivial as me not complementing her on her make-up that she worked so long on. Now I know these two situations as not indicitive of either sex, but I hope I have made my point, Both sexes can get angry over nothing, and both can have a really good reason to get annoyed. I feel you are being slightly over-protective of women when you replied to the above point. Do you agree? I'm not looking for a fight, it is just how it appeared to me.

It seems you need to work out your own sexist thinking before you complain about anyone else's.

Likewise.

Personally, I have no problem opening a door for anyone who is walking with me, or who is carrying bags, or for any other reason needs a door opened for her/him. Nor do I mind paying for dinner if I happen to have more money. (If not, then we'd better have another arrangement... or we can stop going out for dinner.)

I'm glad we agree on this point.

These women are not feminists. Remember, being a woman does not make one a feminist.

I didn't say they were. I said they wanted the best of both worlds. And that they are whom I am ranting about ;)

While I hate to refer you to the dictionary, for a matter of common usage where else can one go?


What other meaning could there be besides the one listed in the dictionary, which (for once) happens to agree with the self-description of people calling themselves "feminists"?

I was merely making a light point about the apparent meaning of the word. Please do not think anything of it.

To answer your assertion, what makes you "think" that it is not "entirely" anti-feminists who are forcing gendered social expectations? That is the very definition of "anti-feminist"!!

An anti-feminist is someone who opposes feminism. There are also those who ride it to get somethings, then step off it when it pleases them. They are not anti-feminism, except in the fact they are betraying its meaning.

I was wrong. I meant anti-female sexism. I concede there is the other kind apparent to me (which is why I am posting here :p )


So you don't think that social norms which propagate a provider/dependent relationship between the sexes is anti-female?

So you don't think that social norms which propagate a provider/dependent relationship between the sexes is anti-female?

I don't think it exists really any more. Sure there is an expectation, but noone is horribly offended when I woman turns up to work. Perhaps a house-husband is less likely, but I really don't think there is a major social stygma against it. However to be honest I might be wrong, it is simply that I have not encountered such a problem yet, nor seen evidence of one.

I don't think it exists really any more. Sure there is an expectation, but noone is horribly offended when I woman turns up to work. Perhaps a house-husband is less likely, but I really don't think there is a major social stygma against it. However to be honest I might be wrong, it is simply that I have not encountered such a problem yet, nor seen evidence of one.

What about those things you recently cited in your defence?

"I am expected to: pay for dinner, open doors, carry bags, etc."

What about those things you recently cited in your defence?

"I am expected to: pay for dinner, open doors, carry bags, etc."

That's not anti-female. That is pro-female, in that it gives them a higher status. I don't think anyone would complain to the woman if she payed for dinner, she can take it or leave it. The problem comes at the male end.

That's not anti-female. That is pro-female, in that it gives them a higher status.

No it doesn't. It puts women in a light that shows them to be weak and need a man's help to do stuff. I doesn't give them higher status, it patronises them.

The problem comes at the male end.

I cannot feel sorry for people who want to enforce age old, out dated standards. In regards to them paying for dinner anyway.

No it doesn't. It puts women in a light that shows them to be weak and need a man's help to do stuff. I doesn't give them higher status, it patronises them.

Some would say that. And those are the ones who don't want to have dinner bought for them. Others take it as conformation of their superior status.

I cannot feel sorry for people who want to enforce age old, out dated standards. In regards to them paying for dinner anyway.

Do you think the man REALLY wants to buy her dinner? He is like as not strapped for cash himself, and this is cutting into his money for [insert interest here]. However he thinks it is expected of him, so he does it. There are those who don't like this, for the reason you have already stated. That's cool. There are those who think it is sweet and are good with it. That's also cool. But those who expect it, who hold your manhood cheap if you do not do it, what they do is not cool. Because they are creating this social rule for their own benefit. A pro-female benefit. You see what I mean?

Some would say that. And those are the ones who don't want to have dinner bought for them. Others take it as conformation of their superior status.

Then they are deluding themselves and showing their ignorance of history and tradition amoung other things.

Do you think the man REALLY wants to buy her dinner? He is like as not strapped for cash himself, and this is cutting into his money for [insert interest here]. However he thinks it is expected of him, so he does it. There are those who don't like this, for the reason you have already stated. That's cool. There are those who think it is sweet and are good with it. That's also cool. But those who expect it, who hold your manhood cheap if you do not do it, what they do is not cool. Because they are creating this social rule for their own benefit. A pro-female benefit. You see what I mean?

They didn't create this social rule, it is from an archaic time when women weren't expected to pay for meals because they weren't expected to have money.

I feel I should ask, have you ever been in a situation when the same person will continue to pay your way? It is demeaning, it isn't nice, you cannot put a price on self respect.

I am expected to: pay for dinner, open doors, carry bags, etc. If I get angry and semi-violent with a woman, I am a SOB with his brain in his pants, likely to get sued. If a woman does it, everyone asks me "What did you do to deserve that?" the answer is nothing! I have no problem with doing these things for a woman, but what really pisses me off are the women who think it is a god given right, and any man who doesn't do it is a chavenistic pig.
Remember, not all women are good feminists. If she expects you to pay her way, open doors, etc she's not a feminist, she's a freeloader.

There are women who think that they don't have to meet the same standards of respectful behaviour as men should. This is called immaturity, not feminism.

There are women who think that they should have equal rights, but get all the material benefits of chauvinist rule. This is logical inconsistency, probably immaturity is to blame again.

I'm a feminist. Feminism is a great thing, it tries to bring equality for all.

How is that a bad thing?

Anything that tries to get more rights for women at the expense of men is female supremecy, not feminism.

Ah. Here I'm afraid there is an inconsistency. How come you feel I could have had no reason in the first case (or at least not a mitigating one), but she must have had one in the second?

I never said that, did I? I am sure you both had reasons to be angry. You are the one who implied that the women in question have no good reason to be angry with you.

What if in the first she had killed my parents before my eyes, I think I am justified in getting angry and semi-violent.
First of all, it was obvious that you implied some sort of minor personal dispute, not murder. If a woman had murdered your parents, I doubt anyone would accuse you of having your "head in your pants" or whatever it was you said.

Second, being that I assume we are (generally speaking) talking about personal disputes, when would you ever be justified in becoming "semi-violent"?

Also in the second it could have been something as trivial as me not complementing her on her make-up that she worked so long on.
It could be, but is it?

Most of us assume, unless we have reason to believe otherwise, that other people are basically reasonable human beings. Based on this assumption, if someone becomes violently angry, we assume that the object of their anger "must have done something" to warrant it: hence the reason people ask this question when a woman is angry with you.

Now, if you are claiming that the above scenario would typically cause a woman to become violently angry, then you are making a very sexist claim indeed.

Finally, given the assumption that people (including women) are basically reasonable and unwilling to become angry and violent over something trivial, if it appears to you that a woman you know has become violently angry over something trivial, perhaps you should re-examine the situation to discover what could produce such a reaction. Perhaps you have been routinely ignoring her for some time, or this incident is for some other reason "the final straw."

Only if you accept the premise that women are "overly emotional" would you refuse to look for a proper motivation for her behavior.

Now I know these two situations as not indicitive of either sex, but I hope I have made my point, Both sexes can get angry over nothing, and both can have a really good reason to get annoyed.

Right... so what does that prove?

I feel you are being slightly over-protective of women when you replied to the above point. Do you agree?

No. I am saying that women have the same right to get angry as you do, and they probably get angry over similar things. Therefore, if women are getting angry with you "over nothing," you have to admit the possibility that you are simply not looking deep enough.

I didn't say they were. I said they wanted the best of both worlds.

There is no "best of both worlds." The "worlds" of feminists and anti-feminists are mutually exclusive.

An anti-feminist is someone who opposes feminism. There are also those who ride it to get somethings, then step off it when it pleases them. They are not anti-feminism, except in the fact they are betraying its meaning.

Maybe. But if that's true, then why would you direct your anger toward feminists (as it seems you have been) who are not responsible for the evils about which you complain? Instead, you should be joining them to weed out the last vestiges of gendered social expectations.

Do you think the man REALLY wants to buy her dinner?

To the extent that it tends to keep a woman dependent on him, yes. For the same reason, he may be uncomfortable when she learns how to fix things around the house, or do her own taxes... or whatever else he thinks is "his job." When women start doing the things he expects to do for them, he worries that he will have less to hang over their heads.

But those who expect it, who hold your manhood cheap if you do not do it, what they do is not cool.
So? If you really feel that a woman is trying to compel you to serve her because you are a man, is she the sort of woman you want to date? I'd say this kind of "oppression" (not that I think it is) you can easily fight: just say "no."

Don't punish feminists for trying to make women and men equal. Just don't date women who are behind the times.

Because they are creating this social rule for their own benefit. A pro-female benefit. You see what I mean?

Actually, no. I think they have been deluded into accepting a very anti-woman social rule that maintains a relationship of dependence between the sexes. They may think it is "pro-woman," but if they do they are wrong.

The way I see it, there are two types of femenists:
true-femenists and psuedo(which means false or fake)-femenists, also called femanazis, female supremacists, etc.

If there is any group to blame for anti-femanist feelings, it's the latter. If femenism was Islam, the latter would be al-quieda. If femanism was white people, the latter would be the kkk. The latter is the loudest. The latter is the better known because they are the loudest.

As for the gender role thing:
Men are supposed to be the hunter. They are supposed to be the ones who get killed on the job. They are expected to show nothing but anger and indifference. They are expected to be tough from a very young age. That's why we men don't live as long. Many of us die from stress-induced heart attacks and strokes. We get paid more because we are expected to do more. We are expected to take the $300/hr 500 foot crane job over the minimum wage bag stuffing job. We are expected to raise tough boys. If I end up in prison, I will get killed if I show any non-anger emotions. It is our fear of being vulnerable and weak that breeds our societies' sexist stereotypes. A long time ago, if a man was weak, he died. It didn't matter if a woman was weak because she was just the womb. She was the baby factory at a time where our very survival depended on having many kids.

Nowadays, we live in a modern world with prehistoric gender roles. Girls could be tough or weak. Men had to be strong. Being weak was like being unpatriotic or discusting. We get paid more because we are demanded to do more. Get rid of these gender roles and equal pay will be yours, femanists.

To the extent that it tends to keep a woman dependent on him, yes. For the same reason, he may be uncomfortable when she learns how to fix things around the house, or do her own taxes... or whatever else he thinks is "his job." When women start doing the things he expects to do for them, he worries that he will have less to hang over their heads.
Very well said. Once men and women are liberated from such material dependencies on each other, all they have is love. This can only result in the improvement of our species. Go feminism!

The way I see it, there are two types of femenists:
true-femenists and psuedo(which means false or fake)-femenists, also called femanazis, female supremacists, etc.
Right, I hear this a lot... The funny thing is that when I ask someone to point these "feminazis" out to me, they can never seem to find any...

The latter is the loudest. The latter is the better known because they are the loudest.
Better known? Really?

Name ONE.

Right, I hear this a lot... The funny thing is that when I ask someone to point these "feminazis" out to me, they can never seem to find any...


Better known? Really?

Name ONE.
better known GROUP.

better known GROUP.

What group? Name an organization, then. Name one single well-known feminist whom you would call a "feminazi."

Name one single demand that these fabled feminazis make, and tell me where I can hear it from her own mouth, or read it in her own words.

If they are so well-known... WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY??

... other than in the trembling fantasies of conservative radio hosts, that is.

Ok.
Another example.

Gal cheats on guy, guy kills her.
Life imprisonment.
Guy cheats on Gal, Gal cuts off his dick and then kills him.
Rehab.

WTF!!!!!
Strawman

You mis-represent both cases. Your crass under explained examples hardly let us know what each was thinking.

But where I live, the UK, it isn't a sexist world. I know feminism is the correct term, I was just refering to the fact that if you want to be tecnical, it isn't a very good one. That was all.
Actually it is a good term, it refers to a particular specialisation within the field of equality. In essence it adds a dimension of linguistic clarity by allowing people to refer to a particular branch of equality.

Evidently your notion that the UK is not sexist is in a latter post qualified in such a way that I can infer that to you sexism refers to 'female'. That in itself is sexist is it not?

I am expected to:
Really? By whom?

pay for dinner, open doors, carry bags, etc.
What nonesense. You are free to do these things or not.

If I get angry and semi-violent with a woman, I am a SOB with his brain in his pants, likely to get sued.
Aside from a very few exceptions, you shouldnt get semi-violent with anyone. Doing so is a sign of being an SOB and ought to make you liable to law suites.

If a woman does it, everyone asks me "What did you do to deserve that?" the answer is nothing!
Everyone does not ask you this. I have not asked you this ever. Perhaps you are hanging out with the wrong crowd. Evidently none of these things has anything to do with 'rights'. There is no law or social institution that forces you to open doors, carry bags, pay for dinner or that dictates how people will react if you are semi-violent or subject to semi-violence.

I have no problem with doing these things for a woman, but what really pisses me off are the women who think it is a god given right, and any man who doesn't do it is a chavenistic pig.
None of which have got anything to do with rights or feminism. There are people of all kinds that have an over-developed sense of entitlement. People of both genders/sexes are capable of being jerks...to suggest otherwise would be sexist.

I agree feminists are on the equality side. I was merely commenting upon the fact that logically that made them not feminists, based on the meaning of the word.
Aha, but you are wrong. Just as a peditrician is a doctor, a feminist is someone who is concerned with equality.

However I do not think it is entirely anti-feminists who are forcing those social expectations that I spoke of earlier, it is the women who want to have their cake and eat it, and have the best of both worlds. However I do agree the anti-feminists who are pushing forward the 'cherish and protect' point of view are also to blame.
It's funny how if females are self interested this apparently reflects on feminism even when the majority of the females concerned are not feminists....Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. People who are more interested in fairness than in self-interest are the minority, this is true of both males and females. The fact that when males so behave they are people, but when females do it they are 'taking feminism too far' is itself a sign of how far we still have to go in terms of equality and fairness.
[/QUOTE]

Better known? Really?

Name ONE.
In my experience with my peers (I'm 19 years old and a university student), both male and female, people think "Female supremacist/feminazi" when they hear "feminist".

I hate to say it and i feel disgusted with myself...
But are women taking it too far?


i mean as it stands women get away with far more than men.

Either they lose some rights or we gain some.

Once again... sowwii!
1) No, women are not taking it too far. You should feel disgusted with yourself for saying it.

2) Women do not get away with more than men. Women can't even hold down a job in piece, without being screamed at for failing at their womanly duty to bear and rear kiddies. Women are blamed for getting themselves raped. Women aren't even allowed the very most fundamental human right: the right to ownership of their own bodies.

3) Women's rights do not violate the rights of men. It can (and should!) reduce the special perks that are enjoyed by men throughout the world, like the perks of being the only voting group, the only property holders, the only leaders, and the only free citizens. Men currently hold more perks then can really be counted, and they hold these perks by virtue of denying rights to women. This is no different than the perks enjoyed by majority ethnic groups; when slaves were freed, whites lost the "right" to own other human beings, but boo fucking hoo for them.

I have nothing against 'moderate' feminism. (Equal rights, opertunities, all that jazz)

Assinine ideolagies such as spelling woman, 'Womyn', are just well..... Stupid.

Equal opportunities yes. Of course I've heard of a few cases where if there are only a few women in a certain company, profession whatever, and if one makes a mistake that would get a man fired, the fact that there are so few women makes it now what amounts to a political issue. Giving the woman a break to make sure some stupid quota isn't messed up would be completely wrong.

Assinine ideolagies such as spelling woman, 'Womyn', are just well..... Stupid.

I think that is done to show how language we use is inherently gendered, and objection to gendered language stems from the idea that it is an oppressive social force.

Similar how they dislike the term 'dependent' to refer to wives since it carries with all sorts of negative connatations. AnarchyeL seems to know more about feminist theory, but as far as I know changing women to womyn (or variations there of) is done somewhat tongue in cheek, similarly the term "Herstory" isn't suggesting that History comes from His Story, but is done to show how history has been gendered and pushed women into the sidelines.

EDIT: I found this which is rather amusing

http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=551

Equal opportunities yes. Of course I've heard of a few cases where if there are only a few women in a certain company, profession whatever, and if one makes a mistake that would get a man fired, the fact that there are so few women makes it now what amounts to a political issue. Giving the woman a break to make sure some stupid quota isn't messed up would be completely wrong.

I agree.

Strawman

You mis-represent both cases. Your crass under explained examples hardly let us know what each was thinking.

Straw-womyn surely?

:confused:


</jk>
;)

Equal opportunities yes. Of course I've heard of a few cases where if there are only a few women in a certain company, profession whatever, and if one makes a mistake that would get a man fired, the fact that there are so few women makes it now what amounts to a political issue. Giving the woman a break to make sure some stupid quota isn't messed up would be completely wrong.
Everybody seems to have "heard of a few cases" of this kind of thing, yet I never can seem to get any hard examples. I'm sure plenty of us can find just as many examples of men who are allowed far more leeway than their female coworkers. I don't think annecdotal evidence is really something we should muck around in.

Any feminist will tell you that women and men deserve EQUALITY. Giving a person special treatment because of their gender is the exact opposite of what feminism advocates, and that includes given women special perks. I have been personally offended by cases where people tried to cut me a special break because I'm a girl (as if I couldn't possibly compete without a head start!) and every feminist woman I know feels the same way. We don't WANT special treatment, and most often directly refuse it when it is offered.

It is actually the anti-feminist women who are more eager to grasp at sexist perks, like expecting to be "treated like a lady." These are the women who want to enjoy the fruits of the feminist revolution (voting, holding property, having a job, etc), but still want to be allowed to cut in line because "ladies go first," and still want men to hold doors open for them even though they never hold a door for anybody. These women are NOT feminist, and deserve to be treated like the silly hypocrits that they are. If you want to get rid of that kind of behavior, and if you want men and women to have real equality instead of bullshit PC cover-ups of the same old sexism, support real feminism.

And if a chick ever tells you she's feminist but she expects the man to pay for dinner, tell her to grow up and get a damn job :).

and still want men to hold doors open for them even though they never hold a door for anybody..

Hey, if I happen to notice someone behind me I'd hold the door for anyone. It is just being polite.

Of course I often don't notice what is going on around me so... :D

Hey, if I happen to notice someone behind me I'd hold the door for anyone. It is just being polite.

Of course I often don't notice what is going on around me so... :D
Exactly!!!

Lord, I can't count the number of times I've heard men bitch about how THEY open doors for women, and somehow that makes them princes. Like somehow women should be thankful that big strapping men are there to open doors, and how women are big meanieheads for picking on the nice fellows who lower themselves to open doors and pull out chairs for the thankless bitches.

Chris Rock said it best: What do you want, a cookie?! Openning a door, or holding it for the person behind you, is common courtesy. I do it all the damn time, and I'm a weak little girl. Holding doors for somebody does not make you a superhero, because if it did I would be too busy standing magestically on a rooftop overlooking the City to bother posting around here.

*groan*
Listen - unless we want case-by-case judgements ( ie a complete abandonment of the Rule of Law ) - we are stuck with the fact that we have GOT to have some preconceived standards, one way or the other.

Laws are not the same as standards. What are the standards you believe a person ought to be judged by?

Here's the thing about feminism.

Feminism was originally about equal rights, equal power, and equal control in the relationship. This is a great thing -- women deserve the rights to pursue good jobs and positions of political power just as much as men.

But, now feminism has become about chastizing women who choose to take the role of the parent and homemaker and casting all men as brainless horny animals.

It's like feminists now think that women have the right choose to do anything -- just so long as they only choose to take up stereotypically male roles. Like women who choose to be homemakers and stay at home with the kids are somehow betraying them by colluding with the patriarchal male agenda.

There are these two girls at my school, one is a feminist and one is a feminazi. I know this is probably wrong, but we give the feminist a hard time in an extremely sexist way. She realizes its all fun and games, she doesn't really mind. The feminazi on the other hand seems to really hate men.

Anyways, anecdotes aside, I am all for equality and tearing down gender roles (when my dad's pastor started ascribing gender roles at the christmas service, I got so pissed). It seems to me that back when feminism was starting, women were not only fighting sexist men, but sexist women. Like as has been said, gender roles for men are created by society as a whole, not just women. The thing about gender when compared to almost all other steriotypical groups is that it is the most visible, with the exception of race possibly, when you see someone the first thing you see is their gender. And plus, sexuality always (even if subtly) comes into play with anything between the sexes. It is simply human nature.

I think that men do need more encouraging, especially at a younger level. Boys consistently do worse at all levels of schooling than girls. Yet there is always a "Women in so and so" month or week or day or organization. Never a men in such and such. Prostate cancer is more common than breast cancer, yet more funding for breast cancer. Suicide rates are higher for men. And finally, men do get raped and abused, yet it is widely ignored.

Yet there is always a "Women in so and so" month or week or day or organization.
There was an interesting article on this on websnark (a comic critique blog, but they talk about a lot of other things too.) You can find it here (http://www.websnark.com/archives/2006/03/also_dont_pat_t.html)

Feminism has pissed me off just like Chauvinism, or any other thing that states it is better based merely on being X.


You earn respect, you aren't born with it.

Here's the thing about feminism.

Feminism was originally about equal rights, equal power, and equal control in the relationship. This is a great thing -- women deserve the rights to pursue good jobs and positions of political power just as much as men.
It still is.

But, now feminism has become about chastizing women who choose to take the role of the parent and homemaker and casting all men as brainless horny animals.
No it isnt.

It's like feminists now think that women have the right choose to do anything -- just so long as they only choose to take up stereotypically male roles. Like women who choose to be homemakers and stay at home with the kids are somehow betraying them by colluding with the patriarchal male agenda.
No it is not like that at all. In fact I none of the feminist I know personally have ever indicated holding such a view, although most have at some time expressed sentiments that are contrary to such a view...

Feminism has pissed me off just like Chauvinism, or any other thing that states it is better based merely on being X.


You earn respect, you aren't born with it.

Exactly.

And that is the precise reason FOR feminism.

We live in a culture that DOES immediately apportion 'respect' to those who had the good fortune to be born with a penis.

It's a flawed society. But, rather than wandering around with rose-coloured spectacles, making an effort not to notice, we SHOULD not be afraid to get our hands dirty, and maybe shed a few tears... to make the world a BETTER place than it was when we first fought our way out of the womb.

We live in a culture that DOES immediately apportion 'respect' to those who had the good fortune to be born with a penis.
In the west I think that women get screwed over in some ways and men get screwed over in others. In public women usually get as much or more respect than men usually get.

In the west I think that women get screwed over in some ways and men get screwed over in others. In public women usually get as much or more respect than men usually get.

I get very few catcalls when I walk passed scaffold...

Seriously, though... what do you mean 'in public'? It's better than it was, but women still statistically earn less, and get less of the benefit-incentivised jobs.

I get very few catcalls when I walk passed scaffold...

Seriously, though... what do you mean 'in public'? It's better than it was, but women still statistically earn less, and get less of the benefit-incentivised jobs.
Popular beliefs:

Men aren't worth of chivalry. Only women deserve to be treated with respect.

Men can't control themselves, they have no standards, they'll do anything for sex with any woman.

That's what I'm talking about.

Popular beliefs:

Men aren't worth of chivalry. Only women deserve to be treated with respect.

Men can't control themselves, they have no standards, they'll do anything for sex with any woman.

That's what I'm talking about.

So... there are a couple of (often well founded) stereotypes? Hardly the equal of workplace discrimination...

Personally, I am chivalrous to all... but, I have noticed that it really does SEEM that most men WILL do anything for sex with any woman, practically.

I might be in a minority in my attitudes in that regard... it really does seem the male 'gender' collectively hurts itself on that one.

So... there are a couple of (often well founded) stereotypes? Hardly the equal of workplace discrimination...

Personally, I am chivalrous to all... but, I have noticed that it really does SEEM that most men WILL do anything for sex with any woman, practically.

I might be in a minority in my attitudes in that regard... it really does seem the male 'gender' collectively hurts itself on that one.
How about a more serious charge, the fact that rape of men is not taken as seriously as rape of women?

You're exhibiting your own double standards and sexism against men.

Remember, in the 1950s there were lots of women who thought that all women should be homemakers.

How about a more serious charge, the fact that rape of men is not taken as seriously as rape of women?

You're exhibiting your own double standards and sexism against men.

Remember, in the 1950s there were lots of women who thought that all women should be homemakers.

I agree that there is a difference in perception about rape... but then, when you examine it... no matter the gender of the victim, the attacker is usually male. It can be seen to come across kind of like "we are doing it to ourselves"... harder to make a sympathetic pitch based on that.

My personal belief is that rape is rape. And that rapists should get the death penalty, but that is maybe beside the point.

How am I exhibiting my "own double standards and sexism against men"?

I think that men do need more encouraging, especially at a younger level. Boys consistently do worse at all levels of schooling than girls.
Boys need more discipline. When little girls misbehave, parents are more likely to discipline them and get them to stop their misbehaviour, when little boys misbehave, they're more likely to get away with it. This means that little boys refuse to sit still or think they can misbehave in a classroom setting. It's the parents, not the system. Boys are still picked most often to answer questions in class even when there's a female teacher. Boys generally get more attention in school than girls do.

Suicide rates are higher for men.
Yet suidide attempts are higher for women. Men are just more successful at killing themselves.

And finally, men do get raped and abused, yet it is widely ignored.
They aren't raped and abused with nearly the same frequency as women are. And also, that's partly because of antiquated laws which determined that rape was only forced vaginal penetration. Can't be subjected to forced vaginal penetration if you don't have one afterall... I think that's changing though.

In public women usually get as much or more respect than men usually get.
Really?

Have you ever had your ass grabbed by a complete stranger while minding your own business at a bar or on the street?

Have you ever been harassed and called questionable things by construction workers?

Have you ever been told that you can't do something because "you're a girl"?

And you think this is a demonstration of respect? I don't fucking think so.

How about a more serious charge, the fact that rape of men is not taken as seriously as rape of women?

You're exhibiting your own double standards and sexism against men.

Remember, in the 1950s there were lots of women who thought that all women should be homemakers.
yes but WHO doesnt take the rape of men seriously?

i suggest that its MEN. not because its not serious but because men dont even want to think about the possibility of men being raped. because it IS as devastating to men as it is to women and has the further psychological problem of "taking away his manhood". (unlike being attacked by killer bees, which is serious but doesnt affect your core beliefs about yourself and your ability to trust other people, nor does anyone suffer in shame of being attacked by bees or wonder forever what about THEM made the bees attack)

Feminism has pissed me off just like Chauvinism, or any other thing that states it is better based merely on being X.


You earn respect, you aren't born with it.
Feminism is a statement of equality, thanks for buying into the idioctic notion that it's not though.

And yeah, you earn respect, men just don't have to work nearly as hard to get it.

It's often said that a woman who does twice the work of a man gets half the credit. I'm finding it to be true.

Have you ever been told that you can't do something because "you're a girl"?I've been told there's things I shouldn't do because I'm a guy...

The whole issue of who’s picking up the tab on a dinner date can be an awkward situation. As a guy you should always have enough to cover both of you, because you never really know how a woman feels about the subject. She might raise a big stink about you offering to pay or if you assume you’re splitting it, she’ll think you’re cheap. It can really be an awkward, no win situation. I’ve had women take me out to dinner and it never really bothered me. Instead I thanked them. I’ve also been out to dinner with women who felt it necessary to explain to me for five minutes or more why or how the dinner should be split or not the way it is… It’s not that big a deal, but people make into a big deal more than they should. Shaking hands with the waiter in India, using your left hand, now that’s a big deal!

It’s one reason why I generally either go for the coffee date or make them dinner at my place. Coffee is less to bicker over paying for, either paying for it or going Dutch is never a big deal. Cooking for someone at your own place means there is not hassle about worrying about your payment strategy and plus you get to impress her if you’re a good cook. A no lose situation if you ask me.

I think that a large part of the problem with feminism and dating is that women are having a hard time trying to define feminism, because every generation and woman may have their own conception of it, and it’s never a uniform code to work for guys to work around. That and media are always trying corrupt it for their own market ends (like that Her diamond ring to show everyone how you bought yourself a diamond ring to express your own feminist self. They even got a few celebs to get into the act to give it pop culture appeal. Man, those diamond companies are sneaky).

The Bruce

I agree that there is a difference in perception about rape... but then, when you examine it... no matter the gender of the victim, the attacker is usually male. It can be seen to come across kind of like "we are doing it to ourselves"... harder to make a sympathetic pitch based on that.
I agree that some men are part of the problem. I don't particularly blame women and i certainly don't blame feminists for this. Remember, in the 1950s feminists had to deal with women who thought that all women should be homemakers.

How am I exhibiting my "own double standards and sexism against men"?
By stating that the negative stereotypes against men are true.

And also, that's partly because of antiquated laws which determined that rape was only forced vaginal penetration. Can't be subjected to forced vaginal penetration if you don't have one afterall... I think that's changing though.
Thus the law is biased against men. (and women who get anally raped)

Really?

Have you ever had your ass grabbed by a complete stranger while minding your own business at a bar or on the street?
No.

Have you ever been harassed and called questionable things by construction workers?
Yes, but not sexually.

Have you ever been told that you can't do something because "you're a girl"?
I've been told that I can't do things because I'm a man.

yes but WHO doesnt take the rape of men seriously?

i suggest that its MEN. not because its not serious but because men dont even want to think about the possibility of men being raped. because it IS as devastating to men as it is to women and has the further psychological problem of "taking away his manhood".
It is analogous to the women in the 1950s who thought that woman's place was in the kitchen. See my response to Grave'n'idle above.

I've been told there's things I shouldn't do because I'm a guy...
It won't be feminists telling you that. Do whatever you want, so long as it's legal.

It won't be feminists telling you that. Do whatever you want, so long as it's legal.I didn't listen, especially since it was a kid half my age and I'd signed a contract that forced me to cook for the kids. Not that I would have let that hinder me anyway.

Thus the law is biased against men. (and women who get anally raped)
Or raped with an object, or forced to give oral sex et c. The law wasn't written with a bias against men, it was written at a time when men were believed to be incapable of being raped.

I've been told that I can't do things because I'm a man.
Again, probably not by a feminist. Probably by someone who thinks that gender roles are fine the way they are and that men have certain activities they should do and women have certain activities they should do.

I didn't listen, especially since it was a kid half my age and I'd signed a contract that forced me to cook for the kids. Not that I would have let that hinder me anyway.
...so the only time you've been told you shouldn't do something because of your gender it was by a kid? Not like, an authority figure of some sort, just a kid who might not know any better yet?

Feminism is the pursuit of equalising civil and political rights for both women and men. It is a good movement, with a lot of work still left to be done. When a 'feminist' begins asking for more rights than men, though, she is actually a 'female chauvinist'. Please don't confuse the two.

As for cultural inequalities, there is little that can be done in the short-term. Changing a culture is something which takes many generations to accomplish, and can only be done discretely.

The whole issue of who’s picking up the tab on a dinner date can be an awkward situation. As a guy you should always have enough to cover both of you, because you never really know how a woman feels about the subject. She might raise a big stink about you offering to pay or if you assume you’re splitting it, she’ll think you’re cheap. It can really be an awkward, no win situation. I’ve had women take me out to dinner and it never really bothered me. Instead I thanked them. I’ve also been out to dinner with women who felt it necessary to explain to me for five minutes or more why or how the dinner should be split or not the way it is… It’s not that big a deal, but people make into a big deal more than they should. Shaking hands with the waiter in India, using your left hand, now that’s a big deal!

It’s one reason why I generally either go for the coffee date or make them dinner at my place. Coffee is less to bicker over paying for, either paying for it or going Dutch is never a big deal. Cooking for someone at your own place means there is not hassle about worrying about your payment strategy and plus you get to impress her if you’re a good cook. A no lose situation if you ask me.

I think that a large part of the problem with feminism and dating is that women are having a hard time trying to define feminism, because every generation and woman may have their own conception of it, and it’s never a uniform code to work for guys to work around. That and media are always trying corrupt it for their own market ends (like that Her diamond ring to show everyone how you bought yourself a diamond ring to express your own feminist self. They even got a few celebs to get into the act to give it pop culture appeal. Man, those diamond companies are sneaky).

The Bruce

uh

yeah

well i think that a good rule of thumb is "whoever asked pays" and that anyone going on a date should bring some money just in case the idiot you are going with didnt. if a woman is so concerned about you paying for everything, maybe you should drop her. "she's hot" isnt much of a reason to put up with a cheap bitch.

you make a good point about society, marketing and "hollywood" subverting the notions of feminism. we pick up so many ideas of the way people are in the world from what we read and see on tv/movies. we forget that those are just stories and dont necessarily reflect real life or are actively trying to manipulate us (advertising) in general, i think its best to treat each other with respect. if a woman insist on different treatment that common courtesy you might want to reconsider trying to develop a relationship with her.

I wonder, does anyone else who has been reading this have an opinion on affirmative action? Because in my opinion that is an example of certain groups getting the laws to favor them (womens-rights, civil-rights activists, ect...)

I think thats when something has gone to far, when it becomes a law. Til then, it doesnt matter what an individual believes. Or says.

Just my two cents.

I agree that some men are part of the problem. I don't particularly blame women and i certainly don't blame feminists for this. Remember, in the 1950s feminists had to deal with women who thought that all women should be homemakers.


And those women are still saying the same things today. It doesn't affect the 'truth' of the situation. A lot of people take 'man-on-man' rape less seriously. I'd say they are wrong. I'm just saying that ONE OF the reasons they might do that, is for the same reason gang-warfare is 'less of an issue' than gang violence on 'civilians'... that being - if you can see it as 'one kind' hurting itself, it is less of a threat.


By stating that the negative stereotypes against men are true.


I didn't say 'true', did I?

But, if 75% of guys are willing to lie, in order to get laid... then you could argue that a 'stereotype' is supported to a degree.

As I said - I won't lie (at all, actually) for sex... but I've seen a LOT of guys do just that.

I didn't say 'true', did I?

But, if 75% of guys are willing to lie, in order to get laid... then you could argue that a 'stereotype' is supported to a degree.

As I said - I won't lie (at all, actually) for sex... but I've seen a LOT of guys do just that.

So either many women are stupid in believing guys or they just don't care that he is lying. Then again you don't want to get caught in a stereotype...

[QUOTE=Dakini]Statistically, women drive less and are less likely to say, try to race their buddies for fun...[QUOTE]
Hey, racing for fun and racing for pinkslips are two competely different things!

Also, I've been in cars driven by 13 other men, about. Not a one of em has ever had an accident, and only a few have ever run red lights or gotten parking tickets.

O the same note, I've driven with about 10 women, of which 7 have been in accidents, 2 of them the fault of the lady who I was driving with, 1 of them serious, and all but one have recieved speeding tickets, parking tickets, etc.

I would like to see the actual statistics that state women are better drivers than men, because you can manipulate any statistics to mean anything these days.

Also I think men deserve male superiority, to a certain extent. We are generally smarter, stronger and better at everything than women. So we deserve better roles in a capitalist country.

But whatever.

There are these two girls at my school, one is a feminist and one is a feminazi. I know this is probably wrong, but we give the feminist a hard time in an extremely sexist way. She realizes its all fun and games, she doesn't really mind. The feminazi on the other hand seems to really hate men.
It sounds like your evaluation runs as follows: You say really sexist things, and if a woman doesn't like it, she must be a "feminazi." I would say that your first "feminist" friend probably doesn't like it any better, she's just not as good at saying so... probably because she is unwilling to deal with the consequences, namely your applying an unfair label to her and complaining that she "hates men."
Prostate cancer is more common than breast cancer, yet more funding for breast cancer.
This is misleading on several counts. First of all, while there are more prostate cancer patients than breast cancer patients, the numbers are comparable (within a few thousand in tens of thousands); however, there are more women who die of breast cancer than men who die of prostate cancer--which, considering that prostate cancer is more prevalent, means that breast cancer is apparently much more deadly. Secondly, breast cancer research gets more money because women have worked long and hard to lobby for it. If men want to get similar funding for prostate cancer, they will have to organize politically to demand it. It is unrealistic to expect money simply to fall from the heavens.

Statistically, women drive less and are less likely to say, try to race their buddies for fun...
Hey, racing for fun and racing for pinkslips are two competely different things!

Also, I've been in cars driven by 13 other men, about. Not a one of em has ever had an accident, and only a few have ever run red lights or gotten parking tickets.

O the same note, I've driven with about 10 women, of which 7 have been in accidents, 2 of them the fault of the lady who I was driving with, 1 of them serious, and all but one have recieved speeding tickets, parking tickets, etc.

Hardly representative samples, clearly.

Look, insurance companies are out to make a profit. If women were really worse drivers than men, the providers would charge women more, men less. Their research is as solid as the billions of dollars it is worth to them every year.

So either many women are stupid in believing guys or they just don't care that he is lying. Then again you don't want to get caught in a stereotype...

Or maybe women are more trusting than you allow?

Honestly.. it's a big world 'stupid' and 'indifferent' are often NOT the ONLY choices.

I would like to see the actual statistics that state women are better drivers than men, because you can manipulate any statistics to mean anything these days.

Also I think men deserve male superiority, to a certain extent. We are generally smarter, stronger and better at everything than women. So we deserve better roles in a capitalist country.

But whatever.

Seriously?

I'd immediately yell troll, but the post count looks convincing...

There was something I was thinking about today and I've come to the conclusion that any form of discrimination, be it sexism, racism, or whatever -ism you would like to pick, comes from people thinking of themselves as victims. People seem so eager to point out how they have been wronged by others and use it to justify unacceptable behavior and complete lack of responsibility. Meanwhile, the people being accused of being the perpetrators are not responsible, or unwilling to accept responsibility, leaving a problem that is not being acted upon by anyone.

Get over it and get on with life. Holding your breath while waiting for anyone to make amends is just going to leave you running out of air.

Also I think men deserve male superiority, to a certain extent. We are generally smarter, stronger and better at everything than women. So we deserve better roles in a capitalist country.

But whatever.
Care to provide some facts with your opinions?

Or maybe women are more trusting than you allow?

Honestly.. it's a big world 'stupid' and 'indifferent' are often NOT the ONLY choices.

I was responding to the idea that all guys lie in order to get sex. In order for that to work women would either have to be indifferent or "stupid" or maybe naive would be a better word.

Or raped with an object, or forced to give oral sex et c. The law wasn't written with a bias against men, it was written at a time when men were believed to be incapable of being raped.
That doesn't mean the law is not biased. The fact that it hasn't been changed in many places, even where legal protections for women have increased, indicates that people don't take anti-male violence seriously.

Again, probably not by a feminist. Probably by someone who thinks that gender roles are fine the way they are and that men have certain activities they should do and women have certain activities they should do.
I've said a thousand times that I don't blame feminists for this. We're both against limiting people to gender roles. Check my signature, I even consider myself to be a feminist.

And those women are still saying the same things today. It doesn't affect the 'truth' of the situation. A lot of people take 'man-on-man' rape less seriously. I'd say they are wrong. I'm just saying that ONE OF the reasons they might do that, is for the same reason gang-warfare is 'less of an issue' than gang violence on 'civilians'... that being - if you can see it as 'one kind' hurting itself, it is less of a threat.
That is so flawed. People choose to become gangsters. Men don't choose to be men.

Besides, a more accurate analogy would be a male rapist, raping another male rapist.

But, if 75% of guys are willing to lie, in order to get laid... then you could argue that a 'stereotype' is supported to a degree.

As I said - I won't lie (at all, actually) for sex... but I've seen a LOT of guys do just that.
I wonder what the statistic is for women?

I'm not trying to make men look like pious saints or anything. I just adamantly dislike the suggestion that being selective is, as [NS]Simonist said "the female's gift" (and thus not the male's gift).

I was responding to the idea that all guys lie in order to get sex.
See, even the language we use is sexist! It says that sex is something that as a rule is given by women and taken by men.

Not that I disagree, but that statement does lead to the tangent question; "What standards do you think people should be judged by?"
Personality, knowledge, skill level, sense of humor ... I can go on...

I was responding to the idea that all guys lie in order to get sex. In order for that to work women would either have to be indifferent or "stupid" or maybe naive would be a better word.

I don't believe I ever claimed 'all guys lie'.

You are constructing a strawman.

See, even the language we use is sexist! It says that sex is something that as a rule is given by women and taken by men.

Good point, and well made.

That is so flawed. People choose to become gangsters. Men don't choose to be men.

Besides, a more accurate analogy would be a male rapist, raping another male rapist.


But, you aren't really arguing it, are you. At heart, you see the meaning I was conveying, and that I'm not saying the two situations are literal parallels.

I'm making a comparison... why IS man-on-man rape considered less of a deal than man-on-woman rape? Why IS gang-on-gang violence considered less of a deal than gang-on-civvie violence?

I think it looks like there is a perception of collective 'self-harm'.


I wonder what the statistic is for women?

I'm not trying to make men look like pious saints or anything. I just adamantly dislike the suggestion that being selective is, as [NS]Simonist said "the female's gift" (and thus not the male's gift).

As you pointed out, look at the way sex is commonly considered... it IS usually considered as something women 'give' and men 'take'. In that context, women 'lying for sex' becomes much less of an issue, does it not?

I would like to see the actual statistics that state women are better drivers than men, because you can manipulate any statistics to mean anything these days.
Yes of course one can manipulate statistics. but the question here is why?

Insurance companies profit or not according to how well they assess risk. If indeed women drivers cost insurance companies as much in pay outs per dollar paid in, as do men, then insurance companies would be very stupid to not be charging them more and I doubt every insurance company in the country would have failed to notice the inconsistency between the statistics and the actual rates at which they are paying out on female claiments' car accidents.

In essence the insurance companies have every motivation to address any statistical errors (and the means to do so considering they know exactly how much they are paying out to various categories of claiments). On the hand they have absolutely no motivation to get it wrong or overlook any manipulation or errors that may have occured vis-a-vis the statistics.

lso I think men deserve male superiority, to a certain extent. We are generally smarter, stronger and better at everything than women. So we deserve better roles in a capitalist country.

But whatever.
Right.....I dont believe that is the case. Perhaps you can find a smart strong better at everything man to convince me...

I hate to say it and i feel disgusted with myself...
But are women taking it too far?


i mean as it stands women get away with far more than men.

Either they lose some rights or we gain some.

Once again... sowwii!

Another one of these?

Women DO NOT get more than men. Women are expected to be drop-dead gorgeous, intelligent (but never as smart as their male counterparts), good housekeepers, excellent mothers, etc. And, despite how hard women work to prove their worth, there are still blinding prejudices againsts women. We are seen as flightly, weak, and submissive. We're also paid less than men working the same jobs. Oh yeah, and there's been only one female Canadian PM, and no female presidents in the US. We've got a long way to go before we're even close to getting a better life than men.

feminsm is stupid. feminists complain about the word manage, even it stems from the word manus, which is latin for hand, not the word man.

feminsm is stupid. feminists complain about the word manage, even it stems from the word manus, which is latin for hand, not the word man.

Certain feminists are overzelous. That does not negate the importance of gender equality.

feminsm is stupid. feminists complain about the word manage, even it stems from the word manus, which is latin for hand, not the word man.
People who cannot think critically enough to at least avoid the obvious fallacy of assuming that because some fruit are apples, all fruit are therefore apples, are stupid.

What's really pissing me off right now is how the wife usually gets custody of the children in a divorce. This is bad for me since my mom is a bipolar, paranoid psychopath, and yet I will still have to stay with her as opposed to my father, who is a much better parent and not insane.

Why? I just don't see the reasons for it...

What's really pissing me off right now is how the wife usually gets custody of the children in a divorce. This is bad for me since my mom is a bipolar, paranoid psychopath, and yet I will still have to stay with her as opposed to my father, who is a much better parent and not insane.

Why? I just don't see the reasons for it...
The primary cause of mothers getting custody is the sexism that feminists battle against.
The two primary ways that this cause comes into effect is by expectations of parents, and expectations of the courts/society. In the first case, less fathers than mothers apply for custody because there is a tendency on the part of parents to see this as 'natural' and because in some cases it is the most economically viable choice (for some or all involved). In the latter, courts and society at large have biases and expectations that effect how they view the 'suitability' of those applying to them for custody. Mothers are often seen as more nuturing and more involved, and fathers as being best suited to 'providing' and as being likely to be encumbered in their providing role by custody.

In essence the sexist view of 'man as breadwinner' and 'woman as nuturer' is still having very real ramifications for society.

With regards to you personally, in cases of custody dispute, most modern Westernised societies give children an opportunity to make their views on custody known, and the older/more mature the child the more their view is privledged. Why this hasnt been the case with regards to your circumstances, I cant say, but a variety of factors could be involved.

Care to provide some facts with your opinions?


Easy; if women were so smart - they wouldn't love men. :)

Easy; if women were so smart - they wouldn't love men. :)

Unless I'm very much mistaken... not all of them do....

I am note reading 10 pages of this thread.

All I have to say on this subject is that im all for equal rights. BUt remember its a double edged sword. You want equal pay fine with me. You want to get shot at in war thats your choice. But i shouldn't have to watch what i say around you . And if you piss me of i should be able to beat the shit out of you like i would any another man.

All im saying is if you want equality you have to take the good with the bad. You can't pick and choose. You take it all or you take none.

(Side note i have never actually physically harmd a women in my life.)

I am note reading 10 pages of this thread.

All I have to say on this subject is that im all for equal rights. BUt remember its a double edged sword. You want equal pay fine with me. You want to get shot at in war thats your choice. But i shouldn't have to watch what i say around you . And if you piss me of i should be able to beat the shit out of you like i would any another man.

All im saying is if you want equality you have to take the good with the bad. You can't pick and choose. You take it all or you take none.

(Side note i have never actually physically harmd a women in my life.)

You know you're not actually 'allowed' to "beat the shit" out of another man, either, right?

You know you're not actually 'allowed' to "beat the shit" out of another man, either, right?


I know but say if its two friend who pissed of at eachother you wont go to the police but if it is a female friend your severly looked down upon because she was a women.

I know but say if its two friend who pissed of at eachother you wont go to the police but if it is a female friend your severly looked down upon because she was a women.

As you should be... we migrated out of the caves several thousand years ago....

Feminism.

Just another 'we want more for us' movement.

To be utterly and totally ignored - except when used as a defenseless target for baiting, satire and ridicule.

As you should be... we migrated out of the caves several thousand years ago....
There is absolutly nothing wrong with beating the crap out of a friend when they need it. Some may think it is barbaric but hey it feels good.

There is absolutly nothing wrong with beating the crap out of a friend when they need it. Some may think it is barbaric but hey it feels good.

Only for one of you, I assume.... :rolleyes:

Only for one of you, I assume.... :rolleyes:
im only worried about me and if im beating some one down they must of done something to deserve it. I dont just beat people for no reason.

But if a women hits me i should have every right to defend myself. Right know in the current social climate we live in i couldn't hit a women who hits me.

im only worried about me and if im beating some one down they must of done something to deserve it. I dont just beat people for no reason.

But if a women hits me i should have every right to defend myself. Right know in the current social climate we live in i couldn't hit a women who hits me.

I'm sure you've good points to make... but I just can't be bothered debating this issue any longer. We just don't see eye to eye, I guess... you seem much more willing to accept casual brutality than I am prepared to do... so, let's leave it at that.

I'm sure you've good points to make... but I just can't be bothered debating this issue any longer. We just don't see eye to eye, I guess... you seem much more willing to accept casual brutality than I am prepared to do... so, let's leave it at that.

You have missed my main point. One of the age old traditions or whatever you want to call it is "Under no circumstance should a male hit a female." This is a main arguing point. What im triing to state in my less then eloquant way is that Feminist wish to pick and choose what parts they are equal for. When if you wish to truly be equal you have to be able to take an insult or in some cases a punch with out running to the local goverment and your lawyer saying he verbaly abused me or i didn't like what he said it offended me as a women. If you want to be equal with men if you want the same pay. if you want to fight alongside a man in battle so be it. But remember you have to take the bad things men do to each other with it. you can't choose. Its either all or none.



P.S. yes i accept casual brutallity easier but i grow up with nothing but brothers and all we did was fight. I do classify myself as a bookworm computer nerd but i am in no way incapaable of defending myself.

why IS man-on-man rape considered less of a deal than man-on-woman rape?
I think the reason is because of men being stronger. Some people subconciously (or consciously?) think that if a man couldn't fight off a man who was trying to rape him, then he deserved it. :headbang:

Why IS gang-on-gang violence considered less of a deal than gang-on-civvie violence?
This is because when someone entered the gangster underworld they knew what they were getting themselves in for - a life of lawlessness - those who live by the sword die by the sword, etc.

Law-abiding citizens expect a right to security.

As you pointed out, look at the way sex is commonly considered... it IS usually considered as something women 'give' and men 'take'. In that context, women 'lying for sex' becomes much less of an issue, does it not?
According to stereotypes, yes, but in reality women lie for sex some times, just as men do. In fact according to sexist stereotypes, women don't even want sex and have to be tricked into it. :rolleyes:

Easy; if women were so smart - they wouldn't love men. :)
Really, that makes no sense at all. It's not a joke either cos it doesn't make me laugh.

What's really pissing me off right now is how the wife usually gets custody of the children in a divorce. This is bad for me since my mom is a bipolar, paranoid psychopath, and yet I will still have to stay with her as opposed to my father, who is a much better parent and not insane.

Why? I just don't see the reasons for it...
if you are old enough to post something like that on the net you are old enough to talk to the judge yourself

did your dad ASK for custody of you? if he didnt you are out of luck

if he did, didnt the court appoint a social worker to come look at both homes? if so, try talking to that social worker to see if she can help you. she might be able to hook you up with a free childrens lawyer who will help you press your own rights.

or you can maybe talk to the councillor at school to see if she can do a simlar thing for you.