NationStates Jolt Archive

I am fairly new to posting on Nationstates. Today I learned what trolling is. Can someone tell me what "flaming" is?

when the different beliefs actually are indicators of idiocy, then it is right and good to say so.

I don't think ignorance equates to idiocy in all cases. If an individual is raised to hate all non-caucasians by his parents, grandparents, and entire family and community, does that make him an idiot for being a racist so much as it does unfortunately sheltered?

when the different beliefs actually are indicators of idiocy, then it is right and good to say so.

-_-

Is a woman an idiot because she feels most comfortable in a relationship in where she is taken care of?

the penis as a whole. because that means he's biologically male. which means his brain is geared more toward logic. yet again, scientifically proven. so stfu.

Really? Hmm... I thought being biologically male would have been a fair indicator that an individual was likely to have a higher testosterone level than someone who was biologically female. And according to the scientific research that I am looking at (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4921690.stm), that makes him somewhat less likely to think logically regarding certain decisions.

"So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?"

Non-feminists.

*sigh* Again, the post that that was responding to discussed "anti-feminists."

And, as I already said, I don't really agree with the distinction you're making between "anti-feminists" and "non-feminists." Dempublicents already summed up very well why your "if you want to be pampered and/or pamper your partner, you're not a feminist" argument isn't accurate.

-_-

Is a woman an idiot because she feels most comfortable in a relationship in where she is taken care of?

No more than a man is...


wonder if I can get Madonna to adopt me ?

I have bills.:D

First off, I'm not an anti-feminist.

KK.

To get a general consensus, though, should or should not females be eligible for war draft?

If we are going to have a draft at all, it should apply to all citizens, yes.

Should they be stationed in combat zones just as readily as men currently are?

Yes, as long as they meet the requirements for said position.


It's more than just pointing it out when you call someone an idiot for not believing as you do like Bitchkitten has done.

I see. What if I believe that all bigots are, in fact, espousing idiotic viewpoints?

If you go monkeying around with the traditional relationship you get perversion by definition and all the wicked results of single moms, child abuse, divorce, and juvenile delinquents.

What about single fathers? Are they ok? Gay parents?

Meanwhile, if you really think that child abuse and juveniile delinquents didn't occur before the "traditional family" (which became "traditional" around 1950) stopped being enforced, you don't know much about society.

As for divorce, there are those who go for it too flippantly. These are usually the people who entered marriage too flippantly in the first place. But a past society would have blocked it even when the relationship was completely unworkable or one of the spouse's life was in danger from the other. I'd rather have a few people taking the easy way out and jumping for divorce than have people locked in completely failed relationships just because.

*sigh* Again, the post that that was responding to discussed "anti-feminists."

And, as I already said, I don't really agree with the distinction you're making between "anti-feminists" and "non-feminists." Dempublicents already summed up very well why your "if you want to be pampered and/or pamper your partner, you're not a feminist" argument isn't accurate.

Meh, then we disagree. It's just terminology, though.

Really? Hmm... I thought being biologically male would have been a fair indicator that an individual was likely to have a higher testosterone level than someone who was biologically female. And according to the scientific research that I am looking at (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4921690.stm), that makes him somewhat less likely to think logically regarding certain decisions.

I was not even going to bring up that argument but hey there it is. Even if this was not the case and a woman's brain was the same as a man's to respect tradition and promote order and social stability it would seem best to have a man make the decisions in a patriarchical society and a woman in a matriarchical society like in some of the tribes in Africa.

But draft specifically? Supposing a couple had young children, both the man and woman are physically able to serve in the military, but the man decided to go back to college. Therefore, the woman gets drafted first--is "I have to stay home and watch the kids" an invalid excuse?

Is that a valid excuse when a man gets drafted? If not, then it is equally invalid when a woman uses it.

Now, the military should certainly take steps to ensure that *both* parents are not drafted, but that could be acheived by making, "I have to watch the children and my spouse already got drafted," a valid excuse.

I was not even going to bring up that argument but hey there it is. Even if this was not the case and a woman's brain was the same as a man's to respect tradition and promote order and social stability it would seem best to have a man make the decisions in a patriarchical society and a woman in a matriarchical society like in some of the tribes in Africa.

AGAIN WITH THE TRADITION. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT TRADITION BEFORE YOU HAIL IT AS AUTOMATICALLY GOOD OR YOU WILL BE IGNORED.

Sorry for the caps, but I thought you might just be missing the questions.

KK.



If we are going to have a draft at all, it should apply to all citizens, yes.



Yes, as long as they meet the requirements for said position.



I see. What if I believe that all bigots are, in fact, espousing idiotic viewpoints?



What about single fathers? Are they ok? Gay parents?

Meanwhile, if you really think that child abuse and juveniile delinquents didn't occur before the "traditional family" (which became "traditional" around 1950) stopped being enforced, you don't know much about society.

As for divorce, there are those who go for it too flippantly. These are usually the people who entered marriage too flippantly in the first place. But a past society would have blocked it even when the relationship was completely unworkable or one of the spouse's life was in danger from the other. I'd rather have a few people taking the easy way out and jumping for divorce than have people locked in completely failed relationships just because.

Typical liberal psychobabble. Actually it might not be. I just wanted to type "psychobabble."

AGAIN WITH THE TRADITION. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT TRADITION BEFORE YOU HAIL IT AS AUTOMATICALLY GOOD OR YOU WILL BE IGNORED.

Sorry for the caps, but I thought you might just be missing the questions.

I thought I did in my discussion on social stability. If you missed the point, I am sorry.

Is that a valid excuse when a man gets drafted? If not, then it is equally invalid when a woman uses it.

Now, the military should certainly take steps to ensure that *both* parents are not drafted, but that could be acheived by making, "I have to watch the children and my spouse already got drafted," a valid excuse.

I actually think it might be valid if the male is a single parent, but that was already semi-covered with what you said.

I asked because people who call themselves feminists who I've encountered harbor the "men started the wars, men will fight the wars" sentiment.

Typical liberal psychobabble. Actually it might not be. I just wanted to type "psychobabble."

We can just as easily dismiss your statements by labeling them "typical ignorant bastard psychobabble".

I thought I did in my discussion on social stability. If you missed the point, I am sorry.

No, you didn't. Directly address the questions: What's better about horses than cars? What's better about monarchy than democracy? What's better about slaves than freedom? What's better about gold pieces than credit cards?

Tradition is -not- inheritly good, and in fact has been shown to sow much evil.

No, you didn't. Directly address the questions: What's better about horses than cars? What's better about monarchy than democracy? What's better about slaves than freedom? What's better about gold pieces than credit cards?

Tradition is -not- inheritly good, and in fact has been shown to sow much evil.

Credit cards are actually pretty evil. :(

I was not even going to bring up that argument but hey there it is. Even if this was not the case and a woman's brain was the same as a man's to respect tradition and promote order and social stability it would seem best to have a man make the decisions in a patriarchical society and a woman in a matriarchical society like in some of the tribes in Africa.

By that logic, in order to respect tradition and promote order and social stability, it would seem best to stab every Jew you saw if you lived in Nazi Germany, or posess as many African-American slaves as you could afford if you lived in pre-Civil War America. Yet few people would agree that these are good and acceptable things to do. Do you disagree?

By that logic, in order to respect tradition and promote order and social stability, it would seem best to stab every Jew you saw if you lived in Nazi Germany, or posess as many African-American slaves as you could afford if you lived in pre-Civil War America. Yet few people would agree that these are good and acceptable things to do. Do you disagree?

He doesn't disagree or agree because he won't directly answer the questions at all, for fear of his dumbass bubble being popped by logic.

It's more than just pointing it out when you call someone an idiot for not believing as you do like Bitchkitten has done.
How could I call a woman who likes being treated as an inferior anything less than an idiot or masochist?
What now, blacks for the KKK? Jews for Hezbollah?

How could I call a woman who likes being treated as an inferior anything less than an idiot or masochist?
What now, blacks for the KKK? Jews for Hezbollah?

Women can enjoy being unequal without being lesser. You assume unequal is always in the favor of man.

That is an absurd question. Plus, it is not about who makes the better decisions. It is about who has the final say on a subject. I am not going to debate what sex makes better decision makers. The point is that if a decision is to be made, it is up to the man to be a man and take the responsibility of command.

He may be right he may be wrong but he is the one who decides. Where do you guys live? Mars?

i live on planet earth where no one is perfect. having an equal partner means you have someone there to help keep you from making mistakes, someone to help fix them when they are made and someone to help you forgive yourself for making them.

a man who has an equal partner as his wife doesnt bear the load for the family all by himself. they share responsibility. it so much easier to have a wife as a partner rather than as a dependant.

He doesn't disagree or agree because he won't directly answer the questions at all, for fear of his dumbass bubble being popped by logic.

Thanks for the insight, Szanth, but for the moment I will attempt to continue to reason logically with him. Feel free to stick around and see how that goes.

Is that a valid excuse when a man gets drafted? If not, then it is equally invalid when a woman uses it.

Now, the military should certainly take steps to ensure that *both* parents are not drafted, but that could be acheived by making, "I have to watch the children and my spouse already got drafted," a valid excuse.Equal rights, equal responsibility. When my sister and her husband joined the military, they had to prove they had someone to keep the kids. She gave her mother guardianship of my niece.

Why on earth should one be compelled to tolerate, love, or understand bigots? Most black people feel no great love for KKK members; most GLBT people feel no great love for the Westboro Baptist Church. Why should women feel any obligation to express their love and understanding toward people who claim them to be inferior beings, which is what one must assume an "anti-feminist" would do?
Perhaps part of your misunderstanding of my post has to do with your making assumptions?

If you read what Bottle wrote, perhaps you might see where she kinda contradicted herself?

Also, because one is a feminist precludes that they cannot have love and understanding for people who are not feminist? Because one is a feminist, they have to look down upon those who are not? Sheesh!!

-_-

Is a woman an idiot because she feels most comfortable in a relationship in where she is taken care of?

No, but she is an idiot if she thinks other women shouldn't have the right to choose not to be in such a relationship, or that she shouldn't be able to choose a different sort of relationship (or even no relationship!) if she changes her mind.

Think of it this way: pretty much definitionally, feminists would agree that women should be able to be corporate CEOs, right? However, many feminists probably do not themselves have any particular interest in being CEOs. I know I certainly don't - but I would undoubtedly object to anyone telling me "you can't be a CEO because you have a vagina." Similarly, some women, myself included, do not necessarily want complete equality in relationships. I'm a submissive. I like being treated unequally in certain circumstances - but I'd dump a guy in a heartbeat if he informed me that I didn't have a choice in the matter. If you choose to be in a certain kind of relationship, and you believe that other people should be able to choose what sort of relationships they want to be in, it doesn't matter if your role in life is wearing a French maid's outfit, calling your partner "Master," and licking his feet - you're still a feminist. :)

No, but she is an idiot if she thinks other women shouldn't have the right to choose not to be in such a relationship, or that she shouldn't be able to choose a different sort of relationship (or even no relationship!) if she changes her mind.

Think of it this way: pretty much definitionally, feminists would agree that women should be able to be corporate CEOs, right? However, many feminists probably do not themselves have any particular interest in being CEOs. I know I certainly don't - but I would undoubtedly object to anyone telling me "you can't be a CEO because you have a vagina." Similarly, some women, myself included, do not necessarily want complete equality in relationships. I'm a submissive. I like being treated unequally in certain circumstances - but I'd dump a guy in a heartbeat if he informed me that I didn't have a choice in the matter. If you choose to be in a certain kind of relationship, and you believe that other people should be able to choose what sort of relationships they want to be in, it doesn't matter if your role in life is wearing a French maid's outfit, calling your partner "Master," and licking his feet - you're still a feminist. :)

Yeah, I suppose. Meh.

Women can enjoy being unequal without being lesser. You assume unequal is always in the favor of man.It shouldn't be either. I won't tolerate being less and have no respect for a man who does.
Unequal implies one partner is less.

i live on planet earth where no one is perfect. having an equal partner means you have someone there to help keep you from making mistakes, someone to help fix them when they are made and someone to help you forgive yourself for making them.

a man who has an equal partner as his wife doesnt bear the load for the family all by himself. they share responsibility. it so much easier to have a wife as a partner rather than as a dependant.

I choose not to take the easy way out and shirk my responsibility. My wife is my advisor not my opposing counsel.

It shouldn't be either. I won't tolerate being less and have no respect for a man who does.
Unequal implies one partner is less.

-You- won't tolerate a man who does, but what gives you the right to pass judgement on a woman who prefers it?

to all you people who laughed at my statement that men think more logically than women, you are either ignoratn or horribly misinformed. There have been so many studies done to explain why higher level math and logic classes are almost exclusively male, while editorial and more subjective classes are majority female. If I had the time, I would look up the studies, but I'm too busy atm. Point of the matter is my engineering institute is 70% male. The liberal arts college up the road flips the ratio the other way. Why is this? because female minds are geared more toward non-logical applications. they are geared toward more 'artsy' and whatnot type thinking.

I choose not to take the easy way out and shirk my responsibility. My wife is my advisor not my opposing counsel.

So you are for a monarchy. Nobody elected you and nobody can tell you what to do? You're a king. There's no place for kings in America.

-You- won't tolerate a man who does, but what gives you the right to pass judgement on a woman who prefers it?

I can pass judgement on anybody I want. If she feels comfortable, she's entirely free to ignore said judgement, But I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion of a woman who wants to be treated as an inferior is that she's an idiot.

By the way, nothing sounds more appealing to me than hot feminist action.

"Hot Feminist Action"

They were HOT,.. they were FEMINIST,.. They were...

ACTION!


..but, can YOU handle them?




Cumming to a Theater near you.

Staring Wendy Munchez and Ginger Snap

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/92/We_Can_Do_It%21.png/225px-We_Can_Do_It%21.png

Perhaps part of your misunderstanding of my post has to do with your making assumptions?


Well, if you'd like to explain what exactly would define one as being "anti-feminist" besides disagreeing with the principle that one's gender does not determine one's worth as a human being, I'd be more than willing to listen. I'm not sure defining an "anti-feminist" as "one who opposes feminism" was too very much of an assumption on my part, but you're welcome to tell me how I could be wrong. :)

to all you people who laughed at my statement that men think more logically than women, you are either ignoratn or horribly misinformed. There have been so many studies done to explain why higher level math and logic classes are almost exclusively male, while editorial and more subjective classes are majority female. If I had the time, I would look up the studies, but I'm too busy atm. Point of the matter is my engineering institute is 70% male. The liberal arts college up the road flips the ratio the other way. Why is this? because female minds are geared more toward non-logical applications. they are geared toward more 'artsy' and whatnot type thinking.

Source?

http://www.megafoundation.org/Genius/GenderCognition.htm

to all you people who laughed at my statement that men think more logically than women, you are either ignoratn or horribly misinformed. There have been so many studies done to explain why higher level math and logic classes are almost exclusively male, while editorial and more subjective classes are majority female. If I had the time, I would look up the studies, but I'm too busy atm. Point of the matter is my engineering institute is 70% male. The liberal arts college up the road flips the ratio the other way. Why is this? because female minds are geared more toward non-logical applications. they are geared toward more 'artsy' and whatnot type thinking.
In general that's true. But different doesn't mean superior or inferior.

I can pass judgement on anybody I want. If she feels comfortable, she's entirely free to ignore said judgement, But I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion of a woman who wants to be treated as an inferior is that she's an idiot.

And my opinion is that you're a flippant bitch, hence name I suppose.

I choose not to take the easy way out and shirk my responsibility. My wife is my advisor not my opposing counsel.

No, it seems to me as if that's exactly what you're doing. By putting yourself in a position where you can easily ignore your wife's "advice", you are avoiding the much harder problem - and responsibility - of giving her the respect she deserves by discussing the problem rationally between the two of you, and coming to an agreement or compromise. Nobody said anything about her being "opposing counsel", and if you frequently find yourself in situations where she outright disagrees with you, you may need to re-evaluate your decision making process.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/92/We_Can_Do_It%21.png/225px-We_Can_Do_It%21.png

http://photobucket.com/albums/v185/danieliscXc/drive.gif :cool:

Equal rights, equal responsibility. When my sister and her husband joined the military, they had to prove they had someone to keep the kids. She gave her mother guardianship of my niece.

Indeed. But I would say that both have responsibility both to the military and to their children. A better solution, in my view, would be for the military to ensure that it didn't ship them both off to war at the same time. Basically, the one to get the orders to ship out first would go, and the other would not be shipped out until the first had returned.

In general that's true. But different doesn't mean superior or inferior.

The exact opposite was agreed upon in the civil rights movement.

And my opinion is that you're a flippant bitch, hence name I suppose.
I am a flippant bitch. So for once you got something right.:fluffle:

Cars are better than horses . Democracy in many ways is prefereable to monarchy. Credit cards are a little scary and gold pieces are too darn heavy but rather pretty. I am resisting the urge to end this post with "Are you happy now?"

It is said that tradition should not be controlling but it should have a vote. I would be hesitant to confuse tradition with technological progress. In your earlier post you mentioned that slavery and murder are traditional. I am not sure that this is the case, espescially for murder.

What traditionalized murder are you talking about? As for slavery, I think you are referring to slavery having been legal and then becoming illegal. In the American context I am not sure that it was a tradition as much as it was a religious and economic experience. In other societies it was clearly a merciful tradition dealing with the treatment of POWs. I am not really sure how to answer your question on slavery.

-_-

Is a woman an idiot because she feels most comfortable in a relationship in where she is taken care of?

practically speaking

yes

dependant on just how taken care of she is

its not often found now but in the generation preceeding my own it was not uncommon to find women in their 50s who had never held a job, never learned to drive, never written a check, never made a major decision on their own. when their husbands died well before their time they had to scramble to make up enough life skills to survive. its a tough 10 years or so to the collecting of social security and their husband pension when they have to try to eke out a living on minimum wages.

The exact opposite was agreed upon in the civil rights movement.In that case the courts were right.

Women deserve exactly the same rights. But it doesn't change the fact that, in general, men and women have different strengths.

It confused me how she said that anti-feminists were bad in bed but then says everyone she's slept with was a feminist. Maybe I missed something.
It does make for some interesting satire for sure. :D

No, it seems to me as if that's exactly what you're doing. By putting yourself in a position where you can easily ignore your wife's "advice", you are avoiding the much harder problem - and responsibility - of giving her the respect she deserves by discussing the problem rationally between the two of you, and coming to an agreement or compromise. Nobody said anything about her being "opposing counsel", and if you frequently find yourself in situations where she outright disagrees with you, you may need to re-evaluate your decision making process.


She rarely disagrees with me. I am a wise man. I also delegate many decisions to her or offer he decision making power such as "you pick what is for dinner tonight."

I listen to her I just might not heed her advice. I am not a brute.

Cars are better than horses . Democracy in many ways is prefereable to monarchy. Credit cards are a little scary and gold pieces are too darn heavy but rather pretty. I am resisting the urge to end this post with "Are you happy now?"

It is said that tradition should not be controlling but it should have a vote. I would be hesitant to confuse tradition with technological progress. In your earlier post you mentioned that slavery and murder are traditional. I am not sure that this is the case, espescially for murder.

What traditionalized murder are you talking about? As for slavery, I think you are referring to slavery having been legal and then becoming illegal. In the American context I am not sure that it was a tradition as much as it was a religious and economic experience. In other societies it was clearly a merciful tradition dealing with the treatment of POWs. I am not really sure how to answer your question on slavery.

My point is that tradition is very often not a good thing to blindly follow. You have no more right to exclusive decision-making in your relationship than the president has over you in a democracy.

She rarely disagrees with me. I am a wise man. I also delegate many decisions to her or offer he decision making power such as "you pick what is for dinner tonight."

I listen to her I just might not heed her advice. I am not a brute.

You're not a 'wise man' if you simply follow tradition because it's tradition. It has nothing to do with social stability, because men fight over decisions all the time - what's the difference between that and if a men were fighting a woman over a decision?

Well, if you'd like to explain what exactly would define one as being "anti-feminist" besides disagreeing with the principle that one's gender does not determine one's worth as a human being, I'd be more than willing to listen. I'm not sure defining an "anti-feminist" as "one who opposes feminism" was too very much of an assumption on my part, but you're welcome to tell me how I could be wrong. :)
Who used the word "anti-feminist"? Wasn't Bottle or myself. That is why you misunderstood my post?

I invite you to go back and follow the conversation. ;)

Do any guys want to marry or be in a serious relationship with a modern feminist?

Which modern feminist in particular is it that you are offering? Will there be a dowery involved?:confused: :rolleyes: ;)

In that case the courts were right.

Women deserve exactly the same rights. But it doesn't change the fact that, in general, men and women have different strengths.

So "different" can mean "equal" in instances that are convenient? I'm not following. Yes, women deserve the same rights simply because they're human beings; however, that doesn't mean they're inherently equal.

Then again, my belief is that no two people are equal because of varying degrees of intellect, athletic ability, physical condition, and whatever special talents you can come up with. I, for example, am not your equal because you can do things I can't do and vice versa.

I really hate the word choices with these sorts of discussions.

You're not a 'wise man' if you simply follow tradition because it's tradition. It has nothing to do with social stability, because men fight over decisions all the time - what's the difference between that and if a men were fighting a woman over a decision?

Seems Freedonia's point is, he knows better, end of story. Oh, he'll condescend to allow the wife to pick what's for dinner or maybe let her decide what the kids are wearing to school on any given day, but if he disagrees, for whatever or for no reason, well, he's a wise man, and that's the end of the discussion. Must be nice having such power.

You are claiming those reforms are enough, and yet you are also claiming that the patriarchy continues to exist. In essence you are saying, 'bitch, we let you out of the kitchen and you can now own a car and I can't hit you, now shut the fuck up'.

Yes. I am saying that although not in such a crude manner.

Wow, you don't want to express a crude sentiment in crude language...what a gentleman you are!

So "different" can mean "equal" in instances that are convenient? I'm not following. Yes, women deserve the same rights simply because they're human beings; however, that doesn't mean they're inherently equal.

Then again, my belief is that no two people are equal because of varying degrees of intellect, athletic ability, physical condition, and whatever special talents you can come up with. I, for example, am not your equal because you can do things I can't do and vice versa.

I really hate the word choices with these sorts of discussions. 3+7=10

5+5=10

See

3+7=10

5+5=10

See

Equal rights /=/ equality, to be blunt. You've been focused on the latter.

My point is that tradition is very often not a good thing to blindly follow. You have no more right to exclusive decision-making in your relationship than the president has over you in a democracy.

OK smartguy, how is man a looked upon in a patriarchical society who is not in command of his family? How is woman looked upon in a matriarchical society where she is not in command of her family?

Someone needs to be in charge or there is chaos. Why is it hat America has only one President? It is because our founding fathers took the who "the buck stops here" thing from monarchy which is its best trait and put it into our system of government. They took the best part of the aristocracy and used that for the judiciary and the best part of the democracy and used that for the legislative branch.

Nobody is blindly following anyone. We are merely cognizant of the orderly effect that a monarchical family structure has on everyone. In other words we structure our lives to avoid the chaos that saps and subverts.

You should probably listen to that Fiddler on the Roof Song "Tradition." Go ahead do what you like but dont weep when your kids go off to have tofu turkey with mom and stepdad number 5 on some Thanksgiving and hear about how Indians were good and Whitey was bad or some other revisionist historical bolognia and have nobody say grace because it may offend some idol worshiping newage guest or something. Woah I need to take my medicine.

OK smartguy, how is man a looked upon in a patriarchical society who is not in command of his family? How is woman looked upon in a matriarchical society where she is not in command of her family?

Someone needs to be in charge or there is chaos. Why is it hat America has only one President? It is because our founding fathers took the who "the buck stops here" thing from monarchy which is its best trait and put it into our system of government. They took the best part of the aristocracy and used that for the judiciary and the best part of the democracy and used that for the legislative branch.

Nobody is blindly following anyone. We are merely cognizant of the orderly effect that a monarchical family structure has on everyone. In other words we structure our lives to avoid the chaos that saps and subverts.

You should probably listen to that Fiddler on the Roof Song "Tradition." Go ahead do what you like but dont weep when your kids go off to have tofu turkey with mom and stepdad number 5 on some Thanksgiving and hear about how Indians were good and Whitey was bad or some other revisionist historical bolognia and have nobody say grace because it may offend some idol worshiping newage guest or something. Woah I need to take my medicine.

lol@you basing your life around a song from Fiddler on the Roof

Who used the word "anti-feminist"? Wasn't Bottle or myself. That is why you misunderstood my post?

I invite you to go back and follow the conversation. ;)

A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place. Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes, anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment, but they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.

...

I've been in a serious relationship with a man for about 5 years now. I've had other lovers in the past, both male and female, and not a single one has ever been an anti-feminist or been turned off by my feminist beliefs. Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such, so you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you want to try to date an anti-feminist.

;)

You're not a 'wise man' if you simply follow tradition because it's tradition. It has nothing to do with social stability, because men fight over decisions all the time - what's the difference between that and if a men were fighting a woman over a decision?

Are you referring to a man wrestling with himself over the best course of action? Hey how come there is only one captain of a ship?

Seems Freedonia's point is, he knows better, end of story. Oh, he'll condescend to allow the wife to pick what's for dinner or maybe let her decide what the kids are wearing to school on any given day, but if he disagrees, for whatever or for no reason, well, he's a wise man, and that's the end of the discussion. Must be nice having such power.

We've established that the foreskin and scrotum grant special man-powers.

I'll check in later. I am off to design my halloween outfit with wifey.

you keep bringing up getting hit in the balls. women react the same way about getting hit in the breasts. or how about telling any person about how you had an experience that was very painful when the person you're telling has gone through the same experience. and you're response is women look forward to child birth so they're better at it. That's not a fair assessment because when i get kicked in the balls, I don't get a wonderful gift known as a baby. but i will recount the story of the time i broke my collarbone and still kept playing rugby to save the game by making a tackle that tore up my collarbone much worse and sent me to the hospital with a punctured lung from a fragment of my collarbone. And I would do it again and look forward to it because of all the good I got out of that experience.
Football was an example of something where you are frequently hit and hurt. Rugby is the same way. Some women play it, but most of them are fat, uberfeminist dykes who are out to try to prove they can play with the boys. And they'll admit it....Unfortunately for them they can't really compete with the guys' speed, strength, and agility, and most have trouble hanging with us during endurance training.

Oh, so women are capable of being that tough but if they are, they don't count because you've chosen to marginalize them. Logical fallacies abound.

And since you seem set on embarrassing yourself, let me teach you a few things.

"you are either ignoratn or horribly misinformed. "

First, English. If you're horribly misinformed, you are ignorant. You might as well have said, you're either ignorant or misinformed or you don't know some things or you aren't aware of some things or you haven't heard of some things. You should think through your posts BEFORE you post them.

"to all you people who laughed at my statement that men think more logically than women, you are either ignoratn or horribly misinformed. There have been so many studies done to explain why higher level math and logic classes are almost exclusively male, while editorial and more subjective classes are majority female. If I had the time, I would look up the studies, but I'm too busy atm. Point of the matter is my engineering institute is 70% male. The liberal arts college up the road flips the ratio the other way. Why is this? because female minds are geared more toward non-logical applications. they are geared toward more 'artsy' and whatnot type thinking."

As to the brain, this is a gross oversimplification of the brain and sociology. The differences in class composition can easily be explained by differences in raising and the resultant expectations men and women have.

Meanwhile, the human brain exists on a spectrum. There is no such thing as a male brain or a female brain. Hormone production affects the formation of the brain. On the spectrum of brain formation (in terms of what we identify with genders) men tend towards one side and women towards the other but men and women can exist on either side and anywhere on the spectrum. There are advantages to every position on the spectrum and most analysis suggests the most productive and arguably most intelligent of humans were somewhere near the center.

Suggesting that we can simply lable a person with male genitalia as having a 'male brain' and someone with female genetalia as having a 'female brain' is woefully unaware of the facts. For someone claiming to have look at the analysis, you seem painfully unaware of the fruit of that analysis.

I suspect that you've developed this particular theory because you can't seem to beat a woman in an argument so you had to decide that it's because they are illogical, rather than accepting that your arguments seem to rely on logical fallacies and wild speculation.

You should probably listen to that Fiddler on the Roof Song "Tradition." Go ahead do what you like but dont weep when your kids go off to have tofu turkey with mom and stepdad number 5 on some Thanksgiving and hear about how Indians were good and Whitey was bad or some other revisionist historical bolognia and have nobody say grace because it may offend some idol worshiping newage guest or something. Woah I need to take my medicine.

I love that the greatest evils you can think of are eating tofu, learning that Native Americans are people, and "having nobody say grace." I have no idea how any of these things have to do with feminism, but if soybean consumption is the worst horror that feminism can call down upon society, I'm not too very worried. :p

ETA: Incidentally, as long as you're using Broadway musicals as frameworks for the functioning of society, you might want to listen to the rest of FOTR, as its general message is rather fundamentally in disagreement with you, seeing as most of the show is about Tevye's sympathy with his daughters' attempts to ignore tradition and marry for love!

OK smartguy, how is man a looked upon in a patriarchical society who is not in command of his family? How is woman looked upon in a matriarchical society where she is not in command of her family?

I wouldn't know, I don't live in a patriarchal or matriarchal society, I live in America.

Someone needs to be in charge or there is chaos. Why is it hat America has only one President? It is because our founding fathers took the who "the buck stops here" thing from monarchy which is its best trait and put it into our system of government. They took the best part of the aristocracy and used that for the judiciary and the best part of the democracy and used that for the legislative branch.

But you're wrong, simply because the buck does NOT stop at the president. Congress can overturn his veto, they can impeach him, and they can issue bills to be passed that counteract what he wants if they feel it's necessary. Democracy, at its core, is a balance. Without balance, there is chaos. If there's only republicans or only democrats, we're fucked - that's what there is a multiparty system.

Nobody is blindly following anyone. We are merely cognizant of the orderly effect that a monarchical family structure has on everyone. In other words we structure our lives to avoid the chaos that saps and subverts.

In exchange for the chaos of a single omnipotent being controlling everything even though he's wrong and very fallable. By your definition, we should all be living under one king regardless of what he says or how smart he is.

You should probably listen to that Fiddler on the Roof Song "Tradition." Go ahead do what you like but dont weep when your kids go off to have tofu turkey with mom and stepdad number 5 on some Thanksgiving and hear about how Indians were good and Whitey was bad or some other revisionist historical bolognia and have nobody say grace because it may offend some idol worshiping newage guest or something. Woah I need to take my medicine.

Well A: I don't like tofu. B: I don't like thanksgiving. C: I don't like fiddler on the roof. D: Whitey -was- bad. E: Nobody at my house says grace because we have no reason to - we wouldn't thank god unless he showed up at our door and gave us the food himself, otherwise we're blessing ourselves with our own rewards for our own work, and there's no thanks to go around except for the efforts of the family. F: Crack?

Are you referring to a man wrestling with himself over the best course of action? Hey how come there is only one captain of a ship?

Because he knows how to intelligently steer and direct the ship. He's not the captain anymore if he can't pass the training required to become one or if he orders everyone to abandon ship for no reason.

She rarely disagrees with me. I am a wise man. I also delegate many decisions to her or offer he decision making power such as "you pick what is for dinner tonight."

I listen to her I just might not heed her advice. I am not a brute.

You know I think I've never had to explain to people that I'm not a brute. Most people find that apparent. I also rarely have to tell people how wise I am. People usually figure it out. I don't have to tell my girlfriend what to do. If I'm right, she sees it and agrees. If I'm wrong (it's rare but it happens), she explains why she thinks I am and I agree. Generally the only time people need some kind of agreement as to who makes decisions is when they aren't wise and are brutes.

Women aren't idiots. If you were truly wise, she'd see that in you and defer to you when it was appropriate. I find that the only time people need some kind of additional coersive force behind their opinion, like tradition or patriarchy or law, is when they don't have the things that people usually find convincing, like charisma, evidence, compassion.

The fact that you need this addition force is evidence against your claims. You and Gor, with his claims that he's so charismatic that he needs the law to achieve his goals, should hang out.

*shrugs* I consider that to be more of an endurance thing. You can say women have more HP and DEF than men do, but certainly not as much STR.

Yes I'm a dork.

Well, it made me laugh...

Well, it made me laugh...

Good to know I made your day a little better with my geekiness. =)

yep, women have higher thresholds of pain. That's why ya'll cry and bitch and moan when you stub your toe. That's why most women are scared to play football. In fact, I think higher thresholds of pain in women have been known to be responsible for all the ways women act that caused the term pussy to be a derogative saying against someone who is a total wimp.

scientifically speaking, child birth releases painnumbing hormones. So if you want to claim that, that's a only during child birth...yes women have a higher pain threshold.Dude, you're hanging out with boring girls. :p

actually, smartest type of woman there is. They are out to make their husbands happy. In return, they get a happy life where that is their main concern.Well, that is part of feminism...giving women the choice to be subserviant or submissive if they choose, or allowing them to be dominant if they choose...or just be equal. Just from reading some of what you've said here, you seem to be going with the rabid feminist "feminazi" types...that isn't so much it (although, there are some). Feminism is about giving women the same choices men have, and the other way around. If the woman wants to go out and work, and the man wants to raise the kids, fine. If they both want to work, and both raise the kids, fine. And if the woman wants to stay home, raise the kids, and let the husband work, fine. They should have that choice. They deserve the same choices, rights, and responsibilities that men have.

Just out of curiosity, what frat/college are you at?

First off, I'm not an anti-feminist. To get a general consensus, though, should or should not females be eligible for war draft? Should they be stationed in combat zones just as readily as men currently are?

Damn right they should be eligible. If you want the rights, you take the responsibilities.

I. AM. SO. BORED. OF. YOU.

You know what? I really don't care if I offended you.

It's amazing how oversensitive some people can be, isn't it.

All you did was called him a 'fucking jackass', after all...

It's amazing how oversensitive some people can be, isn't it.

All you did was called him a 'fucking jackass', after all...

I thought you were going to stop talking to me?:)

http://www.got.net/~elained/smash.gif

If that isn't a T-shirt, it so should be.

Someone needs to be in charge or there is chaos. Why is it hat America has only one President? It is because our founding fathers took the who "the buck stops here" thing from monarchy which is its best trait and put it into our system of government. They took the best part of the aristocracy and used that for the judiciary and the best part of the democracy and used that for the legislative branch.


Hilarious. What does the phrase "checks and balances" mean to you? It doesn't bring chaos. The actual format of the US government is exactly how a family should work. They put that together because unchecked power is a BAD thing. You used an example that was formatted to prevent the specific structure you are arguing for. If you're really this bad at evidencing your point I can see why you wouldn't want to have to convince people of your positions instead of dictating them.

She rarely disagrees with me. I am a wise man. I also delegate many decisions to her or offer he decision making power such as "you pick what is for dinner tonight."

I listen to her I just might not heed her advice. I am not a brute.

I'm glad to hear that she rarely disagrees with you, but I find myself forced to ask why.

Full disclosure: I am 23 years old, male, eldest of four brothers, currently neither married nor dating, politically [nearly ultra-]conservative, and raised by a single mother. My father was The Decider in my family for many years, carefully weighing and ignoring each suggestion that came across the table as was his prerogative. Trivial decisions, such as what would be for dinner, would commonly be delegated. His decision making process, when coupled with his personality and temper, made it almost exactly impossible to state your own opinion in any open discussion. Consequently, people only rarely disagreed with him. After a time my mother, in her wisdom, decided that the emotional and psychological abuse had gone too far when she was no longer the sole target for it, and took the four of us out of that environment. I have grown up to recognize that despite the differences between men and women (including their different strengths and weaknesses), neither is unilaterally superior in any way. I firmly hold to the opinion that gender should never be the sole deciding factor in any decision (while tangential circumstances arising from one's gender may need to be taken into account), and that in marriage the two partners should be equally authoritative. I also believe that many of the radical feminists have wrongly gone on to wage war for "greater equality" (as in "all are created equal, but some are created more equal than others"). I believe there are positions that are generally naturally better held by one gender or another for various reasons (some physiological, some environmental) - men are generally not particularly graceful, nor adept at correlating the two hemispheres of their brain; women are generally less aggressive and somewhat less focused (more holistic) in their thinking. I also know men and women who precisely defy these generalities.

As to answering the question posited in the opening post, I will say this: whether or not a woman is an anti-feminist, a non-feminist, or a feminist won't affect my decision; whether or not I will stand up for her is fairly likely to affect hers.

Having given my full disclosure, you can also see that I am wearing my asbestos undergarments - feel free to say what you will.

Has it ever occurred to you that feminists, male and female alike, don't see women as objects to be "snatched up" on any market?

I'm not a commodity that my fiance found on sale somewhere, nor does he see me as such.

Does that mean I shouldn't up my offer to 3 goats?

She rarely disagrees with me. I am a wise man. I also delegate many decisions to her or offer he decision making power such as "you pick what is for dinner tonight."

I listen to her I just might not heed her advice. I am not a brute.

you don't sound like a wise man to me. I submit to my husband because he is wise, and loving, and stands up to the biblical test put forth for a husband. If he acted like you, or said things like I have seen you say, I can't say that I would lovingly submit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents1

Has it ever occurred to you that feminists, male and female alike, don't see women as objects to be "snatched up" on any market?

I'm not a commodity that my fiance found on sale somewhere, nor does he see me as such.

Does that mean I shouldn't up my offer to 3 goats?

Offer away, Pal,.. but you'll find that the 3 goats will be stolen back later that night by the seller.

It's quite the scam, really.



Don't buy women with goats! Buy them with other women, of an "inferior" kind, of course.

Trade UP!


..who wants last years model.

I. AM. SO. BORED. OF. YOU.

You know what? I really don't care if I offended you. If you are going to take something so blatantly ridiculous as that statement seriously, then you surround yourself with FAR too many lunatics (yes, I have on occassion met genuinely insane people who believe feminism and lesbianism are synonymous) and therefore are not undeserving of being insulted every time someone dares to make a post without a winking face at the end.

I don't know what you want from me, but I can't reiterate enough that because you aren't a child and I am not being paid to babysit you, I do not care if you're offended by something I say, regardless of how misguided that interpretation may be. I'm confused as to why you haven't moved on after already discovering it was a light-hearted comment.


This is the second time I've seen this precise argument from you. Two threads where it's people just picking on you. Poor you. I forced you to call me a 'fucking jackass' in your second post to me. Because clearly you are a careful and measured poster. I'm sorry I forced you to flame me. I'll be more careful in the future to not have so much control over you.

Offer away, Pal,.. but you'll find that the 3 goats will be stolen back later that night by the seller.

It's quite the scam, really.



Don't buy women with goats! Buy them with other women, of an "inferior" kind, of course.

Trade UP!


..who wants last years model.

I don't find models attractive. ^^

to all you people who laughed at my statement that men think more logically than women, you are either ignoratn or horribly misinformed. There have been so many studies done to explain why higher level math and logic classes are almost exclusively male, while editorial and more subjective classes are majority female. If I had the time, I would look up the studies, but I'm too busy atm. Point of the matter is my engineering institute is 70% male. The liberal arts college up the road flips the ratio the other way. Why is this? because female minds are geared more toward non-logical applications. they are geared toward more 'artsy' and whatnot type thinking.
Source? The fact that there are more men in your engineering institute than women doesn't necessarily mean that men are intrinsically better at science than women are. It doesn't necessarily reflect on the ability of women to perform logical, mathematic or scientific tasks. For example, it might simply mean that women in your area, for whatever reason, are more interested in humanities and liberal arts than in science. A quick Google search gave me this page (http://www.psychologymatters.org/thinkagain.html), which doesn't at all support your claim that "female minds are geared more toward non-logical applications."

On a slightly off topic (but still related) note, there was also a recent report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11741.html) on the disproportionately low number of women in leadership positions in science. The summary is nice and short if you don't want to read the whole thing, and section one of the summary states:

Studies of brain structure and function, of hormonal modulation of performance, of human cognitive development, and of human evolution have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and scientific leadership positions in these fields.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Offer away, Pal,.. but you'll find that the 3 goats will be stolen back later that night by the seller.

It's quite the scam, really.



Don't buy women with goats! Buy them with other women, of an "inferior" kind, of course.

Trade UP!


..who wants last years model.


I don't find models attractive. ^^


Not MODEL (anorexic)..!

MODEL (2-Door Sedan)..!!

You silly, you. :)

This is the second time I've seen this precise argument from you. Two threads where it's people just picking on you. Poor you. I forced you to call me a 'fucking jackass' in your second post to me. Because clearly you are a careful and measured poster. I'm sorry I forced you to flame me. I'll be more careful in the future to not have so much control over you.



:D good one.

Jocabia,
I meant ignorant as in you don't know sheot and misinformed as in what you do know is sheot. the statement was giving you an alternitive as to whether you know nothing or don't know anything. I guess you've never heard of people giving options that both end in the same result. Its a type of humorous statement.


and yes it was an extreme oversimplification, but the generalizations are true. Brains found in males typically tend to be more logically oriented toward math and science(aka the logic based learning area). Socially speaking, roles play a huge factor, but the roles were based off what people were naturally good at, so it all comes relatively full circle.


Sarkhaan,
Georgia Tech, Mechanical Engineer w. inta minor
frat I'll keep off here so no feminazis try to bomb it.

Every feminist is different. What I don't like are the "Feminazis" who think women are superior to men.

Every feminist is different. What I don't like are the "Feminazis" who think women are superior to men.

I don't think women in general are better than men, just that I am.;)

Jocabia,
I meant ignorant as in you don't know sheot and misinformed as in what you do know is sheot. the statement was giving you an alternitive as to whether you know nothing or don't know anything. I guess you've never heard of people giving options that both end in the same result. Its a type of humorous statement.


and yes it was an extreme oversimplification, but the generalizations are true. Brains found in males typically tend to be more logically oriented toward math and science(aka the logic based learning area). Socially speaking, roles play a huge factor, but the roles were based off what people were naturally good at, so it all comes relatively full circle.


Sarkhaan,
Georgia Tech, Mechanical Engineer w. inta minor
frat I'll keep off here so no feminazis try to bomb it.

:rolleyes: I'll do it, he's expecting it ... They found brains in males!!!!oneone11111!!!!!

Jocabia,
I meant ignorant as in you don't know sheot and misinformed as in what you do know is sheot. the statement was giving you an alternitive as to whether you know nothing or don't know anything. I guess you've never heard of people giving options that both end in the same result. Its a type of humorous statement.


and yes it was an extreme oversimplification, but the generalizations are true. Brains found in males typically tend to be more logically oriented toward math and science(aka the logic based learning area). Socially speaking, roles play a huge factor, but the roles were based off what people were naturally good at, so it all comes relatively full circle.


Sarkhaan,
Georgia Tech, Mechanical Engineer w. inta minor
frat I'll keep off here so no feminazis try to bomb it.

Ignorant means you don't know. Period. It doesn't mean you don't know anything. It just means you don't know. Even if you know the wrong things you still don't know the right things. Meanwhile, it's ironic that you said such a thing and then made such a misinformed and ignorant claim.

Generalities are not useful in analyzing individuals. You've claimed that it is. Generalities are useless in setting or supporting roles. All evidence suggests that putting people into roles based on their sex is a bad idea and marginalizes a large portion of the population. Basically the spectrum has a a curve with two humps. However those two humps are broad and don't encompass the majority of the population within one degree of variation. Your claims are counter to science and, yet, you suggest disagreeing with you requires one to be 'either ignoratn or misinformed'.

Admit it, you don't know what you're talking about.

To answer the OP :

Of course I'd consider it. I definitely would never consider any form of relationship with a woman who is not a feminist.
But right now, I've got my boyfriend to keep me happy, so all other relationships will have to take second place :D

Jocabia,
I meant ignorant as in you don't know sheot and misinformed as in what you do know is sheot. the statement was giving you an alternitive as to whether you know nothing or don't know anything. I guess you've never heard of people giving options that both end in the same result. Its a type of humorous statement.


and yes it was an extreme oversimplification, but the generalizations are true. Brains found in males typically tend to be more logically oriented toward math and science(aka the logic based learning area). Socially speaking, roles play a huge factor, but the roles were based off what people were naturally good at, so it all comes relatively full circle.


Sarkhaan,
Georgia Tech, Mechanical Engineer w. inta minor
frat I'll keep off here so no feminazis try to bomb it.

*takes bets on when the banning will occur*

Where are you sources for women being less logical than men. Because, ya know, every research paper I have ever read has said rather the opposite. Not to mention every Psych class I have ever been in has stated otherwise.

And I hardly see how a Mechanical Engineer student would have the qualification to make such arguments without seemingly any research at all into the subject. Do a little research, then come back.

And let's not take into account your Feminazi statement to show your obvious bias.

Also, your statement is basically a giant ad-hominen attack, which is inherently flawed, as you did not dispute the information at all.

Thus, when arguments are inherently flawed, they tend to more or less false.

Ignorant means you don't know. Period. It doesn't mean you don't know anything. It just means you don't know. Even if you know the wrong things you still don't know the right things. Meanwhile, it's ironic that you said such a thing and then made such a misinformed and ignorant claim.

Generalities are not useful in analyzing individuals. You've claimed that it is. Generalities are useless in setting or supporting roles. All evidence suggests that putting people into roles based on their sex is a bad idea and marginalizes a large portion of the population. Basically the spectrum has a a curve with two humps. However those two humps are broad and don't encompass the majority of the population within one degree of variation. Your claims are counter to science and, yet, you suggest disagreeing with you requires one to be 'either ignoratn or misinformed'.

Admit it, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hehe. You said humps.

:rolleyes: I'll do it, he's expecting it ... They found brains in males!!!!oneone11111!!!!!

I demand proof of that!!! :D

:rolleyes: I'll do it, he's expecting it ... They found brains in males!!!!oneone11111!!!!!

Oh yeah?

Jocabia,
I meant ignorant as in you don't know sheot and misinformed as in what you do know is sheot. the statement was giving you an alternitive as to whether you know nothing or don't know anything. I guess you've never heard of people giving options that both end in the same result. Its a type of humorous statement.


and yes it was an extreme oversimplification, but the generalizations are true. Brains found in males typically tend to be more logically oriented toward math and science(aka the logic based learning area). Socially speaking, roles play a huge factor, but the roles were based off what people were naturally good at, so it all comes relatively full circle.


Sarkhaan,
Georgia Tech, Mechanical Engineer w. inta minor
frat I'll keep off here so no feminazis try to bomb it.


Just curious...

Did you WANT to name yourself Pen(i)s-a-(S)caria, perhaps,.. or am I just free-associating again..?


I think I'm off my meds. Let me go and check. Sorry for the intrusion.

Rameria,
The ratio of guys to girls in engineering colleges is like that nationwide I would like to point out. And you finding those studies doesn't really mean much when there are studies that contradict what you are saying. But inherently there are generalized differences in brain functions between male and female, though it is not always a given. what has been proven time and time again, is that men tend to excel in logic based areas.

THIS IS THE CASE PEOPLE. DEAL WITH IT.
as a generalized whole, the male population is better at logic based studies.


Christ, it's not like it even matters, it means that given a certain decision to be made, men will tend to analyze the situation while women will react based on their feelings. generally speaking of course and ignoring sociological role-playing. Most likely this is the reason men tend to have the seats of power in the majority of societies. sorry that its true, but it is.

this doesn't mean women need to be treated worse as a result. it doesn't make them less of people. it doesn't even mean they aren't equal. but what it does mean is that its more likely for them to take the submissive role and not play a vital part in the decision making process of a relationship. and why that is relevant is that males are used to and accustomed to taking that role(especially if they are successful individuals) and women trying to take that power in the relationship will often result in disagreements and arguments that are unnecessary and detrimental to the relationship.

I feel more confident in my ability to make the right decisions than that of my partners. and it is her willing decision to accept me as the more dominant partner in our relationship. This is the set of roles that keeps US happy. if you want to call her an idiot for that, you are being exactly what feminism stands against. I love my girl in the traditional role that she fits in. it makes me happy, and she is more than content with recieving the benefits of a happy me. Before you knock it, try it first. I tried feminists, they were utterly horrible in every aspect of the relationship. There's a reason why things have been that way for so long, because they work.

I thought you were going to stop talking to me?:)

I thought you said that... not I.

I demand proof of that!!! :D
Shouldn't that be ... :eek:

Oh yeah?
Uhm ... yeah. :p

This is the second time I've seen this precise argument from you. Two threads where it's people just picking on you. Poor you. I forced you to call me a 'fucking jackass' in your second post to me. Because clearly you are a careful and measured poster. I'm sorry I forced you to flame me. I'll be more careful in the future to not have so much control over you.

Oh, good, we can get along now. I sincerely apologize for your innate inability to guage sincerity and in turn holding a gun to your family and loved ones, threatening to rape your future children, and promising to have your house burned down should you have refused to take one for the team and bestowed me with the honor of being subjected to your babbling. I'm a very selfish person like that, you see. :(

I thought you said that... not I.

You've said variations of "bye" twice now. I don't know if you're the sort who just insists upon having the last word, or if even given that you would continue to talk to me.

Rameria,
The ratio of guys to girls in engineering colleges is like that nationwide I would like to point out. And you finding those studies doesn't really mean much when there are studies that contradict what you are saying. But inherently there are generalized differences in brain functions between male and female, though it is not always a given. what has been proven time and time again, is that men tend to excel in logic based areas.

THIS IS THE CASE PEOPLE. DEAL WITH IT.
as a generalized whole, the male population is better at logic based studies.


Christ, it's not like it even matters, it means that given a certain decision to be made, men will tend to analyze the situation while women will react based on their feelings. generally speaking of course and ignoring sociological role-playing. Most likely this is the reason men tend to have the seats of power in the majority of societies. sorry that its true, but it is.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. Source?
And I mean psychologically/biologically based source, not general statistic.
Because, hey, there must be reason why the number of women enrolled in technical/mathematical subjects in universities has been growing steadily, and why they tend to actually be better then their peers if they coose subjects like these.


this doesn't mean women need to be treated worse as a result. it doesn't make them less of people. it doesn't even mean they aren't equal. but what it does mean is that its more likely for them to take the submissive role and not play a vital part in the decision making process of a relationship. and why that is relevant is that males are used to and accustomed to taking that role(especially if they are successful individuals) and women trying to take that power in the relationship will often result in disagreements and arguments that are unnecessary and detrimental to the relationship.

I feel more confident in my ability to make the right decisions than that of my partners. and it is her willing decision to accept me as the more dominant partner in our relationship. This is the set of roles that keeps US happy. if you want to call her an idiot for that, you are being exactly what feminism stands against. I love my girl in the traditional role that she fits in. it makes me happy, and she is more than content with recieving the benefits of a happy me. Before you knock it, try it first. I tried feminists, they were utterly horrible in every aspect of the relationship. There's a reason why things have been that way for so long, because they work.

Fair enough. All that says really is that you can't handle a relationship in which you have to compromise.
But hey, whatever works for you.

Shouldn't that be ... :eek:


Not really... I think he was joking. ;)

You've said variations of "bye" twice now. I don't know if you're the sort who just insists upon having the last word, or if even given that you would continue to talk to me.

Shalom means 'peace' actually - and can be used as a greeting... but, I'm sure you knew that already.

I wouldn’t mind marrying a feminist, in fact, I would really like to. They are usually very successful people, they achieve high paying jobs etc. I really wouldn’t mind staying home all day, granted I would have to pick up after myself, and I would have to go buy the food I eat, but I really don’t see a problem with that. Kids? sure, why not, when they are very little it is physically impossible for them to survive without their mother, and because of those nifty laws that I hate (but that is a completely different story) women can take 6 months paid leave off most upper class jobs. At the age of 6 they go to school for 8 hours a day, and then sleep for 8-10 hours a night. And my wife would also be home in the evening. Summer would be the only times that required a lot of work, but I’m wouldn’t be complaining, 250 days break, 100 days work.

I understand that you (generally speaking) would say “staying home is NOT that easy” and your right in a way. For a regular mother or father it would be a lot harder, because you might also have a part time job, your spouse would probably just come home and expect everything to be provided for them and basically trash the house, which you would then have to clean up. But Feminists usually aren’t like that, they just don’t want to be subjected by men, they want equal if not more rights then men, all the benefits and none of the draw backs. But as this forum talked about, women clean up after themselves more, as most of the time they aren’t slobs.

So, I would marry a feminist.

I don't know enough about "modern feminism" to make a judgement either way, however, were it surpassed by her natural charm, wit, beauty, and large breasts, than no. If it was what defined her, then yes.

Rameria,
The ratio of guys to girls in engineering colleges is like that nationwide I would like to point out. And you finding those studies doesn't really mean much when there are studies that contradict what you are saying. But inherently there are generalized differences in brain functions between male and female, though it is not always a given. what has been proven time and time again, is that men tend to excel in logic based areas.

THIS IS THE CASE PEOPLE. DEAL WITH IT.
as a generalized whole, the male population is better at logic based studies.
I'll deal with it just as soon as you give me a source for your claim.

to all you people who laughed at my statement that men think more logically than women, you are either ignoratn or horribly misinformed. There have been so many studies done to explain why higher level math and logic classes are almost exclusively male, while editorial and more subjective classes are majority female. If I had the time, I would look up the studies, but I'm too busy atm. Point of the matter is my engineering institute is 70% male. The liberal arts college up the road flips the ratio the other way. Why is this? because female minds are geared more toward non-logical applications. they are geared toward more 'artsy' and whatnot type thinking.

Strangely enough, I have yet to see a single scientific study that concluded any of this, despite many claims that they exist.

It is true that higher level math and logic classes are predominantly male, as are engineering and physics classes. But those gaps are closing, rather than widening. More and more women, myself included, are going into traditionally male careers, and we aren't having any problems doing so.

Now the study I *have* seen is the one that basically demonstrated that girls who were told that they weren't good at math and logic did more poorly on math and logic tests than women who were told no such thing. This would seem to point to social conditioning, rather than inherent differences, don't you think?

Oh, good, we can get along now. I sincerely apologize for your innate inability to guage sincerity and in turn holding a gun to your family and loved ones, threatening to rape your future children, and promising to have your house burned down should you have refused to take one for the team and bestowed me with the honor of being subjected to your babbling. I'm a very selfish person like that, you see. :(

You called us 'fucking jackasses'. If you're unaware, flaming is against the rules of this forum. Keep pretending like this was about my response to your initial post. You got upset about my response to your understanding of the origin of a phrase. I don't have any problem reading sincerity. Again, you fail to take responsibility for your actions and you claim it's just two people, but I've seen you make the EXACT same arguments in two threads, so have many of us. In that thread, you complained that 'everyone' is doing this and indicated that it happens frequently. I took you at your word when you made this claim. Now you claim you were not being honest. I find that unfortunate.

Now the study I *have* seen is the one that basically demonstrated that girls who were told that they weren't good at math and logic did more poorly on math and logic tests than women who were told no such thing. This would seem to point to social conditioning, rather than inherent differences, don't you think?
do you think me telling my daughter that she had a natural math ability has anything to do with her obsession with it? (I told her that to get her to do her math homework one day and ever since she is really really obsessed with learning all things math.....I guess if something is going to backfire this was a good thing to?)

Woah I need to take my medicine.

I'm guessing this is the truest thing you've said in the whole thread.

Strangely enough, I have yet to see a single scientific study that concluded any of this, despite many claims that they exist.

It is true that higher level math and logic classes are predominantly male, as are engineering and physics classes. But those gaps are closing, rather than widening. More and more women, myself included, are going into traditionally male careers, and we aren't having any problems doing so.

Now the study I *have* seen is the one that basically demonstrated that girls who were told that they weren't good at math and logic did more poorly on math and logic tests than women who were told no such thing. This would seem to point to social conditioning, rather than inherent differences, don't you think?

And isn't social conditioning what it really comes down to? If you repeat a lie enough, people begin to believe it. Tell the girls and women that they're really not so good at math and science (don't worry, dear, as long as you find a good husband the college degree doesn't matter), tell them that they already have all the rights they need (you can vote, you can own property, and you can call the cops if I punch you (assuming you can get to the phone before I do)), and they'll start believing it. When Pensacaria says his girlfriend relishes the delights of keeping him happy, I do not doubt it for a moment.

Rameria,
The ratio of guys to girls in engineering colleges is like that nationwide I would like to point out. And you finding those studies doesn't really mean much when there are studies that contradict what you are saying. But inherently there are generalized differences in brain functions between male and female, though it is not always a given. what has been proven time and time again, is that men tend to excel in logic based areas.

THIS IS THE CASE PEOPLE. DEAL WITH IT.
as a generalized whole, the male population is better at logic based studies.


Christ, it's not like it even matters, it means that given a certain decision to be made, men will tend to analyze the situation while women will react based on their feelings. generally speaking of course and ignoring sociological role-playing. Most likely this is the reason men tend to have the seats of power in the majority of societies. sorry that its true, but it is.

this doesn't mean women need to be treated worse as a result. it doesn't make them less of people. it doesn't even mean they aren't equal. but what it does mean is that its more likely for them to take the submissive role and not play a vital part in the decision making process of a relationship. and why that is relevant is that males are used to and accustomed to taking that role(especially if they are successful individuals) and women trying to take that power in the relationship will often result in disagreements and arguments that are unnecessary and detrimental to the relationship.

I feel more confident in my ability to make the right decisions than that of my partners. and it is her willing decision to accept me as the more dominant partner in our relationship. This is the set of roles that keeps US happy. if you want to call her an idiot for that, you are being exactly what feminism stands against. I love my girl in the traditional role that she fits in. it makes me happy, and she is more than content with recieving the benefits of a happy me. Before you knock it, try it first. I tried feminists, they were utterly horrible in every aspect of the relationship. There's a reason why things have been that way for so long, because they work.


Hilarious. Still no evidence. Still the same claims that actually don't address the issues. You don't realize that in a culture that encourages people to certain roles and people end up in those roles that outcome is most likely explained by the culture. You keeping using the presence of people in certain occupations as evidence for a conclusion that doesn't follow the evidence. It's an illogical deduction.

The rest of your post gets right to the core of the problem. You don't trust your partner and you have delusions of superiority.

Does that mean I shouldn't up my offer to 3 goats?

I dunno, are you gonna make me kabobs with them? =)

do you think me telling my daughter that she had a natural math ability has anything to do with her obsession with it? (I told her that to get her to do her math homework one day and ever since she is really really obsessed with learning all things math.....I guess if something is going to backfire this was a good thing to?)

It's very positive encouragement. Let's hope she keeps it up and doesn't get bored with it along the way. :)

Source? The fact that there are more men in your engineering institute than women doesn't necessarily mean that men are intrinsically better at science than women are. It doesn't necessarily reflect on the ability of women to perform logical, mathematic or scientific tasks.

I heard about a study on NPR recently that seemed to suggest that women, in certain situations, might actually tend to do better in scientific fields. When faced with unexpected results (which, believe me, happens all the freaking time in research), women were more likely to be energized and start investigating the new angle. Men, on the other hand, were more likely to see it as something wrong, a challenge to be overcome, and would often continue on the same track trying to figure out why their experiment had "failed."

It was a pretty small study, so it doesn't say anything conclusive, but it certainly does point to a prominent role for the "average" woman in science.

And isn't social conditioning what it really comes down to? If you repeat a lie enough, people begin to believe it. Tell the girls and women that they're really not so good at math and science (don't worry, dear, as long as you find a good husband the college degree doesn't matter), tell them that they already have all the rights they need (you can vote, you can own property, and you can call the cops if I punch you (assuming you can get to the phone before I do)), and they'll start believing it. When Pensacaria says his girlfriend relishes the delights of keeping him happy, I do not doubt it for a moment.

That's the danger of it. That's the way it has always worked, and legislation alone is nowhere near good enough as long as society doesn't change its perception of women.
This guy is just an extreme example.

do you think me telling my daughter that she had a natural math ability has anything to do with her obsession with it? (I told her that to get her to do her math homework one day and ever since she is really really obsessed with learning all things math.....I guess if something is going to backfire this was a good thing to?)

It might. Kids at that age often want to please their parents and will strive more at something they think they're definitely good at.

But, from what I've heard of your kids, I'd say she's just a genius and that's it. She'll probably jump from obsession with one subject to another until she settles on something that will be interesting to her for the rest of her life (which probably won't happen until college, or maybe grad school....) hehe.


The ratio of guys to girls in engineering colleges is like that nationwide I would like to point out.

How about the fact that said ratio is decreasing every year? There are more and more women entering technical fields. At Georgia Tech, over the span of 5 or 6 years, the ratio went from 7:1 to 3:1. At my alma mater, at least one engineering department was actually majority female.

this doesn't mean women need to be treated worse as a result. it doesn't make them less of people. it doesn't even mean they aren't equal. but what it does mean is that its more likely for them to take the submissive role and not play a vital part in the decision making process of a relationship. and why that is relevant is that males are used to and accustomed to taking that role(especially if they are successful individuals) and women trying to take that power in the relationship will often result in disagreements and arguments that are unnecessary and detrimental to the relationship.

If a woman feels the need to be a part of decision making for the couple, trying to keep her from doing so would be much more detrimental to the relationship.

I feel more confident in my ability to make the right decisions than that of my partners.

Cocky, eh?

and it is her willing decision to accept me as the more dominant partner in our relationship.

Is it? Was she raised to believe that it was her role, or was she raised in an atmosphere where she could have chosen any role at all?

I tried feminists, they were utterly horrible in every aspect of the relationship.

So a relationship in which you aren't top-dog just doesn't suit you, eh? Sounds like some deep-seated insecurities to me.

Meanwhile, "I tried feminists"??? Are women like clothing to you?

So "different" can mean "equal"

more like "the relevant sense of equal does not mean identical in all respects"

It might. Kids at that age often want to please their parents and will strive more at something they think they're definitely good at.

But, from what I've heard of your kids, I'd say she's just a genius and that's it. She'll probably jump from obsession with one subject to another until she settles on something that will be interesting to her for the rest of her life (which probably won't happen until college, or maybe grad school....) hehe.



How about the fact that said ratio is decreasing every year? There are more and more women entering technical fields. At Georgia Tech, over the span of 5 or 6 years, the ratio went from 7:1 to 3:1. At my alma mater, at least one engineering department was actually majority female.



If a woman feels the need to be a part of decision making for the couple, trying to keep her from doing so would be much more detrimental to the relationship.



Cocky, eh?



Is it? Was she raised to believe that it was her role, or was she raised in an atmosphere where she could have chosen any role at all?



So a relationship in which you aren't top-dog just doesn't suit you, eh? Sounds like some deep-seated insecurities to me.

Meanwhile, "I tried feminists"??? Are women like clothing to you?

Read: They were utterly horribly at subjugating themselves to him and he wasn't able to get people to agree without the support of a submissive relationship. Oddly, my girlfriend is a very strong and independent woman and I have no problem getting her to agree with me when it's important she do so. Maybe the problem he is describing is a problem with his ability to thrive in an equal relationship rather than a problem with equal relationships.

He literally makes the argument that it's what men are used to, as if that is important. White people were very used to controlling black people and making them subjugate their role in the decision-making in this country. They found it very difficult time with black people being equals. Thank goodness, that white people adjusted rather than just going back to a lack of civil rights because it's more comfortable and we're used to it.

Ignorant means you don't know. Period. It doesn't mean you don't know anything. It just means you don't know. Even if you know the wrong things you still don't know the right things. Meanwhile, it's ironic that you said such a thing and then made such a misinformed and ignorant claim.

Generalities are not useful in analyzing individuals. You've claimed that it is. Generalities are useless in setting or supporting roles. All evidence suggests that putting people into roles based on their sex is a bad idea and marginalizes a large portion of the population. Basically the spectrum has a a curve with two humps. However those two humps are broad and don't encompass the majority of the population within one degree of variation. Your claims are counter to science and, yet, you suggest disagreeing with you requires one to be 'either ignoratn or misinformed'.

Admit it, you don't know what you're talking about.

you just agreed with what i said. I said you either don't know sheot(aka not knowing anything) or you are misinformed(what you do know is wrong). so thank you for arguing my statement then repeating it with a less compact and more literal word choice. I would think people would be capable of reading into things better than that.

and generalizations form roles. roles govern behavior. therefore, people tend to follow the generalizations. self-fulfilling prophecy. The statistic that most logic based studies are filled out by mostly men supports this generalization. My source people is the stereotypes. They exist for a reason. and their existence alone guides behavior. that is not a flawed argument. it does not need the support of studies because it is a universal known. I don't think I need the use of studies to support that a statistic is a true statistic. That's like asking for a study to prove that indeed there are more white people than black people that live in america

P.S. Actually no, she was raised by a family dominated by her mother. In any relationship there needs to be a dominant and submissive partner. By nature, males do not submit. so no deep-seated insecurities, sorry that I just am not submissive. Tech's ratio change is due to an expansion in our liberal arts college along with the addition of engineering majors geared more towards women. Along with a VERY leniant admissions policy towards females.

I'm confused to no end that feminism is directly linked to divorce in some people's minds.

Quote from Glorious Freedonia: "Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself."

My mother is a feminist, and my father somewhat anti-feminist. They disagree, occasionally sacrifice furniture, and once put a hole through a door. But they're still together after 20+ years. And having to grow up in that gave me a profound respect for how much work marriage is. I never doubted for a moment that my parents loved each other. They were very public about their affection. But I also got to see that there is room to disagree.

So, me:
I am a feminist.
I would never enter into marriage lightly.
I would give my partner the respect their opinion deserves while not abandoning my own.
I would fight tooth and nail to make a marriage work, especially if there were children involved.
I am not a vegetarian. ;)

I can see that many people have weighed in on this (including *shudder* Ebri) but I'd like to put in my two cents.

I read a most excellent book that I can no longer recall the title of that categorized marriage values this way:


Traditional - man works and is head of the household, woman stays home and does the homemaking and maybe gets some say, whatever.
Egalitarian - everything is split 50-50, all things are equal
Transitional - describes somebody who believes that things should be MORE equal than Traditional, but not 50-50. Maybe 30-70? I don't know.


Marriages work best when both partners share the same values. If both partners agree that they want one person to do this and the other person to do that (or not do that, as it may be), then there is nothing to argue about. The problems happen when a Traditional guy marries a Transitional woman, or an Egalitarian guy marries a Traditional woman. (Contrary to what people might think, a woman who expects to be the homemaker wouldn't appreciate an Egalitarian guy. She would think he was shirking his responsibility to take care of her). So, instead of "feminism" which I think is at this point a loaded word, I'd like to replace this term with describing people by those three terms. I think they're gender- and sexual orientation-friendly, and are a little more clear than "feminist" or "feminism."

On a related note, the black power movement wasn't about taking over the country from the white man, it was about becoming equal members of society...but that's not how the whiteys saw it, because that was what people were calling it. Now we call it the civil rights movement. Women, gays, and any other members of the social underclass are a part of that. "Feminism" is an outdated term.

It's very positive encouragement. Let's hope she keeps it up and doesn't get bored with it along the way. :)

yeah the conversation was

"I don't want to do my homework I hate math"
"of course you hate math, you wanna know why?"
"yeah, why?"
"because it's too easy for you, you have a natural math talent, you just breeze through it like nothing, see I love math because it challenges me, you don't like it because it's not hard to you"
"oh, I guess I can finish this before I go on to reading"
"yeah, it won't take long for you to finish it"

:p

the whole time my husband is giving me the "BS" look, but she bought it so whatever. LOL

As a side note, what does the proportion of women in engineering colleges have anything to do with feminism or marrying a feminist? As I understand it, feminism is the radical notion that women are people too, so I would say that I'm a fairly ardent feminist. As for marrying a feminist, I would like to think that I'd marry a woman who thought of herself as a person, so yes, I'd marry a feminist.

Are there biological differences between men and women? Of course. Do those have an effect on behavior? Sure. As I understand it, women at the West Point orienteering course tend to consistently do more poorly than their male counterparts. That doesn't mean there aren't some fantastic map-reading women recruits, only that by and large, the average man finishes a course faster than the woman. This is reflective of the fact that the average male has a better developed part of the brain devoted to spatial orientation and direction-finding. The million-dollar question is: does the fact that the aggregate woman can't read a map as well as an aggregate male have anything to do with them being superior or inferior naturally? The fairly obvious answer ought to be: no, not really, any more than women's ability to survive hypothermia makes them superior to men.

and generalizations form roles. roles govern behavior. therefore, people tend to follow the generalizations. self-fulfilling prophecy. The statistic that most logic based studies are filled out by mostly men supports this generalization. My source people is the stereotypes. They exist for a reason. and their existence alone guides behavior. that is not a flawed argument. it does not need the support of studies because it is a universal known. I don't think I need the use of studies to support that a statistic is a true statistic. That's like asking for a study to prove that indeed there are more white people than black people that live in america

So the fact that women were raised to believe, for generations, that they *could not* be engineers and scientists has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they often are not? This, despite the fact that the male:female ratio in these areas has been steadily dropping since it became less common for women to be raised to believe they were bad at these things?

By your logic, scientists should have concluded that black men and women were just stupid when compared to their white counterparts after slavery, completely ignoring the fact that black men and women were denied equal education for generations.

An interesting article for you to read is "Does gender matter?" in the July 2006 issue of Nature. It is written by a man who has been a scientist as both a man and a woman, now being a post-op transgendered person. He started off his career as a female scientist, and is now a male. He has continued the same work he did as a woman, but has gotten very different reactions from other scientists. At his very first post-op presentation, he actually overheard another man say, "Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister's." Guess what, Ben Barres doesn't have a sister. The work he was presenting was his own - the continuation of the exact same work he had done as a woman. As a woman in a math class, he was the only one in a large class to complete a hard problem. The professor claimed that she must have had her boyfriend do it for her, and refused to give credit.

you just agreed with what i said. I said you either don't know sheot(aka not knowing anything) or you are misinformed(what you do know is wrong). so thank you for arguing my statement then repeating it with a less compact and more literal word choice. I would think people would be capable of reading into things better than that.

and generalizations form roles. roles govern behavior. therefore, people tend to follow the generalizations. self-fulfilling prophecy. The statistic that most logic based studies are filled out by mostly men supports this generalization. My source people is the stereotypes. They exist for a reason. and their existence alone guides behavior. that is not a flawed argument. it does not need the support of studies because it is a universal known. I don't think I need the use of studies to support that a statistic is a true statistic. That's like asking for a study to prove that indeed there are more white people than black people that live in america

You didn't even provide a statistic so far. All you gave were your personal thoughts and prejudices.
And have you ever noticed that stereotypes are social inventions and have this weird tendency to change drastically over time? One hundred years back, there was the stereotype of the cannibalistic black people living in Africa running around naked all day. If stereotypes are all you go by, they must be out there somewhere, right?

I am a modern feminist.

I heard about a study on NPR recently that seemed to suggest that women, in certain situations, might actually tend to do better in scientific fields. When faced with unexpected results (which, believe me, happens all the freaking time in research), women were more likely to be energized and start investigating the new angle. Men, on the other hand, were more likely to see it as something wrong, a challenge to be overcome, and would often continue on the same track trying to figure out why their experiment had "failed."

It was a pretty small study, so it doesn't say anything conclusive, but it certainly does point to a prominent role for the "average" woman in science.
Really? Do you happen to know the name of the study or researchers? I'm very interested in reading more about this, but can't find anything about it. :(

I am a modern feminist.

I am a city sacker. :cool:

and generalizations form roles. roles govern behavior. therefore, people tend to follow the generalizations. self-fulfilling prophecy. The statistic that most logic based studies are filled out by mostly men supports this generalization. My source people is the stereotypes. They exist for a reason. and their existence alone guides behavior. that is not a flawed argument. it does not need the support of studies because it is a universal known. I don't think I need the use of studies to support that a statistic is a true statistic. That's like asking for a study to prove that indeed there are more white people than black people that live in america

It's a "universal known" that men are superior at logic, huh? Funny how you're the only person here who seems to "know" this. Are you the entirety of the universe? And wouldn't your inherent logical superiority help you realize that things that are so easily demonstrable can be demonstrated? If I asserted that white people outnumber black people in the US, I could pretty easily pull up census data to support that assertion. If you had asserted that "more men major in engineering than women," you might well be able to pull up data to support that. But you didn't just assert that - you claimed that more male engineers "proved" the inherent logical superiority of men, and for that assertion to stand, you do need some corroborative evidence.


In any relationship there needs to be a dominant and submissive partner. By nature, males do not submit.

That's utter nonsense, on both counts. Many relationships are equal partnerships, many men are submissive by nature, and many women are dominant. Heck, anyone who spends more than thirty seconds with my parents recognizes that my mother is in charge of basically everything, and that my father's role in the relationship is to say "yes, dear."

and generalizations form roles. roles govern behavior. therefore, people tend to follow the generalizations. self-fulfilling prophecy. The statistic that most logic based studies are filled out by mostly men supports this generalization. My source people is the stereotypes. They exist for a reason. and their existence alone guides behavior. that is not a flawed argument. it does not need the support of studies because it is a universal known. I don't think I need the use of studies to support that a statistic is a true statistic. That's like asking for a study to prove that indeed there are more white people than black people that live in america.
You are the one who stated, "There have been so many studies done to explain why higher level math and logic classes are almost exclusively male, while editorial and more subjective classes are majority female." We are not asking you to provide a source for your statistic. We are asking you to provide a source for these studies which you claim give a reason for the statistic.

As a side note, what does the proportion of women in engineering colleges have anything to do with feminism or marrying a feminist? As I understand it, feminism is the radical notion that women are people too, so I would say that I'm a fairly ardent feminist. As for marrying a feminist, I would like to think that I'd marry a woman who thought of herself as a person, so yes, I'd marry a feminist.

Are there biological differences between men and women? Of course. Do those have an effect on behavior? Sure. As I understand it, women at the West Point orienteering course tend to consistently do more poorly than their male counterparts. That doesn't mean there aren't some fantastic map-reading women recruits, only that by and large, the average man finishes a course faster than the woman. This is reflective of the fact that the average male has a better developed part of the brain devoted to spatial orientation and direction-finding. The million-dollar question is: does the fact that the aggregate woman can't read a map as well as an aggregate male have anything to do with them being superior or inferior naturally? The fairly obvious answer ought to be: no, not really, any more than women's ability to survive hypothermia makes them superior to men.

and yet it seems to make a huge difference to some of our posters as if men being better orienteers on average means something other than that more of the women had to work harder in the course to get a good grade.

statistics are very interesting but if you cant answer the simple question of "so what?" they are irrelevant to a discussion of feminist goals.

im still wondering just what kind of man would want a woman that he considers as less than himself? what kind of man doesnt appreciate the idea of his wife bringing a significant amount of money into the marriage even if she is making more than he is? are there men who dont LIKE money? are there men here who look forward to the day that they can teach their teenaged daughters to defer to their boyfriends? it is quite a mystery to me.

Uhm ... yeah. :p

Give me time to gather my wits or borrow some and I'll have a reply for you!

That's the danger of it. That's the way it has always worked, and legislation alone is nowhere near good enough as long as society doesn't change its perception of women.
This guy is just an extreme example.No more extreme than Smunkeeville.
His arengement with his partner (unless he's lying) sounds pretty satisfactory to both parties. They probably have a mutual understanding about how things work when it comes to decision making, and it seems like they haven't gotten to any issue that will destroy that system yet.

Is this system the very epitome of everything I find inequitable, abhorent, and insufferable? yeah. Women willingly taking a back seat on life's experiences and letting their partners drive on the basis of their gender is alien to me. But are they happy doing it? Well, it would seem so. Smunkee certainly is.

are there men here who look forward to the day that they can teach their teenaged daughters to defer to their boyfriends? it is quite a mystery to me.This is what I always wonder. What do they tell their daughters?

No more extremem than Smunkeeville.
His arengement with his partner (unless he's lying) sounds pretty satisfactory to both parties. They probably have a mutual understanding about how things work when it comes to decision making, and it seems like they haven't gotten to any issue that will destroy that system yet.

Is this system the very epitome of everything I find inequitable, abhorent, and insufferable? yeah. Women willingly taking a back seat on life's experiences and letting their partners drive on the basis of their gender is alien to me. But are they happy doing it? Well, it would seem so. Smunkee certainly is.

*sigh* You're right, it's just the ... the smugness of his calling himself a "wise man" and his arrogance in saying that women have all the rights they need, voting and property ownership and protection from abuse.

A motion has been made and seconded to let this one die.

Marriages work best when both partners share the same values. If both partners agree that they want one person to do this and the other person to do that (or not do that, as it may be), then there is nothing to argue about. The problems happen when a Traditional guy marries a Transitional woman, or an Egalitarian guy marries a Traditional woman. (Contrary to what people might think, a woman who expects to be the homemaker wouldn't appreciate an Egalitarian guy. She would think he was shirking his responsibility to take care of her). So, instead of "feminism" which I think is at this point a loaded word, I'd like to replace this term with describing people by those three terms. I think they're gender- and sexual orientation-friendly, and are a little more clear than "feminist" or "feminism."


The problem with this renaming you propose is that someone in any of these categories can be a feminist, so long as they respect the rights of other women to place themselves in a different category. A stay-at-home mom can be a feminist, as can her partner, provided both of them chose their roles and see no problem with others choosing different ones. Feminism, in the end, is really just about allowing everyone, male, female, whatever, to choose the life they want to live for themselves, regardless of what roles other people think someone with their type of genitalia should play in society.

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm a submissive and a feminist. I like taking orders from a partner, and I like serving him. It gets me all tingly. But if a guy ever told me that that I didn't have a choice in the matter, or that I was somehow inferior to him, his ass would shortly thereafter be exiting my presence at very high speeds. :)

im still wondering just what kind of man would want a woman that he considers as less than himself?

Im not supporting or advocating pragmatism but a pure pragmatist might want the relationship you describe just to get a reliable partner for sex and a maid.


are there men who dont LIKE money?

*Sheepishly raises hand* Im more or less neutral about money after tolerating it as a needed evil. I dont mind having a little cash but I would not say that I LIKE money either



I guess we all have different values.

No more extreme than Smunkeeville.
His arengement with his partner (unless he's lying) sounds pretty satisfactory to both parties. They probably have a mutual understanding about how things work when it comes to decision making, and it seems like they haven't gotten to any issue that will destroy that system yet.

Is this system the very epitome of everything I find inequitable, abhorent, and insufferable? yeah. Women willingly taking a back seat on life's experiences and letting their partners drive on the basis of their gender is alien to me. But are they happy doing it? Well, it would seem so. Smunkee certainly is.

This is what I always wonder. What do they tell their daughters?

I have my doubts. It's their choice of course, but I grew up seeing my mother almost becoming sucidal in her relationship because she believed she had to be submissive, because that's what she had been told and taught, because that's what my father expected, because that's what the bible said...

But, as I said, that's up to the individual. As long as nobody forces me to do the same...

you just agreed with what i said. I said you either don't know sheot(aka not knowing anything) or you are misinformed(what you do know is wrong). so thank you for arguing my statement then repeating it with a less compact and more literal word choice. I would think people would be capable of reading into things better than that.

Amusing. Hey, if you can't defeat an argument, just pretend like it says something else. I don't agree with what you said. Being misinformed is a form of ignorance. You can't be either/or. You can ignorant or both. That's different that what you said. But, hey, women are better at reading skills so perhaps it's just because you're so manly that you don't see what you said was wrong.

and generalizations form roles. roles govern behavior. therefore, people tend to follow the generalizations. self-fulfilling prophecy. The statistic that most logic based studies are filled out by mostly men supports this generalization. My source people is the stereotypes. They exist for a reason. and their existence alone guides behavior. that is not a flawed argument. it does not need the support of studies because it is a universal known. I don't think I need the use of studies to support that a statistic is a true statistic. That's like asking for a study to prove that indeed there are more white people than black people that live in america

You follow up with another logical fallacy that since it's widely accepted it must be true (although most would argue that it isn't widely accepted). You claimed you have studies that support your claims that men are better suited to logic roles. Were you lying or did you just forget?

Stereotypes formed by self-fulfilling prophesies are counter-productive, but you knew that, right? If they were formed as a result of behavior born of nature then they wouldn't be self-fulfilling and they would just exist regardless of whether people believed them or not, something not true of self-fulfilling prophesies. It's no wonder that you struggled in relationships where you actually had to uphold your claims with logic.


P.S. Actually no, she was raised by a family dominated by her mother. In any relationship there needs to be a dominant and submissive partner. By nature, males do not submit. so no deep-seated insecurities, sorry that I just am not submissive. Tech's ratio change is due to an expansion in our liberal arts college along with the addition of engineering majors geared more towards women. Along with a VERY leniant admissions policy towards females.

Another assertion. Please support your assertions with evidence. How can there be engineering majors geared toward women when they are so deficient? Interesting that such a thing is possible even though it is entirely contrary to your claims of what you say you found in studies. Seriously, you're really bad at this. I now understand why you wouldn't want to be challenged.

I am a city sacker. :cool:

Wonderful!

If only there were more of us.

EDIT: Actually, we might run out of cities to sack.

Perhaps it should remain just the two of us.

The problem with this renaming you propose is that someone in any of these categories can be a feminist, so long as they respect the rights of other women to place themselves in a different category. A stay-at-home mom can be a feminist, as can her partner, provided both of them chose their roles and see no problem with others choosing different ones. Feminism, in the end, is really just about allowing everyone, male, female, whatever, to choose the life they want to live for themselves, regardless of what roles other people think someone with their type of genitalia should play in society.

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm a submissive and a feminist. I like taking orders from a partner, and I like serving him. It gets me all tingly. But if a guy ever told me that that I didn't have a choice in the matter, or that I was somehow inferior to him, his ass would shortly thereafter be exiting my presence at very high speeds. :)

Hmm...I can't tell if that point of view is concurrent or adjacent to mine. At any rate, I agree, people should be able to choose their role in a marriage and in a society. If you don't follow that society's rules about safety, though, you can go to prison or you can go to a different society. If no society agrees with you, you're shit out of luck. I think that's pretty fair.

feminazis upset me.

Go to hell feminazis.

Heres a snippet that proves all your equal rights crap has already happened and your bitching for no reason.


A man was denied custody of his children, dispite holding down a well paying job and being completely sober, never having done drugs.
Custody was awarded to the mother, dispite her morbid drug problem and unemployment.

Who sucks? you do feminazis.
go home and shoot yourselves.


Feminism is a pointless crusade nowadays.
Its like britain invading wales.

Been there, done that its over. you won. get over it.

Really? Do you happen to know the name of the study or researchers? I'm very interested in reading more about this, but can't find anything about it. :(

Unfortunately not. I have this bad habit of coming into a program half over when I get in the car. It was either on "The Infinite Mind" or "Fresh Air," but I don't remember which. And I think it was nearly a year ago. When I get a few free minutes, I'll do a pubmed search and see if I can find it.


In any relationship there needs to be a dominant and submissive partner.

What an utterly ridiculous statement. Neither my fiance nor I are dominant or submissive in our relationship, and we do just fine. We make decisions together.

By nature, males do not submit.

There you go with untrue stereotypes again. There are men who quite like being submissive. Do they cease being male when they realize it?

so no deep-seated insecurities, sorry that I just am not submissive.

The insecurities are obvious in the fact that you have to be dominant. It suggests that you are compensating for something else.

Tech's ratio change is due to an expansion in our liberal arts college along with the addition of engineering majors geared more towards women. Along with a VERY leniant admissions policy towards females.

Liberal arts? At Georgia Tech? LOL Meanwhile, the actual numbers would show your claim to be false. Female admissions pretty much across the board have been rising at Tech. IIRC, the physics department was one of the few that hasn't seen huge differences.

What engineering majors are more geared towards women? Engineering is, by definition, composed of math and logic.

And lenient admissions policies, eh? So the fact that the only people I know in my department who actually received merit-based President's Fellowships are women is because they were gifts? The fact that I know women who are and have been at the top of their classes (which were predominantly male) throughout college is because the professors were just being more lenient?

If you wanted to come off as someone who wasn't mysoginstic, you failed. I am where I am today, not because someone was lenient with me, but because I've worked my ass off to get there.

and yet it seems to make a huge difference to some of our posters as if men being better orienteers on average means something other than that more of the women had to work harder in the course to get a good grade.

statistics are very interesting but if you cant answer the simple question of "so what?" they are irrelevant to a discussion of feminist goals.

im still wondering just what kind of man would want a woman that he considers as less than himself? what kind of man doesnt appreciate the idea of his wife bringing a significant amount of money into the marriage even if she is making more than he is? are there men who dont LIKE money? are there men here who look forward to the day that they can teach their teenaged daughters to defer to their boyfriends? it is quite a mystery to me.

I'm with you on this matter, but in my experience, it's often women who are the biggest enforcers of the notion of inferiority rather than men, and for the same reasons Dworkin pointed out not so long ago: a lot of women see the world through very harsh lenses, and being subordinate offers them protection. They see the world as a world where they are the ultimate sexual and economic prey, and by agreeing to be subordinate, they get some measure of protection from men, who agree to provide for them and, by limiting themselves sexually, they get the agreement from men not to rape them at will. There is of course the problem that men don't necessarily have to follow through on this agreement, and once women are subordinated, they have no way of backing out of the agreement, but in the eyes of these Schlafly-ites, that just means you were dumb about picking your man, and it sucks to be you.

Wonderful!

If only there were more of us.

EDIT: Actually, we might run out of cities to sack.

Perhaps it should remain just the two of us.

I'm surprised you didn't tell me that there wasn't enough room in this forum for the both of us! I hope we are on opposite sides of the globe...or on the same side of the globe, standing right next to each other but facing opposite directions. Yes, that is better. And when we have sacked every single city there is on our marauding rampage across the earth, we can go on a date. You know, amongst the ruins.

A man was denied custody of his children, dispite holding down a well paying job and being completely sober, never having done drugs.
Custody was awarded to the mother, dispite her morbid drug problem and unemployment.

That scenario is not what feminists want. It is a shame. Are you that guy?

I'm surprised you didn't tell me that there wasn't enough room in this forum for the both of us! I hope we are on opposite sides of the globe...or on the same side of the globe, standing right next to each other but facing opposite directions. Yes, that is better. And when we have sacked every single city there is on our marauding rampage across the earth, we can go on a date. You know, amongst the ruins.


I am a city slacker. Does this count for anything?

That scenario is not what feminists want. It is a shame. Are you that guy?

Nahh. was my friend and there parents.


And yes it is what they want.


BeCAuuUse if custody was awarded to the man its SEXIST. thered be armies of the little shits at the doors of the courts before the second bang of the hammer.

Not women, just the uber-feminist ones.

I am a city slacker. Does this count for anything?

I don't know, but Not Bad! How are you today?

Heres a snippet that proves all your equal rights crap has already happened and your bitching for no reason.

A man was denied custody of his children, dispite holding down a well paying job and being completely sober, never having done drugs.
Custody was awarded to the mother, dispite her morbid drug problem and unemployment.

Actually, if this is true, and there were no other circumstances (ie. past of abuse by the father), then it is precisely the sort of issue that feminism must address.

Unfortunately not. I have this bad habit of coming into a program half over when I get in the car. It was either on "The Infinite Mind" or "Fresh Air," but I don't remember which. And I think it was nearly a year ago. When I get a few free minutes, I'll do a pubmed search and see if I can find it.



What an utterly ridiculous statement. Neither my fiance nor I are dominant or submissive in our relationship, and we do just fine. We make decisions together.



There you go with untrue stereotypes again. There are men who quite like being submissive. Do they cease being male when they realize it?



The insecurities are obvious in the fact that you have to be dominant. It suggests that you are compensating for something else.



Liberal arts? At Georgia Tech? LOL Meanwhile, the actual numbers would show your claim to be false. Female admissions pretty much across the board have been rising at Tech. IIRC, the physics department was one of the few that hasn't seen huge differences.

What engineering majors are more geared towards women? Engineering is, by definition, composed of math and logic.

And lenient admissions policies, eh? So the fact that the only people I know in my department who actually received merit-based President's Fellowships are women is because they were gifts? The fact that I know women who are and have been at the top of their classes (which were predominantly male) throughout college is because the professors were just being more lenient?

If you wanted to come off as someone who wasn't mysoginstic, you failed. I am where I am today, not because someone was lenient with me, but because I've worked my ass off to get there.

Given: Only men are good at the sciences.
Given: You excelled at the sciences.
Conclusion: You are a man.

I'm sorry, but you need to give up your vagina. Logic proves that you are a man despite what biology says.

Nahh. was my friend and there parents.


And yes it is what they want.


BeCAuuUse if custody was awarded to the man its SEXIST. thered be armies of the little shits at the doors of the courts before the second bang of the hammer.

Not women, just the uber-feminist ones.

I know more than one person who is a man who got custody of the kids. Sometimes that happens unfairly too, and sometimes it's exactly what was necessary for the child's well-being. There are unfair courts everywhere. Why would awarding custody to the responsible parent be sexist?

Actually, if this is true, and there were no other circumstances (ie. past of abuse by the father), then it is precisely the sort of issue that feminism must address.

Agreed! Feminism is about equality, not women ruling the world. That's why I think the name needs to be changed. Egalitarianism?

I know more than one person who is a man who got custody of the kids. Sometimes that happens unfairly too, and sometimes it's exactly what was necessary for the child's well-being. There are unfair courts everywhere. Why would awarding custody to the responsible parent be sexist?

Because the judge was a man.

Heres a snippet that proves all your equal rights crap has already happened and your bitching for no reason.


A man was denied custody of his children, dispite holding down a well paying job and being completely sober, never having done drugs.
Custody was awarded to the mother, dispite her morbid drug problem and unemployment.
it.

It seems manifestly obvious that the belief that it's the mother's job rather than the father's to raise their children, regardless of their relative fitness for the job, runs entirely counter to feminist principles. You're attacking the wrong people.

And yes it is what they want.

You're right, people who believe that people should be treated fairly without regard to their gender think children should be put in a bad situation. :rolleyes:

BeCAuuUse if custody was awarded to the man its SEXIST. thered be armies of the little shits at the doors of the courts before the second bang of the hammer.

If custody is awarded to a man or a woman simply on the basis of gender, that is sexist. It should be awarded, in all cases, based on which situation would be best for the children.


Given: Only men are good at the sciences.
Given: You excelled at the sciences.
Conclusion: You are a man.

I'm sorry, but you need to give up your vagina. Logic proves that you are a man despite what biology says.

Wow. What is my fiance gonna say when I tell him he has to become gay?

Because the judge was a man.

Ummm...it is more sexist to award custody to a female bad parent than to a male good parent. It is sexist to assume that all women are inherently good mothers.

No more extreme than Smunkeeville.
His arengement with his partner (unless he's lying) sounds pretty satisfactory to both parties. They probably have a mutual understanding about how things work when it comes to decision making, and it seems like they haven't gotten to any issue that will destroy that system yet.

Is this system the very epitome of everything I find inequitable, abhorent, and insufferable? yeah. Women willingly taking a back seat on life's experiences and letting their partners drive on the basis of their gender is alien to me. But are they happy doing it? Well, it would seem so. Smunkee certainly is.
I am happy, I don't feel that I am giving up anything by submiting (as far as life experiences go)

This is what I always wonder. What do they tell their daughters?
we both tell them the same thing, you don't need a man to make you happy, you are the master of your own destiny, if you are happy great, if you are not you need to change things. The submissiveness is a choice, it's not a requirement and a dating relationship* is not the type of trust relationship in which you make that choice, they are not less than men, they are not inferior, they are equal, they have equal rights and opinions and can make their own choices, I choose to have this particular relationship dynamic, if they choose something different then that's good because they are making their own choice.

*dating relationship is different than a long term commited relationship....I am not trying to force them into marriage or anything of the sort but the dynamic of dating and being in a LTR are very different.

I'd have no problem with it, just so long as she didn't define herself by it. I like people to be diverse, and focused on lot's of things. Sure, I like politics, but I can just as easily shift to science, entertainment, sports, booze, literature or several amusing hobbies. And, often, I'd far prefer to talk about those things than politics. It would piss me off if she defined herself by her feminism.

I don't know, but Not Bad! How are you today?

Im doing well, the Earth is spinning and Im not fighting it.:p

Howzabout yourself?

Oh, and backish on topic;

I dont quite get why feminists feel so threatening to some folks that they go after feminists for no issue or reason other than the existence of feminists.

Im doing well, the Earth is spinning and Im not fighting it.:p

Howzabout yourself?

Oh, and backish on topic;

I dont quite get why feminists feel so threatening to some folks that they go after feminists for no issue or reason other than the existence of feminists.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement, and I was hoping that you would answer "Not bad." A disappointment all around, but I will rally and forgive you and then we can be friends again.

...tomorrow.

Because the judge was a man.

Okay. Prove it. Point to any feminist on this forum or anywhere that says that a fit father should not be awarded custody over an unfit mother. Go ahead. You've already met several feminists here to say the opposite and point out that feminism very much supports an equal view toward the role of men in the lives of children, so you really are going to show some proof of this claim.

I'm with you on this matter, but in my experience, it's often women who are the biggest enforcers of the notion of inferiority rather than men, and for the same reasons Dworkin pointed out not so long ago: a lot of women see the world through very harsh lenses, and being subordinate offers them protection. They see the world as a world where they are the ultimate sexual and economic prey, and by agreeing to be subordinate, they get some measure of protection from men, who agree to provide for them and, by limiting themselves sexually, they get the agreement from men not to rape them at will. There is of course the problem that men don't necessarily have to follow through on this agreement, and once women are subordinated, they have no way of backing out of the agreement, but in the eyes of these Schlafly-ites, that just means you were dumb about picking your man, and it sucks to be you.

that is a very sad truth that is getting less true every year with more and more women demonstrating that it IS possible to live your own life and live well.

its kinda like being the last woman in china with bound feet. it seemed like such a good idea at the time (enforced as it was by your mother and grandmother) but when you see your sisters running free it has to make you a bit sad to see what you chained yourself for.

i expect that that is why conservatives divorce more than liberals do. the women try to bind their feet so they can fit into a traditional marriage but when they see their sisters doing so much better...

I can see that many people have weighed in on this (including *shudder* Ebri) but I'd like to put in my two cents.

I read a most excellent book that I can no longer recall the title of that categorized marriage values this way:


Traditional - man works and is head of the household, woman stays home and does the homemaking and maybe gets some say, whatever.
Egalitarian - everything is split 50-50, all things are equal
Transitional - describes somebody who believes that things should be MORE equal than Traditional, but not 50-50. Maybe 30-70? I don't know.


Marriages work best when both partners share the same values. If both partners agree that they want one person to do this and the other person to do that (or not do that, as it may be), then there is nothing to argue about. The problems happen when a Traditional guy marries a Transitional woman, or an Egalitarian guy marries a Traditional woman. (Contrary to what people might think, a woman who expects to be the homemaker wouldn't appreciate an Egalitarian guy. She would think he was shirking his responsibility to take care of her). So, instead of "feminism" which I think is at this point a loaded word, I'd like to replace this term with describing people by those three terms. I think they're gender- and sexual orientation-friendly, and are a little more clear than "feminist" or "feminism."

On a related note, the black power movement wasn't about taking over the country from the white man, it was about becoming equal members of society...but that's not how the whiteys saw it, because that was what people were calling it. Now we call it the civil rights movement. Women, gays, and any other members of the social underclass are a part of that. "Feminism" is an outdated term.

Agree with you about the topic at hand. Everyone else, just shut up at this point. you miss the point entirely. My goal is to point out that there are more men in positions of power. In professions earning higher income. and whatnot. No matter what, as a general whole men are in a better situation to provide for their family. I would rather have my wife stay at home than pull in extra money. I believe my children will be raised properly that way. In homes with dominant mothers, I have not once seen children raised properly. Yes, good kids can come from that situation, but a lot of kids raised like that have turned out to be what I would consider bad: emo, homosexual, criminals, bad at school, outcasts, hobbyless.

Black power movement: I would like to say not everyone in it was all about not taking over, but being equal. At least not the people who tried to burn down my family farm because we where whitey's who had owned slaves in the past and we still owed them 40 acres and a mule.(we're Native American, and had german 'slaves' during ww2)

we both tell them the same thing, you don't need a man to make you happy, you are the master of your own destiny, if you are happy great, if you are not you need to change things. The submissiveness is a choice, it's not a requirement and a dating relationship* is not the type of trust relationship in which you make that choice, they are not less than men, they are not inferior, they are equal, they have equal rights and opinions and can make their own choices, I choose to have this particular relationship dynamic, if they choose something different then that's good because they are making their own choice.

*dating relationship is different than a long term commited relationship....I am not trying to force them into marriage or anything of the sort but the dynamic of dating and being in a LTR are very different.How can you tell them that they are the masters of their own destiny, when you yourself have relinquished the captaincy on your life ?(barring abuse, etc). How can you tell them that they will make their own decisions if their mother, their most important role model, follows someone else's decisions? It seems like inconsistent to say one thing and present a different precident.
I have no doubt of your being happy and satisfied. But I can't help hoping your daughters will see through the hypocracy.

Who sucks? you do feminazis.
go home and shoot yourselves.

Knock off the trolling and death wishes, Ostroeuropa.

Agree with you about the topic at hand. Everyone else, [b]just shut up at this point[b]. you miss the point entirely. My goal is to point out that there are more men in positions of power. In professions earning higher income. and whatnot. No matter what, as a general whole men are in a better situation to provide for their family. I would rather have my wife stay at home than pull in extra money. I believe my children will be raised properly that way. In homes with dominant mothers, I have not once seen children raised properly. Yes, good kids can come from that situation, but a lot of kids raised like that have turned out to be what I would consider bad: emo, homosexual, criminals, bad at school, outcasts, hobbyless.

Black power movement: I would like to say not everyone in it was all about not taking over, but being equal. At least not the people who tried to burn down my family farm because we where whitey's who had owned slaves in the past and we still owed them 40 acres and a mule.(we're Native American, and had german 'slaves' during ww2)

Amusing. We see that wisdom just a-bursting at the seems. You point to the fact men in this country who up until recently were the only ones allowed into positions of power are more often in positions of power because of the prejudice you claim it supports. Yep, that's not a circular argument. You're not doing much for that claim about the amazing logic powers of men.

And you do realize that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. You try to use one story of your family to prove the black equality movement was a bad thing. What you instead prove is that you're not just illogical in regards to women, but in regards to the entire concept of equality in general.

How can you tell them that they are the masters of their own destiny, when you yourself have relinquished the captaincy on your life ?(barring abuse, etc). How can you tell them that they will make their own decisions if their mother, their most important role model, follows someone else's decisions? It seems like inconsistent to say one thing and present a different precident.
I have no doubt of your being happy and satisfied. But I can't help hoping your daughters will see through the hypocracy.

because she was and still is the master of her destiny. she was perfectly happy letting her man make the decisions. if she stops liking the decisions, she talks to him, they work things out. if she feels she can't trust him with her decisions anymore she can start making them again. its not hypocracy, its being a good parent.

In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place.

Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such,

So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?

Why on earth should one be compelled to tolerate, love, or understand bigots? Most black people feel no great love for KKK members; most GLBT people feel no great love for the Westboro Baptist Church. Why should women feel any obligation to express their love and understanding toward people who claim them to be inferior beings, which is what one must assume an "anti-feminist" would do?

Perhaps part of your misunderstanding of my post has to do with your making assumptions?

If you read what Bottle wrote, perhaps you might see where she kinda contradicted herself?

Also, because one is a feminist precludes that they cannot have love and understanding for people who are not feminist? Because one is a feminist, they have to look down upon those who are not? Sheesh!!

Well, if you'd like to explain what exactly would define one as being "anti-feminist" besides disagreeing with the principle that one's gender does not determine one's worth as a human being, I'd be more than willing to listen. I'm not sure defining an "anti-feminist" as "one who opposes feminism" was too very much of an assumption on my part, but you're welcome to tell me how I could be wrong. :)

Who used the word "anti-feminist"? Wasn't Bottle or myself. That is why you misunderstood my post?

I invite you to go back and follow the conversation. ;)

;)
If you note, Bottle used the word non-feminist and that is what I took exception to. If you catch my drift? And while she did use the word anti-feminist as well, and although I disagree with her over-inflated ego in that regard, the points that I focused on were these words:

In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place.

Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such,
I was married to a "feminist" for quite a long time, but I cannot recall her feeling the need to refer to "non-feminists" as being inferior to herself.

Bottle's condescending attitude is what tweaked my responsive nature. :D

Amusing. We see that wisdom just a-bursting at the seems. You point to the fact men in this country who up until recently were the only ones allowed into positions of power are more often in positions of power because of the prejudice you claim it supports. Yep, that's not a circular argument. You're not doing much for that claim about the amazing logic powers of men.

And you do realize that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. You try to use one story of your family to prove the black equality movement was a bad thing. What you instead prove is that you're not just illogical in regards to women, but in regards to the entire concept of equality in general.

i wasn't trying to say the black power movement was a bad thing. i was saying it wasn't all for equality.
FACT: many black leaders told their followers that they were intending to take over and force white people to be their slaves.
FACT: they threw bricks telling us that we were their slaves through my family windows.
FACT: the intention of many sectors within the black power movement was for more than equality, and many are still pushing for it.
FACT: the only black power movement that made any headway was the one fighting for equality.

How can you tell them that they are the masters of their own destiny, when you yourself have relinquished the captaincy on your life ?(barring abuse, etc). How can you tell them that they will make their own decisions if their mother, their most important role model, follows someone else's decisions? It seems like inconsistent to say one thing and present a different precident.
I have no doubt of your being happy and satisfied. But I can't help hoping your daughters will see through the hypocracy.

I think the fundamental point is that she chooses to relinquish some measure of control to her husband. People choose to relinquish control all the time. When you accept a job, you relinquish some control to your boss. That doesn't mean you're not your own person, or that you're inferior to your boss, or that it is acceptable for your boss to mistreat or denigrate you. Is taking a job a bad example for one's children as well?

I'm not sure I understand your last statement, and I was hoping that you would answer "Not bad." A disappointment all around, but I will rally and forgive you and then we can be friends again.

...tomorrow.

My sincerest apologies. If you ask me again tomorrow I will make every attempt to answer any question about my condition correctly.

Let me see if I can translate my last statement from jibberish to English.

I think that many attacks against feminists (as a generic group) are done because the attackers are afraid of feminists. Feminists did not do anything to these attackers which harmed or threatened the attackers directly. These attackers seldom even allege anything specific feminists have done wrong. Yet the attacks continue, and in a way that shows the attackers to be earnestly fearful of feminists. I do not understand why they fear feminists.

How can you tell them that they are the masters of their own destiny, when you yourself have relinquished the captaincy on your life ?(barring abuse, etc). How can you tell them that they will make their own decisions if their mother, their most important role model, follows someone else's decisions? It seems like inconsistent to say one thing and present a different precident.
I have no doubt of your being happy and satisfied. But I can't help hoping your daughters will see through the hypocracy.

Amusing. So she's not the master of her own destiny unless she lives exactly as you would have her live? She chooses her lifestyle. She lets them know that they may do as they will as well.

My dad was an electronics technician and loved working out in the field. He never wanted to be behind a desk. He did, however, encourage me to do what I loved and to go into management if that was where my bliss was. I guess my dad was a hypocrite too, huh? Being an example doesn't mean being EXACTLY as you'd like them to be in every way. It means teaching them to be strong, confident people and letting them choose their own path.

Agree with you about the topic at hand. Everyone else, just shut up at this point. you miss the point entirely. My goal is to point out that there are more men in positions of power. In professions earning higher income. and whatnot.

Thank you for pointing out why feminism still has a lot of work to do.


No matter what, as a general whole men are in a better situation to provide for their family. I would rather have my wife stay at home than pull in extra money. I believe my children will be raised properly that way. In homes with dominant mothers, I have not once seen children raised properly. Yes, good kids can come from that situation, but a lot of kids raised like that have turned out to be what I would consider bad: emo, homosexual, criminals, bad at school, outcasts, hobbyless.

Oh, really? Funny... I was what you would call emo and suicidal while my father was still part of my family. Things got a lot better once my mother kicked him out.
To give you a short summary how my mom's kids turned out :

- Myself (now 32) : Finished university with a degree in IT and Librarianship, now working for major IT company
- Younger brother (now 30) : Nurse
- Even younger brother (now 27) : Studied music, then became a Mechanical Engineer


Black power movement: I would like to say not everyone in it was all about not taking over, but being equal. At least not the people who tried to burn down my family farm because we where whitey's who had owned slaves in the past and we still owed them 40 acres and a mule.(we're Native American, and had german 'slaves' during ww2)

Feminism is about equality.

Edit : Oh, and just to make sure you know who you're talking to, I'm one of those impertinent females with limited cranial capacity.

i wasn't trying to say the black power movement was a bad thing. i was saying it wasn't all for equality.
FACT: many black leaders told their followers that they were intending to take over and force white people to be their slaves.
FACT: they threw bricks telling us that we were their slaves through my family windows.
FACT: the intention of many sectors within the black power movement was for more than equality, and many are still pushing for it.
FACT: the only black power movement that made any headway was the one fighting for equality.

What the hell does any of this have to do with anything? Nothing. I know why you brought it up, but all it accomplished is showing your true colors and exactly how poorly you're making this argument. You are a perfect example of how making generalizations about logic skills of men and women will lead one to the wrong answer were they to compare you to, say, Smunkeeville.

Thank you for pointing out why feminism still has a lot of work to do.

*snipped but only for brevity*

Feminism is about equality.

QFT

Equality. If your wife chooses to submit her judgment to yours, it should be her free choice, not because it's right or natural or because God(tm) says so or because people with penises have more logical brains. Her choice. It really is only about equality.

If you note, Bottle used the word non-feminist and that is what I took exception to. If you catch my drift? And while she did use the word anti-feminist as well, and although I disagree with her over-inflated ego in that regard, the points that I focused on were these words:


I was married to a "feminist" for quite a long time, but I cannot recall her feeling the need to refer to "non-feminists" as being inferior to herself.

Bottle's condescending attitude is what tweaked my responsive nature. :D

Well, as I've already explained a couple of times in this thread, I honestly don't see any major distinction between an "anti-feminist" and a "non-feminist." Either one seems definitionally to disagree with the idea that one's gender does not determine one's worth as a human being; at most, the former sounds as if it might perhaps involve somewhat more vocal disagreement. I do consider myself to be superior to bigots, at least as regards their bigotry. (Many bigots are probably superior to me in other ways, obviously. I'm sure there're some bigots out there who are great dancers, for example. ;) ) I guess I don't see it as terribly condescending to believe a lack of bigotry to be superior to the presence thereof, so I'm afraid you'll just have to forgive me for my anti-bigot bigotry. :D

QFT

Equality. If your wife chooses to submit her judgment to yours, it should be her free choice, not because it's right or natural or because God(tm) says so or because people with penises have more logical brains. Her choice. It really is only about equality.
I am all for equality of women in the public sphere and before the law. I suppress my more Feminazi tendencies though. :)

I am all for equality of women in the public sphere and before the law. I suppress my more Feminazi tendencies though. :)

And well you should, as great a struggle as that may be (it is for me, sometimes it just doesn't seem worth chewing through the restraints :rolleyes: ). But I think the tendency towards rabid feminaziness comes from the sheer amount of work that must be done before real equality can be achieved. It's daunting, given the attitudes displayed in this thread, and some of us get just a little pissed off!

Ahem. 'Night all.

OP snipped

i wonder what your problem with feminists is. in that whole diatribe all you did was vaguely alude to being anti-liberal and anti-vegetarianism. well i know a lot of feminists and none of them are vegetarian. and feminists aren't necessarily liberal. you can have conservative feminists, they just won't be interested in promoting any other woman's rights. oh, and what's wrong with divorcing for 'trivial' reasons? to be honest, i'm generally anti-marriage/-civil union for myself anyway because i think applying legal shit to a relationship is the first step to ruining it. But marriage is heavy, making it easier to escape has got to be a good thing. And i'd be interested to know what you consider a trivial reason.

As for myself, i would have no problem being with a truly modern feminist. Feminist theory these days recognises the fact that women aren't the only marginalised group and they also recognise that treating all women as one distinct group is ridiculous. i think it can be said that modern feminism goes under the mantra "the freedom of all is essential to my freedom". this is a far cry from the 3rd wave man-hating, bra-burning acetic feminism of the 70s and 80s which you seem to be hung up on.

whatever, I'm just glad ya'll are not the majority where I'm from. Women are inherently free to choose what they want for themselves. I would just hope they would willingly choose the traditional and time proven roles that society rewards with success. Time to finish building my tank. Then my girl is gonna bake me some cookies and sit on the arm of my chair while I watch TV and relax from my day of sitting through pointless lectures.

It's daunting, given the attitudes displayed in this thread, and some of us get just a little pissed off!

Ahem. 'Night all.
Tee-hee, sometimes I'd like to see most hetero men turned into slaves, possibly encaged for entertainment, in their worst nightmare; a gynarchy (yes, I do get off to novels about the drow and their theocratic matriarchies -_-).

http://image2.sina.com.cn/gm/cr/2006/0621/3280540026.jpg

http://www.pcgames.com.cn/pcgames/pcnews/newgame/0509/pic/HOMM5_PC_077_dungeon_battle_blood_fury_1024_thumb.jpg

Weird, considering I'm gay.

QFT

Equality. If your wife chooses to submit her judgment to yours, it should be her free choice, not because it's right or natural or because God(tm) says so or because people with penises have more logical brains. Her choice. It really is only about equality.

Wow. Farny I think that this might be the most fired-up sounding post of yours that I've read. I like it.

And well you should, as great a struggle as that may be (it is for me, sometimes it just doesn't seem worth chewing through the restraints :rolleyes: ). But I think the tendency towards rabid feminaziness comes from the sheer amount of work that must be done before real equality can be achieved. It's daunting, given the attitudes displayed in this thread, and some of us get just a little pissed off!

Ahem. 'Night all.


This one seems more fired-up now.:p

How can you tell them that they are the masters of their own destiny, when you yourself have relinquished the captaincy on your life ?(barring abuse, etc). How can you tell them that they will make their own decisions if their mother, their most important role model, follows someone else's decisions? It seems like inconsistent to say one thing and present a different precident.
I have no doubt of your being happy and satisfied. But I can't help hoping your daughters will see through the hypocracy.
I choose my life, I don't see how it's hypocracy to tell them that they can choose theirs as well.

because she was and still is the master of her destiny. she was perfectly happy letting her man make the decisions. if she stops liking the decisions, she talks to him, they work things out. if she feels she can't trust him with her decisions anymore she can start making them again. its not hypocracy, its being a good parent.
exactly.
I think the fundamental point is that she chooses to relinquish some measure of control to her husband. People choose to relinquish control all the time. When you accept a job, you relinquish some control to your boss. That doesn't mean you're not your own person, or that you're inferior to your boss, or that it is acceptable for your boss to mistreat or denigrate you. Is taking a job a bad example for one's children as well?
that's a very interesting analogy...I might use it sometime when I am trying to explain to someone who claims that part of being my own person is making my own choices and then doesn't understand that a choice I make may not fall into line with what they deem acceptable.

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.
Seriously, have you ever been laid? I have a hard time believing that even the most self-loathing woman would give it up to you.

I dunno, are you gonna make me kabobs with them? =)

Oh.... that was a way low blow... talk about hitting a guy where it hurts. You know I've been pining for a kebab for half a decade...

:( *cries*

whatever, I'm just glad ya'll are not the majority where I'm from. Women are inherently free to choose what they want for themselves. I would just hope they would willingly choose the traditional and time proven roles that society rewards with success. Time to finish building my tank. Then my girl is gonna bake me some cookies and sit on the arm of my chair while I watch TV and relax from my day of sitting through pointless lectures.

Amusing. You're glad we're not in the majority where you're from. Why? We wouldn't force our view on others. As we've all stated, we simply tell people the facts and let them choose their lives. We're very supportive of Smunkeeville and her husband. However, if he were to get on here talking about he's superior to his wife, not even Smunkeeville would support him. And you did say you were supperior to 'your girl' and mentioned how you're the only one that can be trusted to make decisions.

You've told us about how you feel about traditional roles in regards to women and black people. We're glad you're not in the majority, period.

Oh.... that was a way low blow... talk about hitting a guy where it hurts. You know I've been pining for a kebab for half a decade...

:( *cries*

Hey, are you around? I'm totally failing on starting the story. I did get us (way too quickly) to the point where we fall out.

And, now I'm hungry too.

yeah the conversation was

"I don't want to do my homework I hate math"
"of course you hate math, you wanna know why?"
"yeah, why?"
"because it's too easy for you, you have a natural math talent, you just breeze through it like nothing, see I love math because it challenges me, you don't like it because it's not hard to you"
"oh, I guess I can finish this before I go on to reading"
"yeah, it won't take long for you to finish it"

:p

the whole time my husband is giving me the "BS" look, but she bought it so whatever. LOL

But, she did toddle off and clear it out, right?

So - while your intent was a mechanism of motivation, you were actually tapping truth, perhaps?

Hey, are you around? I'm totally failing on starting the story. I did get us (way too quickly) to the point where we fall out.

And, now I'm hungry too.

Sorry - yes, I'm back around. Mrs Grave was presenting her radioshow on w00t radio, so I got unceremoniously evicted.

Mmmm... kebabs.

to answer the OP question simply... If I loved her and she loved me, then yes.

K...not all the way through the thread yet, but I'll take this bit on first.
Rameria,
The ratio of guys to girls in engineering colleges is like that nationwide I would like to point out. And you finding those studies doesn't really mean much when there are studies that contradict what you are saying. But inherently there are generalized differences in brain functions between male and female, though it is not always a given. what has been proven time and time again, is that men tend to excel in logic based areas. I'm wary of this for one reason: Nothing is that simple. Ever. Nothing is 100% nature, nothing is 100% nurture. Even if men are more apt to logic, there is still the social side to consider. That is being delt with in several ways, which helps to explain the increase of women in things such as engineering. I am looking for some research to help back the idea that it could involve brain function, but it is slow going right now because I don't have my schools science database access.

Something that might come to your aid is actually a brain malfunction: Autism.
One of the major theories about autism is that it is the "extreme" male brain. People with autism have reduced or non-existant social skills, while excelling in math. This is supported in the fact that 3/4 of all autists are male.

There are some studies that reveal differences in the brains of men and women
Brizendine, who works at the Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute in San Francisco, says recent advances in neuroimaging and neuroendocrinology have provided new insights into how women and men use their brains differently. Women, she says, have 11per cent more neurones in the area of the brain devoted to emotion and memory. Different levels of oestrogen, cortisol and dopamine mean that a woman becomes more stressed by emotional conflict than does a man; relatively minor worries can trigger hormones that plunge her into fear of catastrophe while this reaction can be provoked in men only by physical danger.

Put more colloquially, this means women are more prone to hysteria than men, which will not go down well in some quarters. However, the findings fly in the face of some recent studies that claim there are negligible physical differences between men's and women's brains and that it is nurture, not nature, that is responsible for the difference in our behaviour.
....
There is, though, much evidence that we use our brains differently. Women's brains, for instance, have a thicker corpus callosum, the cable of nerves that channels communication between the brain's two hemispheres.

Women tend to use both hemispheres for language tasks, which may be why girls learn to talk earlier than boys. The right hemisphere plays a dominant role in the male brain and it is this side that we use to navigate the world and perform spatial tasks, hence all those hilarious jokes about men being better at reading maps and parking cars.

However, while there are differences between the male and female brain, there is little agreement on what these physical difference mean.

from the same article above:MEN v WOMEN
WHAT MAKES THEM BEHAVE
AND RESPOND DIFFERENTLY?
Brain
Slightly larger in men but women have more neurones in certain areas
Amygdala
Where anger, fear and strong emotions originate. Smaller in women, possibly making them less likely to fight
Prefrontal cortex
Larger and matures earlier in women, which may account for them being more patient than men
Anterior cingulate cortex
Stress and mood centre. It is also involved in decision-making. Larger in women, possibly making them more prone to deliberation and worry
Language
Hemispheric asymmetry is less pronounced in women. Their language capability is dispersed across both hemispheres, unlike men
Hearing
A 1997 study found that in the range of 1500hz (the range of sound critical for understanding speech), the average baby girl has an acoustic brain response about 80 per cent greater than the average baby boy. May explain why music therapy for premature babies works for newborn girls but not for boys
Sight
In boys, the eye is more sensitive to movement; in girls, to colour and texture. May account for newborn boys' preference for toys that move, such as trucks
Emotion
In young children, negative emotion in response to disturbing images seems to be centred in primitive areas of the brain, specifically the amygdala. In girls, by the teenage years, a larger portion of the brain activity involved in processing negative emotion is located in the cerebral cortex, which is associated with reflection, language and reasoning. Boys continue to process negative emotion in the amygdala. This may be why boys find it hard to talk about their feelings
Mind you, all of these are "possibly". They are not definate, but are reasonable conclusions

More from a different article:
Cahill and his colleagues found that the amygdala works differently in men and women, which may help explain why women are more likely to develop mood disorders such as depression and men are more prone to alcoholism and drug abuse.

In one experiment, Cahill showed that when men and women watched the same emotional movie, the right side of the amygdala was more active in men, and the left amygdala was more active in women. "They're using very different brain processes to create enhanced memories," he said.

The right amygdala is more in tune to the outside environment, communicating with the visual cortex, which controls vision, and the striatum, which coordinates motor actions. These processes are thought to be key to spatial orientation--knowing how to negotiate your surroundings, as in hunting....
A second study by Cahill involved the beta blocker propranolol, a drug used to treat high blood pressure that also has been found to greatly reduce the activity of the amygdala. Because it subdues emotional arousal propranolol is being studied as a way to reduce the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder.

In Cahill's experiment, normal subjects were given propranolol before seeing an emotionally disturbing movie about a boy run over by a car. Cahill found that women on the drug were able to remember the central idea of the story, such as that the boy was with his mother, but fewer of the details. Men, on the other hand, remembered more details, like the soccer ball the boy was holding, but less of the essence of the story.

"The drug impaired memory for the details of the emotional story in women but not men, and it impaired memory for the gist of the story in men but not women," Cahill said.

One possible explanation for why women tend to be less aggressive than men is that they may be better able to filter out overly arousing feelings. The front part of the brain, which controls emotions, is bigger in women than in men when compared with the size of the amygdala, where experiences get their emotional charge.

That difference may be why women are less prone than men to fly off the handle, Cahill said.
Mind you, I'm not ready to say it is all brain build that makes the difference. But it is impossible to ignore that the male and female brains are different, and this could very well have further implications

if you want to call her an idiot for that, you are being exactly what feminism stands against.That is the most true thing you've said. Feminism isn't about forcing a woman to leave her kids behind for a carear. It isn't about stopping her from being submissive to her husband if she chooses. It is about giving her the option to do what she wants, rather than being forced to be submissive, as well as not forcing the male to be dominant.
Sarkhaan,
Georgia Tech, Mechanical Engineer w. inta minor
frat I'll keep off here so no feminazis try to bomb it.
Good school...I had some friends who were going to go there but decided on Caltech and MIT instead
As for the frat, I was just wondering if it was Fiji...I have a bunch of friends in that one.

I am all for equality of women in the public sphere and before the law. I suppress my more Feminazi tendencies though. :)

I would think it would be a simple concept to agree on that women should be equal to men. Hard to understand sometimes why some would try to discriminate. Now the real crazy feminists are those you'd want to avoid, those who would try to limit what you are allowed to say, who would try to relax standards to make things easy for women and just generally hate all men.

But then we don't hate them because they are women but because they are crazy. :)

I wonder if the OP has taken into consideration that not everyone views long-term relationships as necessary to happiness.

But then we don't hate them because they are women but because they are crazy. :)
Not all of them are women (physically anyway). ;)

@Ebri

You are aware that the slogans on Hot Topic T-shirts have nothing to do with the subject matter of the OP, right?
I would also like to point out that you seem to be a fan of valid yet unsound arguments. Or actually.. entirely illogical ones. Shot full of fallacies.
Woo!

And dealing with the subject..
It really all comes down to the individuals involved in the relationship.

I choose my life, I don't see how it's hypocracy to tell them that they can choose theirs as well.I admire the fact that this is the message you send your kids. But it seems like you're advocating all the things you did *not* end up choosing, that's all.

because she was and still is the master of her destiny. she was perfectly happy letting her man make the decisions. if she stops liking the decisions, she talks to him, they work things out. if she feels she can't trust him with her decisions anymore she can start making them again. its not hypocracy, its being a good parent.exactlyThis is slightly different than what you've told us before Smunkee. I'm not trying to be picky, but if I recall, there was a memorable post where Ashmoria asked you if, in the event that your husband made a decision that you were quite sure would be disasterous, not because he meant to abuse you, but because it would simply be a terrible terrible mistake, and you two could not work it out - she asked if you would take action yourself according to what you knew would save your family from disaster, or go over the waterfall with him, taking the kids with you. You said you'd go over.
So that's not starting to make your decisions again whenever you don't trust him anymore, like the quoted pasage suggests. I realize that maybe you haven't come to an event like that yet, or at least not to one that actually esulted in disaster, but you will someday. Anyway, that post just stuck in my head.

And dealing with the subject..
It really all comes down to the individuals involved in the relationship.

Quoted for truth.

I admire the fact that this is the message you send your kids. But it seems like you're advocating all the things you did *not* end up choosing, that's all.

Isn't that part of what one should do as a parent?

I mean - I raise my eight-year-old girl with freedom to go to church as she chooses, because she likes to. I'm an Atheist, but I'm aware of the fact that this is what works for ME. Shouldn't I be letting her make her choices?

Children aren't (automatically) stupid - they'll see which choices you think are right for YOU... they can also learn that what is right for YOU might not be right for THEM.

I admire the fact that this is the message you send your kids. But it seems like you're advocating all the things you did *not* end up choosing, that's all.
it's like me telling them they can figure out religion for themselves, I suppose it's hypocritical of me not to indoctrinate them?

This is slightly different than what you've told us before Smunkee. I'm not trying to be picky, but if I recall, there was a memorable post where Ashmoria asked you if, in the event that your husband made a decision that you were quite sure would be disasterous, not because he meant to abuse you, but because it would simply be a terrible terrible mistake, and you two could not work it out - she asked if you would take action yourself according to what you knew would save your family from disaster, or go over the waterfall with him, taking the kids with you. You said you'd go over.
So that's not starting to make your decisions again whenever you don't trust him anymore, like the quoted pasage suggests. I realize that maybe you haven't come to an event like that yet, or at least not to one that actually esulted in disaster, but you will someday. Anyway, that post just stuck in my head.
I have trouble seeing a decision that he would make that I wouldn't go along with other than one that would harm me or our children thus falling under abuse. If he wants to make a financial decision that I don't agree with, he can, money is money. If he wants us all to kill ourselves at midnight to hop a ride with a comet I am out the door. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Well, as I've already explained a couple of times in this thread, I honestly don't see any major distinction between an "anti-feminist" and a "non-feminist." Either one seems definitionally to disagree with the idea that one's gender does not determine one's worth as a human being; at most, the former sounds as if it might perhaps involve somewhat more vocal disagreement. I do consider myself to be superior to bigots, at least as regards their bigotry. (Many bigots are probably superior to me in other ways, obviously. I'm sure there're some bigots out there who are great dancers, for example. ;) ) I guess I don't see it as terribly condescending to believe a lack of bigotry to be superior to the presence thereof, so I'm afraid you'll just have to forgive me for my anti-bigot bigotry. :D
Okay meat and potatoes time. :D

If a woman wants to be a "feminist" that is her choice, and I really don't have a problem with that. There are "feminists who hate men, there are "feminists" who love men and there is a whole slew of "feminists" somewhere in between.

Bottle declared herself as a "feminist" and for some reason felt a compelling urge to describe "non-feminists" as "inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place". What is with that crap? Because a woman chooses not to be a "feminist", she is automatically somehow inferior? That is mind boggling BS and is an absolutely unnecessary comment especially for a self described "feminist".

For Bottle to further suggest that "most non-idiots are feminists", suggests to me that she is a legend in her own mind. It also suggests to me that Bottle is not a "true" feminist.

Hey, if you want to be a "feminist" great, but surely to God there is no need to attack other women just because they choose to be "non-feminists".

alright. I am all for women's rights, but its not fair to judge all feminists by a stereotype. I'm a feminist, but I'm also for cultural divirsity, less age discrimination, world peace, anticonsumerism and less poverty. I guess you could say I'm a rebel with a LOT of causes. Anyway, I won't stand up and yell at someone every time they say something sexist. I only will comment if its said to me, or about someone I'm close to/care a lot about. What your thinking of isn't really a feminist but an overpowering man hater.

where do these people get off remembering posts from so long ago!!?


I have trouble seeing a decision that he would make that I wouldn't go along with other than one that would harm me or our children thus falling under abuse. If he wants to make a financial decision that I don't agree with, he can, money is money. If he wants us all to kill ourselves at midnight to hop a ride with a comet I am out the door. What part of that is so hard to understand?

thats probably exactly what emma smith thought the day before joseph came home to tell her that god demanded polygamy


ok so he didnt dare tell her himself, he had someone else do it. she eventually helped found the non polygamous reforganized latter day saints church.

we all have a plan for how we live our lives. we dont know until something happens that isnt in the plan how we will react to it. with luck you will never face the kind of situation that would force you to reject your husband's decisions.

where do these people get off remembering posts from so long ago!!?



thats probably exactly what emma smith thought the day before joseph came home to tell her that god demanded polygamy


ok so he didnt dare tell her himself, he had someone else do it. she eventually helped found the non polygamous reforganized latter day saints church.

we all have a plan for how we live our lives. we dont know until something happens that isnt in the plan how we will react to it. with luck you will never face the kind of situation that would force you to reject your husband's decisions.

very true. If it comes down to something that is absolutely abusive or so against my nature as to be abusive, you know I will use my own judgement, I don't forsee it happening, but then I didn't forsee myself living past 17 either.

nutjob rant

I am the vegetarian. My girlfriend is a hunter. I consider myself a feminist, she does not. It's a crazy world.

I we referring to "Normal Feminism" which tends to get a bit irritated when a woman is grossly discriminated against, or "Bitch Feminism" which thinks all men are scum.

Because a woman chooses not to be a "feminist", she is automatically somehow inferior?

yes. anyone who isn't a feminist is a shitty human being.

Sarkhaan,
those were some of the studies I was talking about. It being homecoming week I'm throwing these posts up in between all the crap I'm doing for that(making a tank...its going to shoot stuff...). but no, not FIJI. here, while they are good at intramurals, that seems about all they really do. Like the guys there though, but they just don't party enough for me. That and they just run the option in football. no matter how much it works, its still gay.

yes. anyone who isn't a feminist is a shitty human being.

not really. i know some totally awesome and strong women who wouldn't call themselves feminist. some of them would call themselves post-feminist, others reject the feminist label altogether because of the negative connotations it bred in the 70s and 80s, others because they just wanted to be hairdressers and don't want anyone telling them they should wish for more. this last one i would bitterly contest if it wasn't for the fact that, having gone through 3 years of uni with 1 more year and a dissertation to go, all i want to do is be a farmer or a mechanic or something that doesn't require a degree.

not really. i know some totally awesome and strong women who wouldn't call themselves feminist. some of them would call themselves post-feminist, others reject the feminist label altogether because of the negative connotations it bred in the 70s and 80s

branding disputes don't interest me just now (though i have always liked the slogan "i'll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy"). in so far as they fit within broad church feminism as being discussed here, they are feminists. in so far as they don't, then they suck.

others because they just wanted to be hairdressers and don't want anyone telling them they should wish for more.

but do they hold their choices to be normative for others? do they think it should be the case that people be encouraged to conform to traditional gender roles? if not, then they are feminists whether they use the label or not.

Sarkhaan,
those were some of the studies I was talking about. It being homecoming week I'm throwing these posts up in between all the crap I'm doing for that(making a tank...its going to shoot stuff...). but no, not FIJI. here, while they are good at intramurals, that seems about all they really do. Like the guys there though, but they just don't party enough for me. That and they just run the option in football. no matter how much it works, its still gay.

Figured those were what you were talking about. Unfortunatly, I can't get the actual studies from my apartment...the damn science database crashed (again).

I don't have any friends at your schools FIJI, but I know a few from SMU, where I guess it is the big party frat, and a few at WPI.

Tank sounds badass though.

EDIT: Our homecoming weekend blows. We don't have a football team, so there isn't even anything worthwhile to go drink and crash.
Edit again: looks like there is a hockey game. I retract saying there was nothing to drink and crash

Usually I try to read the threads before posting, but really, I can't be bothered to slog through 30+ pages of people arguing over how much of a bitch a woman can be before someone denounces her as a "feminist." I'm just assuming that's a strong theme in this thread, because it always is in "feminism" debates. I'm just going to jump in by stating my position re feminism and see if anyone feels like biting.

I am a feminist. I claim that title in two ways.

First, because I believe in being politically active for women's rights globally as well as in my own country. American women have made tremendous strides, but we still have work to do. For instance, we still face arguments over victim-blaming in rape cases, abortion rights are under attack, and in many professions, we still don't get equal pay for equal work. In some other countries, however, the condition of women is abysmal, and I believe it is vital for women lucky enough to live in more egalitarian societies, such as the US, to support their sisters who are oppressed elsewhere.

Second, I call myself a feminist because it pisses off the kinds of people I like to piss off. When confronted with some Male Chauvinist Pig(tm) (vintage reference) who thinks that rape victims were asking for it, and that women don't need jobs because they have husbands, and that any woman who doesn't want to blow him must be a lesbian, I like to tell that man all about how I am a feminist. When confronted with the kind of Man-Hating Crone-Hag(tm) who competitively and aggressively tells me that I am aping male behavior by being competitive and aggressive, and that I am betraying my sex by shaving my legs, wearing lipstick and enjoying sex with guys and not bragging about my menstrual cycle, I like to tell that woman all about how I am a feminist, too. It really pisses the shit out of both of them because they like to be the ones who define such terms.

Both of these types have called me a bitch, and when they say it, they are trying to insult me. But the joke's on them because, among my friends and family, "bitch" is a compliment, especially when it is applied to me. I am a queen among bitches. I have never yet been out-bitched. My bitch-fu(tm) is so good, I have fans who follow me to parties hoping for a smackdown moment, and my bosses have actually asked me to be a bitch to clients and competitors on behalf of the company. No joke, I'm serious, they've done that.

When you're as much of a bitch as I am, you better find an -ism to support (maybe a few -isms) in order to do something positive with all that energy. My -isms are feminism, environmentalism, egalitarianism, epicurianism, and surrealism. Five -isms. Judge for yourself how much of a bitch that makes me, and, thus, how much of a feminist.

Okay meat and potatoes time. :D

If a woman wants to be a "feminist" that is her choice, and I really don't have a problem with that. There are "feminists who hate men, there are "feminists" who love men and there is a whole slew of "feminists" somewhere in between.

Bottle declared herself as a "feminist" and for some reason felt a compelling urge to describe "non-feminists" as "inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place". What is with that crap? Because a woman chooses not to be a "feminist", she is automatically somehow inferior? That is mind boggling BS and is an absolutely unnecessary comment especially for a self described "feminist".

For Bottle to further suggest that "most non-idiots are feminists", suggests to me that she is a legend in her own mind. It also suggests to me that Bottle is not a "true" feminist.

Hey, if you want to be a "feminist" great, but surely to God there is no need to attack other women just because they choose to be "non-feminists".

I think you're misunderstanding both what Bottle said and what several others on this thread about what constitutes a feminist. It doesn't matter in the least how one self-identifies. Someone who says "feminism is stupid" but believes that both genders deserve equal rights and respect is, nonetheless, a feminist. Someone who proclaims him or herself to be a feminist while believing that one gender is inherently inferior to the other is not a feminist. People don't have to identify as feminists to be in that "non-idiot" category; they just have to be feminists - and I don't see anything remotely crap-like about the statement that anyone who considers women to be inherently inferior beings is sub-par and not worth dating. Would you want to date someone who told you that you were less of a person than they were? I know I wouldn't.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.
Ask the guy I'm dating. He seems to be prefectly alright with the fact that I'll debate him instead of getting all pissy or just agreeing with everything he says because I'm a girl and thus automatically wrong.

Of course, this isn't a serious relationship... we've just started to see each other... but we wouldn't have met at all if I'd considered myself inferior to men.

well, I heard feminists like Anal so, meh, I would'nt mine one. :fluffle:

I think you're misunderstanding both what Bottle said and what several others on this thread about what constitutes a feminist. It doesn't matter in the least how one self-identifies. Someone who says "feminism is stupid" but believes that both genders deserve equal rights and respect is, nonetheless, a feminist. Someone who proclaims him or herself to be a feminist while believing that one gender is inherently inferior to the other is not a feminist. People don't have to identify as feminists to be in that "non-idiot" category; they just have to be feminists - and I don't see anything remotely crap-like about the statement that anyone who considers women to be inherently inferior beings is sub-par and not worth dating. Would you want to date someone who told you that you were less of a person than they were? I know I wouldn't.
I don't think that I misunderstood anything that Bottle said (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18)and the statements that I made still stand.

Perhaps you don't understand where I am coming from. I will try one more time. IMHO Bottle took a cheap shot at non-feminists, suggesting that they were somehow inferior. I don't buy that and as a self proclaimed "feminist", she shouldn't be selling it. How do you promote equality of the sexes if you denigrate the people you are trying to elevate (status-wise), especially if they are not as she suggests "inherently sub-par"?

I don't think that I misunderstood anything that Bottle said (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18)and the statements that I made still stand.

Perhaps you don't understand where I am coming from. I will try one more time. IMHO Bottle took a cheap shot at non-feminists, suggesting that they were somehow inferior. I don't buy that and as a self proclaimed "feminist", she shouldn't be selling it. How do you promote equality of the sexes if you denigrate the people you are trying to elevate (status-wise), especially if they are not as she suggests "inherently sub-par"?

I guess I don't understand where you're coming from. Does your attitude apply similarly to racists and non-racists, or homophobes and non-homophobes? 'Cause, see, I think being a bigot is inherently inferior to not being a bigot, and I don't find it offensive to criticize bigotry. Apparently, you do, and that's your prerogative, but I admit that that makes very little sense to me.

I don't think that I misunderstood anything that Bottle said (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18)and the statements that I made still stand.

Perhaps you don't understand where I am coming from. I will try one more time. IMHO Bottle took a cheap shot at non-feminists, suggesting that they were somehow inferior. I don't buy that and as a self proclaimed "feminist", she shouldn't be selling it. How do you promote equality of the sexes if you denigrate the people you are trying to elevate (status-wise), especially if they are not as she suggests "inherently sub-par"?

She specifically defined her term so that she would be clear. She believes that people who believe one sex is inferior to the other are sub-par and idiots. It's a completely defensible position. She didn't say they were born that way. She believes that what they believes makes them bad people by definition (thus the word, inherently). What she said was ABSOLUTELY no different than say racists are idiots or sub-par.

If you'd like to show why you think people who believe one sex is inferior to the other are not idiots, you're welcome to do so.

I guess I don't understand where you're coming from. Does your attitude apply similarly to racists and non-racists, or homophobes and non-homophobes? 'Cause, see, I think being a bigot is inherently inferior to not being a bigot, and I don't find it offensive to criticize bigotry. Apparently, you do, and that's your prerogative, but I admit that that makes very little sense to me.
I dislike bigotry. That is why I questioned Bottle's post.

The fact that someone is a non-feminist, that in itself doesn't automatically make them an anti-feminist.

I detest bigotry. That is why I questioned Bottle's post.

so do you approve of racists? me, i hate the fuckers.

The fact that someone is a non-feminist, that in itself doesn't automatically make them an anti-feminist.

except that it does when the terms are defined as they have been in this thread. to not be a feminist is to hold that men and women should be unequal and be pushed into silly old gender roles. in other words, to not be a feminist is to be actively opposed to feminism.

I detest bigotry. That is why I questioned Bottle's post.

The fact that someone is a non-feminist, that in itself doesn't automatically make them an anti-feminist.

I've been over my position on this several times in this thread. I do not see a meaningful distinction between these terms. Logically, a "non-feminist" is someone who diagrees with the idea that a person's worth has nothing to do with a person's gender, whereas an "anti-feminist"...opposes the idea that a person's worth has nothing to do with a person's gender. In order to make them mean something else, you'd have to redefine "non-", "anti-", and "feminist."

except that it does when the terms are defined as they have been in this thread. to not be a feminist is to hold that men and women should be unequal and be pushed into silly old gender roles. in other words, to not be a feminist is to be actively opposed to feminism.
Technically, by holding that men and women are unequal, one could also assert that women are superior, which would also be actively opposed to feminism but not support a return to traditional gender roles.

Technically, by holding that men and women are unequal, one could also assert that women are superior, which would also be actively opposed to feminism but not support a return to traditional gender roles.

Indeed. Silly new gender roles are also silly. ;)

I've been over my position on this several times in this thread. I do not see a meaningful distinction between these terms.
I do believe that there is a huge difference between the two terms.

Logically, a "non-feminist" is someone who diagrees with the idea that a person's worth has nothing to do with a person's gender,
Perhaps the term "non-feminist" was a poor choice by Bottle? One can believe that all humans were created equal without being a "feminist"? One can believe that a "person's worth has nothing to do with a person's gender" without being a "feminist"? Non = not.

whereas an "anti-feminist"...opposes the idea that a person's worth has nothing to do with a person's gender. In order to make them mean something else, you'd have to redefine "non-", "anti-", and "feminist."
Anti-feminist = opposed to feminists. This term to me suggests some type of action against feminists with a POV that men and women are not equal in a number of different ways.

You fail to take into account that the vast majority of the feminists you're describing are raging dykes.

No. He's failing to take into account the fact that most of the feminists he describes are a paranoid fantasy of Pat Robertson projected throught he mouth of Rush Limbaugh.

I detest bigotry. That is why I questioned Bottle's post.

The fact that someone is a non-feminist, that in itself doesn't automatically make them an anti-feminist.

if youre looking for sweet-sweet lovey-lovey let's-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya out of bottle, you are attending the wrong summer camp.

Since when did feminists like men? :pFeminist girls do like me..

well.. they dont like me enough to marry me.. but they do use me for things like Sex/Drugs/Rock-and-Roll . :D

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.

I'm right there with you... i dont understand why the hell they're still fighting... they already have the rights! i mean the other day one flipped out on me because i was OPENING THE DOOR FOR HER!!! what the hell?? these people need to get a grip on themselves..

Usually I try to read the threads before posting, but really, I can't be bothered to slog through 30+ pages of people arguing over how much of a bitch a woman can be before someone denounces her as a "feminist." I'm just assuming that's a strong theme in this thread, because it always is in "feminism" debates. I'm just going to jump in by stating my position re feminism and see if anyone feels like biting.

I am a feminist. I claim that title in two ways.

First, because I believe in being politically active for women's rights globally as well as in my own country. American women have made tremendous strides, but we still have work to do. For instance, we still face arguments over victim-blaming in rape cases, abortion rights are under attack, and in many professions, we still don't get equal pay for equal work. In some other countries, however, the condition of women is abysmal, and I believe it is vital for women lucky enough to live in more egalitarian societies, such as the US, to support their sisters who are oppressed elsewhere.

Second, I call myself a feminist because it pisses off the kinds of people I like to piss off. When confronted with some Male Chauvinist Pig(tm) (vintage reference) who thinks that rape victims were asking for it, and that women don't need jobs because they have husbands, and that any woman who doesn't want to blow him must be a lesbian, I like to tell that man all about how I am a feminist. When confronted with the kind of Man-Hating Crone-Hag(tm) who competitively and aggressively tells me that I am aping male behavior by being competitive and aggressive, and that I am betraying my sex by shaving my legs, wearing lipstick and enjoying sex with guys and not bragging about my menstrual cycle, I like to tell that woman all about how I am a feminist, too. It really pisses the shit out of both of them because they like to be the ones who define such terms.

Both of these types have called me a bitch, and when they say it, they are trying to insult me. But the joke's on them because, among my friends and family, "bitch" is a compliment, especially when it is applied to me. I am a queen among bitches. I have never yet been out-bitched. My bitch-fu(tm) is so good, I have fans who follow me to parties hoping for a smackdown moment, and my bosses have actually asked me to be a bitch to clients and competitors on behalf of the company. No joke, I'm serious, they've done that.

When you're as much of a bitch as I am, you better find an -ism to support (maybe a few -isms) in order to do something positive with all that energy. My -isms are feminism, environmentalism, egalitarianism, epicurianism, and surrealism. Five -isms. Judge for yourself how much of a bitch that makes me, and, thus, how much of a feminist.

That's because you rock, though, my friend. :)

Perhaps the term "non-feminist" was a poor choice by Bottle? One can believe that all humans were created equal without being a "feminist"? One can believe that a "person's worth has nothing to do with a person's gender" without being a "feminist"? Non = not.
No, one cannot believe that the genders are equal without being a feminist because that is the definition of feminism: the belief that the genders are equal.

Anti-feminist = opposed to feminists. This term to me suggests some type of action against feminists with a POV that men and women are not equal in a number of different ways.
Yes, this would be a distinction, however, both groups (non- and anti-feminists) would believe that men and women aren't equals.

sure i wouldnt marry a feminist. but i wouldnt mind going out with one or having a baby with one. as long she doesnt speak her mind.

I'm right there with you... i dont understand why the hell they're still fighting... they already have the rights! i mean the other day one flipped out on me because i was OPENING THE DOOR FOR HER!!! what the hell?? these people need to get a grip on themselves..
I don't know why anyone would get pissy about someone opening the door.

I hold the door open for strangers all the time, especially if I see that their hands are full. There was actually one time I came to realize why the tradition of door holding for women likely existed in the first place. I was walking to catch a bus for a formal occasion (yes, I know walking to catch a bus sounds formal) and I had a long dress on, which I had to hold up to keep it out of the snow and I couldn't really put it down at a door because there's still all sorts of slush and salt and the like there, so my date was helping me out with the doors.
If we think back to a time when most women were wearing ankle-length dresses all the time, it's easy to see why holding the door open for women became a habit.

However, we don't all wear long dresses anymore so just give the same treatment to men who come through the door and all will be well.

sure i wouldnt marry a feminist. but i wouldnt mind going out with one or having a baby with one. as long she doesnt speak her mind.

Or ever does anything out of her own accord... :rolleyes:

Or ever does anything out of her own accord... :rolleyes:
Or objects to being beaten for not having dinner prepared on time.

Or wants to drive or vote or get an education...

Or ever does anything out of her own accord... :rolleyes:

unless its randomly baking me a cake.

Or objects to being beaten for not having dinner prepared on time.

Or wants to drive or vote or get an education...

i prefere to cook for myself, unless she knows how much tobasco i like on my food.
driving inst nessecary unless we're going to cork.
of course she has to get an education. i think all women should work and paid equally if working as hard as men.

sure i wouldnt marry a feminist. but i wouldnt mind going out with one or having a baby with one. as long she doesnt speak her mind.

Now I know you are a troll - you should have kept your stories straight.

In one thread you are arguing abortion is bad, because it causes divorce... in this thread you are boinking randomly to women you won't marry.

A troll masquerading as a Catholic. We haven't seen that before. :rolleyes:

i prefere to cook for myself, unless she knows how much tobasco i like on my food.
driving inst nessecary unless we're going to cork.
of course she has to get an education. i think all women should work and paid equally if working as hard as men.
But you don't like feminists, who have allowed women to get an education and enter the work force to get paid equally?

to answer the OP question simply... If I loved her and she loved me, then yes.

You get my vote for threadwinner

I do believe that there is a huge difference between the two terms.


Perhaps the term "non-feminist" was a poor choice by Bottle? One can believe that all humans were created equal without being a "feminist"? One can believe that a "person's worth has nothing to do with a person's gender" without being a "feminist"? Non = not.


Anti-feminist = opposed to feminists. This term to me suggests some type of action against feminists with a POV that men and women are not equal in a number of different ways.

According to her definition, one can't. It's like saying one can believe in God and be an atheist. You can't. It's a contradiction. She explicitly defined her term as someone who believes in the equality of the sexes so people would know what she was talking about. Feminism isn't some club. It's an ideology and if you hold that ideology, you're a feminist by definition. So non-feminist according to how she defined her terms would HAVE to be someone who doesn't believe in the equality of the sexes. That should be apparent to anyone who read her post without trying to make it into something it's not.

That should be apparent to anyone who read her post without trying to make it into something it's not.

or the next dozen or so posts in the series that have been laying out the exact line of reasoning again and again.

Technically, by holding that men and women are unequal, one could also assert that women are superior, which would also be actively opposed to feminism but not support a return to traditional gender roles.

true. it's just very unusual to see someone seriously demanding a new set of unequal gender roles that people should have to conform to.

unless its randomly baking me a cake.

The sad thing is that apperently there are women around insecure enough to contend with that...

The sad thing is that apperently there are women around insecure enough to contend with that...

do women still bake? it seems to me that the baking mix section of my local grocery store is tiny compared to what it used to be. i suspect that gorias' phantom girlfriend is buy readymade cakes at the bakery.

do women still bake? it seems to me that the baking mix section of my local grocery store is tiny compared to what it used to be. i suspect that gorias' phantom girlfriend is buy readymade cakes at the bakery.

I love baking. I bake a lot for my friends. :)

do women still bake? it seems to me that the baking mix section of my local grocery store is tiny compared to what it used to be. i suspect that gorias' phantom girlfriend is buy readymade cakes at the bakery.

My girlfriend makes us space cakes all the time

do women still bake? it seems to me that the baking mix section of my local grocery store is tiny compared to what it used to be. i suspect that gorias' phantom girlfriend is buy readymade cakes at the bakery.

"Baking mix"? You mean those pre-fabricated boxes that require exactly the same amount of effort, but significantly more expenditure, than those bizzare "ingredient" things they aim to replace?

do women still bake? it seems to me that the baking mix section of my local grocery store is tiny compared to what it used to be. i suspect that gorias' phantom girlfriend is buy readymade cakes at the bakery.
I like baking, but I hardly ever use baking mixes.