NationStates Jolt Archive

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 bake. It is hilarious to my children that I can make just about any dessert they want out of the same 5-8 ingredients just messing with the amounts.

well theres 4 bakers.

do y'all bake CAKES? they are the most difficult to do well from scratch without having specialized ingredients in the house (cake flour).

mmmmm spice cake, that would be SOOO good this time of year

or gingerbread!

or a nice carrot cake from scratch

mmmmmm

i promised my son id show him how to make biscuits. so few people make them from scratch now but its so much easier than it was for our great (great?) grandparents who had to know how to get a wood oven to the proper temperature without a thermostat.

mmmm home made biscuits..

anyone hungry?

I bake. It is hilarious to my children that I can make just about any dessert they want out of the same 5-8 ingredients just messing with the amounts.

I cook a lot, the predominate meal maker in the family, everyday meals, holiday meals, weekend meals etc., but I don't do much Baking, that's my wife's department.

I roast, broil, simmer, stew, steam, boil, fry, crock-pot, fire pit, bbq etc., but baking is too much one of the feminine wiles for me it seems. In baking you take the SAME five ingredients (as you say) and I think you mean flour, baking soda, sugar, butter and eggs (please correct me if I'm wrong, the sixth being a possible yeast for raising bread if it’s not self rising flour) and by doing NOTHING other than the amount and type of beating you give it, it will sometimes come out like buttery biscuits that crumble into clods as you eat them OR come out like airy bread all warm and doughy inside OR come out like flaky biscuit things that look like miniature pancake slices that are all stuck together, as if some elf is standing in the oven piling them up?!?! :eek:

What the Hell is that? IF that's not feminine magic in it's purest form then I don't know what is :p

well theres 4 bakers.

do y'all bake CAKES? they are the most difficult to do well from scratch without having specialized ingredients in the house (cake flour).

mmmmm spice cake, that would be SOOO good this time of year

or gingerbread!

or a nice carrot cake from scratch

mmmmmm

i promised my son id show him how to make biscuits. so few people make them from scratch now but its so much easier than it was for our great (great?) grandparents who had to know how to get a wood oven to the proper temperature without a thermostat.

mmmm home made biscuits..

anyone hungry?

Going to make pumpkin cake (http://www.circlecity.co.uk/kitchen/recipes/pumpkin_cake.php) tomorrow. And what exactly do you mean by "special ingredients"?

well theres 4 bakers.

do y'all bake CAKES? they are the most difficult to do well from scratch without having specialized ingredients in the house (cake flour).

mmmmm spice cake, that would be SOOO good this time of year

or gingerbread!

or a nice carrot cake from scratch

mmmmmm

i promised my son id show him how to make biscuits. so few people make them from scratch now but its so much easier than it was for our great (great?) grandparents who had to know how to get a wood oven to the proper temperature without a thermostat.

mmmm home made biscuits..

anyone hungry?
I do indeed bake cakes. :) I almost always have three kinds of flour at home (all-purpose, wheat and cake) but occasionally I make do with all-purpose flour. Not a huge difference, in my opinion.

Pie crusts, on the other hand... I still haven't found a recipe I like well enough to use consistently.

Mmm, carrot cake and spice cake. Yummy. I'm also fond of banana nut bread. And muffins - nothing like homemade blueberry muffins. And cinnamon rolls. Yes, I'm hungry now. :p

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"?
Non-feminists are inferior, in my opinion, and they are all unworthy of being anybody's romantic partner. Anybody who does not believe that men and women are of equal value is a person who needs to get over their playground cooties fixation before they try to date.

Anti-feminists are even lower, because they are the people who not only fail to accept that men and women are equals, but they also feel the need to directly and overtly oppose those who DO believe that men and women are equals.

It's like the difference between a person who tells a deeply racist joke and the person who hears it and laughs politely instead of saying, "Dude, quit being such a jackass." Both people are lame, in my opinion, though the person who tells the joke is slightly lower because they're the one who felt the need to go out of their way to be overtly jackassish.

well theres 4 bakers.

do y'all bake CAKES? they are the most difficult to do well from scratch without having specialized ingredients in the house (cake flour).

mmmmm spice cake, that would be SOOO good this time of year

or gingerbread!

or a nice carrot cake from scratch

mmmmmm

i promised my son id show him how to make biscuits. so few people make them from scratch now but its so much easier than it was for our great (great?) grandparents who had to know how to get a wood oven to the proper temperature without a thermostat.

mmmm home made biscuits..

anyone hungry?

I make breads, cakes, biscuits, scones, pizza crusts, hot pockets (well, calzones with random ingredients), cookies, crackers and you know all types of other stuff.

I cook a lot, the predominate meal maker in the family, everyday meals, holiday meals, weekend meals etc., but I don't do much Baking, that's my wife's department.

I roast, broil, simmer, stew, steam, boil, fry, crock-pot, fire pit, bbq etc., but baking is too much one of the feminine wiles for me it seems. In baking you take the SAME five ingredients (as you say) and I think you mean flour, baking soda, sugar, butter and eggs (please correct me if I'm wrong, the sixth being a possible yeast for raising bread if it’s not self rising flour) and by doing NOTHING other than the amount and type of beating you give it, it will sometimes come out like buttery biscuits that crumble into clods as you eat them OR come out like airy bread all warm and doughy inside OR come out like flaky biscuit things that look like miniature pancake slices that are all stuck together, as if some elf is standing in the oven piling them up?!?! :eek:

What the Hell is that? IF that's not feminine magic in it's purest form then I don't know what is :p

flour (rice flour is my flour of choice)
sugar
eggs
water
butter
cocoa
yeast

I don't use all of them in everything but those are the basic ingredients for just about anything I might want to bake.





I do indeed bake cakes. :) I almost always have three kinds of flour at home (all-purpose, wheat and cake) but occasionally I make do with all-purpose flour. Not a huge difference, in my opinion.

Pie crusts, on the other hand... I still haven't found a recipe I like well enough to use consistently.

Mmm, carrot cake and spice cake. Yummy. I'm also fond of banana nut bread. And muffins - nothing like homemade blueberry muffins. And cinnamon rolls. Yes, I'm hungry now. :p

I am making a spice cake this afternoon, had to dig into my brown sugar for the brown sugar frosting (http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,196,155183-234197,00.html)


as far as the pie crust, all of my pies have the same crust made from mock graham crackers that I bake myself. ;)

I do indeed bake cakes. :) I almost always have three kinds of flour at home (all-purpose, wheat and cake) but occasionally I make do with all-purpose flour. Not a huge difference, in my opinion.

Pie crusts, on the other hand... I still haven't found a recipe I like well enough to use consistently.

Mmm, carrot cake and spice cake. Yummy. I'm also fond of banana nut bread. And muffins - nothing like homemade blueberry muffins. And cinnamon rolls. Yes, I'm hungry now. :p

mmmmm muffins, blueberry muffins are my favorites. mmmmm

the secret to pie crust .....

use the standard flour, salt, crisco and water recipe

have the crisco and the water be VERY cold

dont use the food processor

a pastry cutter to work the crisco into the flour is better than using 2 knives.

add the water in gradually and toss it together lightly with a fork. i always seem to need more water than the recipe calls for.

this is the important part

touch the dough as little as possible. it should not be a solid ball when you put it on the board to roll it out. work it into shape as you roll it out. the less you touch it, the better it will be

i like to precook my bottom crusts for fruit pies...about 8 minutes.. line the crust with aluminum foil and weight with pie weights (dried beans)

i also seem to always need to use a triple recipe for a double crust pie. it does leave me with left over dough but when i use a double recipe i cant make 2 crusts out of it.

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.

As a raging feminist myself, I would indeed like to enter a relationship with another feminist. Yes feminist's can be men. Nothing in the job descrition of feminist says anything about the gender of its members.

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.
Whew, thanks! I'm glad somebody got the damn point. I was starting to worry.

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 don't see why I must have an "over-inflated ego" to say that I believe non-feminists and anti-feminists are jackasses. I say the same about racists, too. So?

I happen to think racism is idiotic. I also happen to think that it's idiotic to believe that men are superior to women or women are superior to men. What about any of that reflects an "over-inflated ego"? Does one have to be extremely egotistical to hold values and opinions?


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.

I don't believe I said they were inferior to me. I said they make inferior mates. In my opinion, they do, just as men who beat their wives make inferior mates. I know there are women who prefer to date men who beat them, just as there are women who prefer to date anti-feminists. Doesn't mean I share their opinion. My opinion was what was asked for; I gave it.


Bottle's condescending attitude is what tweaked my responsive nature. :D
Nobody objects when I "condescend" to racists or anti-Semites. I only hear these objections when I treat homophobes and sexists in this manner. Interesting.

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

It really is sad. :(

And what makes it worse is that our culture perpetuates that insecurity. Other people, both male and female, perpetuate that insecurity.

And then skilled, intelligent, loving, beautiful women end up in an unhealthy relationship for years and years, wasting their talents on pleasing someone who has no idea what an amazing woman he's got lying in his bed next to him at night, caring for him and his children, and cooking his meals.

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.
People still bake sometimes, from what I've seen. I know how to bake cookies and how to make a chocolate burbon pecan pie that will make you see Yahweh.

My boyfriend is surprisingly good at making muffins and cupcakes, and also makes very good pumpkin pie (though he doesn't like pumpkin pie himself).

However, do we bake on a regular basis? Nope. Too busy, quite frankly. I bake at holidays, most often, because that's when I have the time and inclination to do so, but it's not like there are fresh pies cooling on our windowsill on your average day.

People still bake sometimes, from what I've seen. I know how to bake cookies and how to make a chocolate burbon pecan pie that will make you see Yahweh.

My boyfriend is surprisingly good at making muffins and cupcakes, and also makes very good pumpkin pie (though he doesn't like pumpkin pie himself).

However, do we bake on a regular basis? Nope. Too busy, quite frankly. I bake at holidays, most often, because that's when I have the time and inclination to do so, but it's not like there are fresh pies cooling on our windowsill on your average day.

Pie! Sorry ... :p

I bake, just not usually in the summer (too hot to get the oven going to 400 F). Pies, biscotti, and bread are what I like to do most. My lady does the cakes. But like Bottle says, we're a little too busy to be doing it every day. I wish I could do more.

The sad thing is that apperently there are women around insecure enough to contend with that...
Most people, in my experience, get a bit insecure about romantic matters. All of us are bombarded with messages telling us that True Love looks one particular way, and that Mr Right or Ms Right must look/act/feel one particular way. And nobody, but nobody, actually fits with the image perfectly.

Some people really can't cope with this. They're sure that if they just dress the right way and act the right way and follow all the rules in The Big Book Of Relationships then they will be sure to get their perfect man/woman and sure to have the perfect love story of their own.

I've had the most success in relationships when I stop worrying about trying to make myself fit into somebody else's image of The Perfect Mate, and when I stop trying to make my partner fit into my idealized image of The Perfect Mate, and when I stop trying to have The Perfect Relationship. Great relationships come in many forms, and are as unique as the individuals who are involved in them.

Most people, in my experience, get a bit insecure about romantic matters. All of us are bombarded with messages telling us that True Love looks one particular way, and that Mr Right or Ms Right must look/act/feel one particular way. And nobody, but nobody, actually fits with the image perfectly.

Some people really can't cope with this. They're sure that if they just dress the right way and act the right way and follow all the rules in The Big Book Of Relationships then they will be sure to get their perfect man/woman and sure to have the perfect love story of their own.

I've had the most success in relationships when I stop worrying about trying to make myself fit into somebody else's image of The Perfect Mate, and when I stop trying to make my partner fit into my idealized image of The Perfect Mate, and when I stop trying to have The Perfect Relationship. Great relationships come in many forms, and are as unique as the individuals who are involved in them.


And they are always based on equality, no matter what form they take.

And they are always based on equality, no matter what form they take.
In my opinion, yes. Equality will not automatically make a relationship a good one, but I happen to believe that no unequal relationship could ever be as good as if it were equal. That's just my personal standard, of course, and I'm not going to waste time trying to force anybody else to adopt it.

It's funny, though, how much hostility I've encountered just for having this standard. Not just here in General, but also in the real world. There are so damn many people who get really angry when I express this opinion. I don't get it. Clearly they aren't the kind of people who would ever want to date me, so why are they pissed off that I would never date them? Why should they care? They don't have to hit on me...indeed, I encourage them to save their breath!

You'd think they'd thank me. After all, I'm one less person competing with them to attract anti-feminist mates. ;)

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.

This is an intelligent moderate feminist post. Your father obviously failed his responsibility to be an enlightened and benevolent dictator. All fathers should be forced to watch at least one episode of Leave it to Beaver per month or watch or reread To Kill A Mockingbird. Ward Cleaver and Atticus Finch are the ideal that every father should emulate. Also my Dad is the best too.

People still bake sometimes, from what I've seen. I know how to bake cookies and how to make a chocolate burbon pecan pie that will make you see Yahweh.


ohmygod just the description makes me anticipate delight

if its not a secret family heirloom recipe could you post it here when you have a chance?

In my opinion, yes. Equality will not automatically make a relationship a good one, but I happen to believe that no unequal relationship could ever be as good as if it were equal. That's just my personal standard, of course, and I'm not going to waste time trying to force anybody else to adopt it.

It's funny, though, how much hostility I've encountered just for having this standard. Not just here in General, but also in the real world. There are so damn many people who get really angry when I express this opinion. I don't get it. Clearly they aren't the kind of people who would ever want to date me, so why are they pissed off that I would never date them? Why should they care? They don't have to hit on me...indeed, I encourage them to save their breath!

You'd think they'd thank me. After all, I'm one less person competing with them to attract anti-feminist mates. ;)


Ah, but you're being subversive. Someone they might consider dating (or are already dating, or have even already married) might hear you and start to think herself. And that might result in her demanding equality as well....

This is an intelligent moderate feminist post. Your father obviously failed his responsibility to be an enlightened and benevolent dictator. All fathers should be forced to watch at least one episode of Leave it to Beaver per month or watch or reread To Kill A Mockingbird. Ward Cleaver and Atticus Finch are the ideal that every father should emulate. Also my Dad is the best too.

noooo youre not a troll...


it is a much better idea to take a role model for good fatherhood from a real life father rather than some fictional ideal. real fathers have to deal with real life problems, they are imperfect people who learn to do the best then can in difficult circumstances. ficitional dads do great because thats how the book/script is written.

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.


This is an excellent post. Having read your post, I am wondering whether to redefine myself as a transitionalist as opposed to a traditionalist because I let my wife do things that I do not approve of out of kindness (mostly having to do with her spending choices). Plus she works because we need the $$$.

Would we have a transitionalist marriage or a traditional one.

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.

as another guy who has gotten to the point of realizing that "MODERN" Feminists are raging sociopaths with delusions of sanity find it rather like Orwell's Animal Farm.
Women have gained EQUALITY, now however they have decided that they want to be "MORE EQUAL".

Anti-pornagraphy laws for one:
Some "Eastern" (but non coastal?) state had a particular county that legislated "anti-porn" laws and the Feminists were deliriously happy... At least until they started noted that Feminist porn that objectified men and even Lesbian porn were suddenly blocked from the county by the law.
They hollared and complained and threatened as they -- honestly and truly -- believed that such a law should only block porn that Men would buy.
They really believed that everything else that was also porn should not be considered in the enforcement of the law.

I decided ages ago to avoid women and stick to porn, porn is more intelligible than women.

mmmmm muffins, blueberry muffins are my favorites. mmmmm

the secret to pie crust .....

use the standard flour, salt, crisco and water recipe

have the crisco and the water be VERY cold

dont use the food processor

a pastry cutter to work the crisco into the flour is better than using 2 knives.

add the water in gradually and toss it together lightly with a fork. i always seem to need more water than the recipe calls for.

this is the important part

touch the dough as little as possible. it should not be a solid ball when you put it on the board to roll it out. work it into shape as you roll it out. the less you touch it, the better it will be

i like to precook my bottom crusts for fruit pies...about 8 minutes.. line the crust with aluminum foil and weight with pie weights (dried beans)

i also seem to always need to use a triple recipe for a double crust pie. it does leave me with left over dough but when i use a double recipe i cant make 2 crusts out of it.
That all sounds like exactly what I do for my pie crusts. :( I suppose I'll just keep tweaking the proportions til I find something that works. I have a friend who swears by using half Crisco, half butter, so maybe I'll give that a shot sometime too.

People still bake sometimes, from what I've seen. I know how to bake cookies and how to make a chocolate burbon pecan pie that will make you see Yahweh.
:eek: Gimme!

...please?

Cthulhu-Mythos;11864762']as another guy who has gotten to the point of realizing that "MODERN" Feminists are raging sociopaths with delusions of sanity find it rather like Orwell's Animal Farm.
Women have gained EQUALITY, now however they have decided that they want to be "MORE EQUAL".

Anti-pornagraphy laws for one:
Some "Eastern" (but non coastal?) state had a particular county that legislated "anti-porn" laws and the Feminists were deliriously happy... At least until they started noted that Feminist porn that objectified men and even Lesbian porn were suddenly blocked from the county by the law.
They hollared and complained and threatened as they -- honestly and truly -- believed that such a law should only block porn that Men would buy.
They really believed that everything else that was also porn should not be considered in the enforcement of the law.

I decided ages ago to avoid women and stick to porn, porn is more intelligible than women.


To be honest, that seems to be a particularly USAmerican aspect of feminism.

I'm a feminist, and I love porn. Feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with porn, exceot for assuring that the actresses get a decent pay. That's about it, really.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11864762']as another guy who has gotten to the point of realizing that "MODERN" Feminists are raging sociopaths with delusions of sanity find it rather like Orwell's Animal Farm.
Women have gained EQUALITY, now however they have decided that they want to be "MORE EQUAL".

Anti-pornagraphy laws for one:
Some "Eastern" (but non coastal?) state had a particular county that legislated "anti-porn" laws and the Feminists were deliriously happy... At least until they started noted that Feminist porn that objectified men and even Lesbian porn were suddenly blocked from the county by the law.
They hollared and complained and threatened as they -- honestly and truly -- believed that such a law should only block porn that Men would buy.
They really believed that everything else that was also porn should not be considered in the enforcement of the law.

I decided ages ago to avoid women and stick to porn, porn is more intelligible than women.
That's not feminism, that's sexism. Rather ridiculous too, IMHO. How on earth would you determine what kind of porn only men would buy?

This is an excellent post. Having read your post, I am wondering whether to redefine myself as a transitionalist as opposed to a traditionalist because I let my wife do things that I do not approve of out of kindness (mostly having to do with her spending choices). Plus she works because we need the $$$.

Would we have a transitionalist marriage or a traditional one.

I posit that the definition of "Traditionalist" there wasn't any more accurate than the definition of "Feminist" was in the OP, nothing but stereotypical propaganda definition.

One thing to also remember is the difference between feminist and misandroist. The feminist movement wanted equal rights between men and women. Case in point, (dont have all the details kinda in class right now so if anyone wants to add to this example it would be much obliged :D) Susan B. Anthony was tried for a crime she did commit (i think it was voting) but was not sent to jail. Upon hearing this judgement, she demanded that that would be sent to jail just like any man would if he had commited a crime. Many of the feminists I know love guys and aren't bra-burning dykes.

Now misandronists are the ones ya gotta be careful of. They hate men and are sadly the loudest voices in the feminist movement. That is why so many people associate men-hating women with feminism. This is sad because alot of people, both men and women, believe in equal rights but are afraid of catagorizing themselves as feminists because of this stereotype.

Also a very good post by Ilie. I think I read that book as well but the name escapes me at the moment.

That all sounds like exactly what I do for my pie crusts. :( I suppose I'll just keep tweaking the proportions til I find something that works. I have a friend who swears by using half Crisco, half butter, so maybe I'll give that a shot sometime too.

:eek: Gimme!

...please?

Me too, me too!

I agree, you always have to add more ice water than the recipe calls for but otherwise, that's pretty what I do, too, and my crusts turn out pretty well. I also wrap it in plastic and stick it in the fridge for half an hour or so before rolling out. If you aren't going to blind bake (with the beans), chill it again before filling and going to the oven. All this is in aid of having the fat as cold and solid as possible before it gets into the hot oven to melt fast and do all that wonderful magical stuff.

Mmm ... pie!

That all sounds like exactly what I do for my pie crusts. :( I suppose I'll just keep tweaking the proportions til I find something that works. I have a friend who swears by using half Crisco, half butter, so maybe I'll give that a shot sometime too.


:eek: Gimme!

...please?

its all in how you handle the dough. thats the biggest secret. you could try making the dough the night before, gathering it into crust sized bunches and storing it overnight wrapped in alumunum foil on the bottom shelf of the fridge. it relaxes the gluten and makes a flakier crust.

you could be using too much or too little water too, maybe you should have someone who knows check that next time you experiment.

If by "modern feminist" you understand "an emancipated and ambitious woman who can actually think by herself", than yes, that's my type. If you're talking about man haters, I like them as much as I like woman haters, or haters in general...

As a female myself, I disagree. It's childish to claim men and women are equal on a biological level. One is inherently of greater physical strength.

I'm a bit surprised you're interpreting "equal" in terms of physical strength. Aren't we talking legal and social equality here? The point of which is to try to neutralize bullies who would otherwise use their physical, financial, or social power to belittle others who are lacking?

In terms of physical strength, it's hard to find any two people anywhere, male or female, who are of "equal" strength.

And point of fact, women typically have higher pain thresholds and outperform men on test of endurance.

Feminism isn't about fighting over physical strength. It's about equal representation and opportunity under the legal system, in politics, in the economy, and generally in the world.

I am tickled pink by how much discussion we have had on this topic. I am quite the noobie and a bit of a caveman when it comes to posting of Nation States. Can anyone tell me what flaming is as in a flamewar or to flame somebody?

Also if anybody knows how to do the polls that appear on some of the posts that would be peachy.

One more thought, if womyn (this is PC liberal psychobabble for women) do not realize that feminism is rather unatrractive to men interested in a long term relationship they may find themselves only involved with men in a slutty short term fashion. This might further reinforce their feelings that men are scumbags and we see a viscious cycle that only ends in bitter old spinsters.

I might be a bit overdramatic here because the feministy types may find true love with a he-feminist who will enjoy her companionship as she self actualizes herself by henpecking and domineering him into a nervous shell of a man who will eventually realize that it is better to live on the corner of a hot roof than share a home with a feministy womyn.

Sorry for the tangent, but I use equal parts butter, sugar, and flour for my pies. You can also make crumb topping this way. Long live rhubarb pie!

I am tickled pink by how much discussion we have had on this topic. I am quite the noobie and a bit of a caveman when it comes to posting of Nation States. Can anyone tell me what flaming is as in a flamewar or to flame somebody?

Also if anybody knows how to do the polls that appear on some of the posts that would be peachy.

One more thought, if womyn (this is PC liberal psychobabble for women) do not realize that feminism is rather unatrractive to men interested in a long term relationship they may find themselves only involved with men in a slutty short term fashion. This might further reinforce their feelings that men are scumbags and we see a viscious cycle that only ends in bitter old spinsters.

I might be a bit overdramatic here because the feministy types may find true love with a he-feminist who will enjoy her companionship as she self actualizes herself by henpecking and domineering him into a nervous shell of a man who will eventually realize that it is better to live on the corner of a hot roof than share a home with a feministy womyn.

damn...that was depressing...

btw not to nitpick but why do you spell woman like womyn?

To be honest, that seems to be a particularly USAmerican aspect of feminism.

I'm a feminist, and I love porn. Feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with porn, exceot for assuring that the actresses get a decent pay. That's about it, really.

i had the revelation back on page 2 that THIS is what all the anti-feminists on the board are talking about.

modern (american?) feminism is "officially" anti-porn and if there is ONE thing a net boy loves, its his porn. so anyone againts it must be NUTZ!

it is the only thing i can recall a feminist being shrill and demanding about in the past 20 years or so. i forget that this is an "official" stance since i find nothing wrong with the vast majority of porn. ( i put official in quotes because nothing is official in feminism. its not a centralized movement where everyone must agree or be purged)

damn...that was depressing...

btw not to nitpick but why do you spell woman like womyn?

there are some ladies who prefer it spelt that way because they don't want "man" in the description of them.

damn...that was depressing...

btw not to nitpick but why do you spell woman like womyn?

It was depressing. "Womyn" is a radical feminist word to designate the female gender. See, "woman" and "women" have "man" and "men" in them, so ... :rolleyes: Sometimes one does want to just slap people.

damn...that was depressing...

btw not to nitpick but why do you spell woman like womyn?


Well I just was not sure what the singular of womnyn is. I am not fluent in Poltical Correct speech as I refuse to use it out of my paranoid Orwellian fear for the English language.

I am tickled pink by how much discussion we have had on this topic. I am quite the noobie and a bit of a caveman when it comes to posting of Nation States. Can anyone tell me what flaming is as in a flamewar or to flame somebody?

Insulting, swearing, personal attacks... everything that is no longer open debate but plain fight.


Also if anybody knows how to do the polls that appear on some of the posts that would be peachy.

See that little field in the top right corner called "Thread Tools"? You can add a poll there.


One more thought, if womyn (this is PC liberal psychobabble for women) do not realize that feminism is rather unatrractive to men interested in a long term relationship they may find themselves only involved with men in a slutty short term fashion. This might further reinforce their feelings that men are scumbags and we see a viscious cycle that only ends in bitter old spinsters.

*roflmao
That has to be the silliest thing I heard all day.
I'm a feminist, and I've had one long-term relationship of several years in the past, and am in another long-term relationship right now. It might be a surprise to you, but many men actually like independent women who think for themselves. I like my relationships to be based on equality and compromise on both sides.
I'd rather have no relationship at all than one in which I'm not recognised as the person I am, admired for my strength and loved for my weaknesses.


I might be a bit overdramatic here because the feministy types may find true love with a he-feminist who will enjoy her companionship as she self actualizes herself by henpecking and domineering him into a nervous shell of a man who will eventually realize that it is better to live on the corner of a hot roof than share a home with a feministy womyn.

You still didn't get it, do you? Feminism is about equality, not about one partner dominating the other.

It was depressing. "Womyn" is a radical feminist word to designate the female gender. See, "woman" and "women" have "man" and "men" in them, so ...

I had to laugh because of the pun of feminists not wanting men in them!

i had the revelation back on page 2 that THIS is what all the anti-feminists on the board are talking about.

modern (american?) feminism is "officially" anti-porn and if there is ONE thing a net boy loves, its his porn. so anyone againts it must be NUTZ!

it is the only thing i can recall a feminist being shrill and demanding about in the past 20 years or so. i forget that this is an "official" stance since i find nothing wrong with the vast majority of porn. ( i put official in quotes because nothing is official in feminism. its not a centralized movement where everyone must agree or be purged)

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but German feminism isn't against porn. It does speak out against porn that's abusive, though.

German feminism set the way for legislation to recognise prostitution as a profession and to extend labour laws and legal protection to it that way.

I am tickled pink by how much discussion we have had on this topic. I am quite the noobie and a bit of a caveman when it comes to posting of Nation States. Can anyone tell me what flaming is as in a flamewar or to flame somebody?


you might want to check out the stickies at the top of the thread list. there is one that covers the rules and explains the terms used.


Also if anybody knows how to do the polls that appear on some of the posts that would be peachy.

check the options next time you start a thread. having a poll is on there. you setup the poll after you start the thread and the first post is posted however so be prepared to get it done quickly or youll get a ration of shit from people asking where it is.


One more thought, if womyn (this is PC liberal psychobabble for women) do not realize that feminism is rather unatrractive to men interested in a long term relationship they may find themselves only involved with men in a slutty short term fashion. This might further reinforce their feelings that men are scumbags and we see a viscious cycle that only ends in bitter old spinsters.


thats a very big IF.

when your IF is wrong, your conclusion is meaningless.


I might be a bit overdramatic here because the feministy types may find true love with a he-feminist who will enjoy her companionship as she self actualizes herself by henpecking and domineering him into a nervous shell of a man who will eventually realize that it is better to live on the corner of a hot roof than share a home with a feministy womyn.

or not.

**edit**

think out your poll options before you even start the thread. you cant change them once you have started the poll. your thread will be hijacked into a discussion of how poor your options are if you are not careful in what you put down.

I had to laugh because of the pun of feminists not wanting men in them!

Thank you, O Benevolent, Kindly Dictator, for condescending to laugh at the lowly feministy creatures. :rolleyes:

I might be a bit overdramatic here because the feministy types may find true love with a he-feminist who will enjoy her companionship as she self actualizes herself by henpecking and domineering him into a nervous shell of a man who will eventually realize that it is better to live on the corner of a hot roof than share a home with a feministy womyn.

Hmmmmm.... so for you:

feminist = henpecking hag of a be-yotch without any redeeming qualities

If that's your working definition of a feminist, I can see your position. Other definitions include:

feminist: 1. an advocate of achieving social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

These other definitions tend not to ascribe specific personality traits to the doctrine. There can be feminist sweethearts, and feminist hags. However, in the difference between these would be the sweetheart vs. hag aspects of their personalities, not the feminist part.

There is one good thing about feminists. They are the reason why Republicans win our elections. Their goofy madness gets associated with democrats and mainstream Americans vote for the good guys.

You might as well ask if men want to marry steam engines, or whether Pepsi flows uphill faster than urine does.


Modern feminists do not marry men, so the question is moot.

I am tickled pink by how much discussion we have had on this topic. I am quite the noobie and a bit of a caveman when it comes to posting of Nation States. Can anyone tell me what flaming is as in a flamewar or to flame somebody?
From the OSRS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573): "Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc.)though it does to watch what you post IC as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page."

Also if anybody knows how to do the polls that appear on some of the posts that would be peachy.
When you make your post, there should be a box below it that says something along the lines of "add a poll to this thread."

One more thought, if womyn (this is PC liberal psychobabble for women) do not realize that feminism is rather unatrractive to men interested in a long term relationship they may find themselves only involved with men in a slutty short term fashion. This might further reinforce their feelings that men are scumbags and we see a viscious cycle that only ends in bitter old spinsters.

I might be a bit overdramatic here because the feministy types may find true love with a he-feminist who will enjoy her companionship as she self actualizes herself by henpecking and domineering him into a nervous shell of a man who will eventually realize that it is better to live on the corner of a hot roof than share a home with a feministy womyn.
Have you missed the point of every feminist who has posted in this thread? Feminists believe in the equality of the sexes, not in the superiority of women. Furthermore, the idea that feminism is universally unattractive to males interested in a long term relationship is laughable. I am a feminist, and have had no trouble attracting men (or women, for that matter). My boyfriend of three and a half years would be happy to tell you that I am neither henpecking nor domineering, and would also tell you that he has no interest in dating someone who doesn't believe in the equality of the sexes.

You might as well ask if men want to marry steam engines, or whether Pepsi flows uphill faster than urine does.


Modern feminists do not marry men, so the question is moot.

This is getting more surreal every minute... why wouldn't modern feminists get married?
Or are you one of those poor uninformed creatures assuming that all feminists are lesbians???

lol yeah right feminsty sweethearts hah!

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but German feminism isn't against porn. It does speak out against porn that's abusive, though.

German feminism set the way for legislation to recognise prostitution as a profession and to extend labour laws and legal protection to it that way.

it must be the puritansim coming out in american feminism. i dont keep up on current trends in feminist thought so i dont know if there is a huge disagreement on this or if the non-porn-hating femininst just roll their eyes and do as they please.

its (i think) based on the idea that no strong undamaged woman would EVER sell her body for the sexual entertainment of men so all porn must be degrading to the women participating in it and therefore to ALL women. it reduces ALL women to sexual objects that exist for the amusement of men.

i prefer to divide abusive from non abusive porn. yes, if a woman is forced into performances that she does not consent to, that is wrong. porn obtained from nonconsentual acts should be banned (not that you can ban anything from the net) if a woman CHOOSES to participate in sexual acts for the entertainment of others, that is her choice and i have no problem with it.

Have you missed the point of every feminist who has posted in this thread? Feminists believe in the equality of the sexes, not in the superiority of women. Furthermore, the idea that feminism is universally unattractive to males interested in a long term relationship is laughable. I am a feminist, and have had no trouble attracting men (or women, for that matter). My boyfriend of three and a half years would be happy to tell you that I am neither henpecking nor domineering, and would also tell you that he has no interest in dating someone who doesn't believe in the equality of the sexes.

I don't think he's read any of them...

feministy sweethearts like gloria stein, dworkin, that chick that shot warhol, ha ha ha! Imagine cuddling up with one of them Woah!

Man: Hey baby you are looking nice today.

Feministy Woman: You are a man therefore a rapist. *Deploys mace spray into his eyes.

I would rather cuddle up to a rapid wolverine!

Oh boy, Femenism!
http://omgwtf.superlime.com/2f0b9371abe4b4f0e3a605de3c622a0f/Feminist.jpg
If you can't read it, it says "IRON MY SHIRT BITCH"

it must be the puritansim coming out in american feminism. i dont keep up on current trends in feminist thought so i dont know if there is a huge disagreement on this or if the non-porn-hating femininst just roll their eyes and do as they please.

its (i think) based on the idea that no strong undamaged woman would EVER sell her body for the sexual entertainment of men so all porn must be degrading to the women participating in it and therefore to ALL women. it reduces ALL women to sexual objects that exist for the amusement of men.

To be fair, I never understood that argument.... but it's given me an idea for a new thread ;)
The thing about porn is, in my eyes its the men who get objectified. Unless your watching gay porn, you don't see much of the male actor apart from his dick, and maybe his butt.


i prefer to divide abusive from non abusive porn. yes, if a woman is forced into performances that she does not consent to, that is wrong. porn obtained from nonconsentual acts should be banned (not that you can ban anything from the net) if a woman CHOOSES to participate in sexual acts for the entertainment of others, that is her choice and i have no problem with it.

I agree.

feministy sweethearts like gloria stein, dworkin, that chick that shot warhol, ha ha ha! Imagine cuddling up with one of them Woah!

Man: Hey baby you are looking nice today.

Feministy Woman: You are a man therefore a rapist. *Deploys mace spray into his eyes.

I would rather cuddle up to a rapid wolverine!

Hon, I'm guessing it'll be a loooooong time before you cuddle with anyone except your mom.

Oh boy, Femenism!
http://omgwtf.superlime.com/2f0b9371abe4b4f0e3a605de3c622a0f/Feminist.jpg
If you can't read it, it says "IRON MY SHIRT BITCH"


Yep I would rather cuddle a rapid wolverine than any of the raging womyn in that photograph. That would make a great poll. Who would rather cuddle those womyn or a rapid wolverine.

lol yeah right feminsty sweethearts hah!

I am a feminist. I am also a very nice person. If you can disprove either of those two statements, you might have a case, but until then, you'll have to acknowledge that it's entirely possible to be a feminist and a sweetheart. :p

Hon, I'm guessing it'll be a loooooong time before you cuddle with anyone except your mom.

No way I am the king of cuddling!

I'm not going to touch "rapid" wolverine.

I move the thread be abandoned.

I don't think he's read any of them...
Sounds about right, sadly.

lol yeah right feminsty sweethearts hah!
Why on earth do you insist on saying "feministy" instead of feminist?

feministy sweethearts like gloria stein, dworkin, that chick that shot warhol, ha ha ha! Imagine cuddling up with one of them Woah!

Man: Hey baby you are looking nice today.

Feministy Woman: You are a man therefore a rapist. *Deploys mace spray into his eyes.

I would rather cuddle up to a rapid wolverine!

youre funny

did you miss the part where both gloria steinem and andrea dworkin are MARRIED? (dworkin is dead but was married at the time of her death)

I'm not going to touch "rapid" wolverine.


My guess is that it's a "rapid" wolverine because it's rapidly running away from Glorious Freedonia's attempts to cuddle it. Clearly, this is a wolverine with good taste in cuddling partners. ;)

If the definition of "feminism" we're working with here is "equality between the sexes" then I am a feminist. I also bake and cook. Not because society tells me, or my mom taught me it's what women should do, but because I actually enjoy cooking. Sometimes I make dinner for my boyfriend, and if he doesn't like it, he's perfectly welcome to make something else. :p

Yep I would rather cuddle a rapid wolverine than any of the raging womyn in that photograph. That would make a great poll. Who would rather cuddle those womyn or a rapid wolverine.

A 'rapid' wolverine, huh? You crack me up. I thnk you've got no worries. Most educated women require men to know the difference between rabid and rapid.

I think it's funny that these 'raging womyn' are being insulted by you because they are protesting that they don't have equal access to the golf course, something you claimed doesn't occur. Yeah, these raging womyn need to know their place, ignoring their disdain for you and sitting at your feet.

To be fair, I never understood that argument.... but it's given me an idea for a new thread ;)
The thing about porn is, in my eyes its the men who get objectified. Unless your watching gay porn, you don't see much of the male actor apart from his dick, and maybe his butt.


yeah i noticed that too. ive had the opinion for a long time that porn objectifies men more than women. not that i find that a reason to ban it, it just makes it boring for me.

feministy sweethearts like gloria stein, dworkin, that chick that shot warhol, ha ha ha! Imagine cuddling up with one of them Woah!

Man: Hey baby you are looking nice today.

Feministy Woman: You are a man therefore a rapist. *Deploys mace spray into his eyes.

I would rather cuddle up to a rapid wolverine!

I say we let him post. What more argument do we need for how vapid this argument is than posts like this? This guy is an argument against his views. I can't imagine a better posterchild for bigotry. I wish all of them were this obvious. It makes me question if he's not a troll. I mean come on, I couldn't do more damage to his cause on purpose.

I'm a feminist in a long-term relationship and I do ALL the cooking. I like to cook and I'm a way better cook than my boyfriend. Demanding that he cook half the time would mean that he'd be cooking when he doesn't like to, and I'd be eating what I don't want to. There's really no win in that for anyone.

How does somebody end a post? There was some discussion about that a little earlier. I have read all of the posts even the ones where people define feminism. It still seems that there is a classic feminist position and an out there modern radical one.

The classic model talks about property rights, protection from abuse, and voting. These reforms have been accomplished. There is no need for classic feminism now.

Modern feminism is something far more radical and disturbing. Here instead of seeking a level playing field (which was already accomplished by classic feminist reformers) we see that scary "equality" word that looks all well and good until you see that it is actually like affirmative action in that it makes the playing field favor someone for an immutable characteristic such as being a female. Then you get a couple of liberal professors to become the mouthpieces of the movement and oppress and ridicule students who oppose them and make them feel guilty and call them rapists for opposing them. Next you get the star students of these professors who introduce new even more radical views like porn somehow oppressing women and what we see is a movement that is a completely different animal from the classical feminist movement.

This is the modern feminist. A classic feminist is not the subject of this post. We are all classic feminists. Dig?

I say we let him post. What more argument do we need for how vapid this argument is than posts like this? This guy is an argument against his views. I can't imagine a better posterchild for bigotry. I wish all of them were this obvious. It makes me question if he's not a troll. I mean come on, I couldn't do more damage to his cause on purpose.

Maybe that's the word he wanted. "A vapid wolverine" ... given the right pronunciation ...

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.




One might be egalitarian instead I suppose. Is there such a thing as a masculinist?

oops I meant rabid wolverine

Just remembe GF, feminist and misandronist are two very different things.

To be honest, i think that the word feminist is a bit outdated and somewhat undermines its true purpose. I think we should have another name for it because although the goal is for equality between genders, the name is often misinterpreted as being anti-male. So I guess we are all equalist now.

How does somebody end a post? There was some discussion about that a little earlier. I have read all of the posts even the ones where people define feminism. It still seems that there is a classic feminist position and an out there modern radical one.

The classic model talks about property rights, protection from abuse, and voting. These reforms have been accomplished. There is no need for classic feminism now.

No, it doesn't. Classic feminism seeks equality. It's not and never has been just about changing the law. It's about changing treatment of women in every area of public life to be equal. Equal pay for equal work. Choices in marriage, work, health, familly. You keep trying to oversimplify what they were always seeking in attempt to pretend like modern feminism is a bastardization, but femism is and always has been about the understanding that neither sex is inferior to the other in any way.


Modern feminism is something far more radical and disturbing. Here instead of seeking a level playing field (which was already accomplished by classic feminist reformers) we see that scary "equality" word that looks all well and good until you see that it is actually like affirmative action in that it makes the playing field favor someone for an immutable characteristic such as being a female. Then you get a couple of liberal professors to become the mouthpieces of the movement and oppress and ridicule students who oppose them and make them feel guilty and call them rapists for opposing them. Next you get the star students of these professors who introduce new even more radical views like porn somehow oppressing women and what we see is a movement that is a completely different animal from the classical feminist movement.

Hiliarious. This is the guy talking about how women are inferior in a half a dozen ways and then chastising the view that people be judged on an immutable characteristic. The irony, oh, the irony.

Meanwhile, modern feminism, like classic feminism, seeks to end sexism. You are suggesting they support sexism, which is a contradiction. Amusingly, you make this claim and then when you see a photo of women seeking to end sexism and not seeking special treatment for women, but instead seeking to end it for men, you call them names and talk about how gross they are.


This is the modern feminist. A classic feminist is not the subject of this post. We are all classic feminists. Dig?

No, you aren't a classic feminist. You actively seek inequality and admit it. You are in no way a classic feminist. You don't advocate the equality of the sexes.

Just remembe GF, feminist and misandronist are two very different things.

I have a feeling it's all a bit above his head.

How does somebody end a post? There was some discussion about that a little earlier. I have read all of the posts even the ones where people define feminism. It still seems that there is a classic feminist position and an out there modern radical one.

The classic model talks about property rights, protection from abuse, and voting. These reforms have been accomplished. There is no need for classic feminism now.

Modern feminism is something far more radical and disturbing. Here instead of seeking a level playing field (which was already accomplished by classic feminist reformers) we see that scary "equality" word that looks all well and good until you see that it is actually like affirmative action in that it makes the playing field favor someone for an immutable characteristic such as being a female. Then you get a couple of liberal professors to become the mouthpieces of the movement and oppress and ridicule students who oppose them and make them feel guilty and call them rapists for opposing them. Next you get the star students of these professors who introduce new even more radical views like porn somehow oppressing women and what we see is a movement that is a completely different animal from the classical feminist movement.

This is the modern feminist. A classic feminist is not the subject of this post. We are all classic feminists. Dig?
Classic feminists strive for equality of the sexes. Modern feminists strive for equality of the sexes. There is no distinction in that sense. YOU are not a feminist.

I have a feeling it's all a bit above his head.

No, he has to make up this boogeyman, the evil modern feminist, or he cannot justify his bigotry. Did anyone else notice that after an entire thread where he continually claims women are inferior in their ability make decisions and must be submissive to men that he claims that he is a classic feminist? The absurdity of this fella is just hilarious.

He also created the black equality boogeyman that is out there trying to subjugate white men too. It's difficult to justify subjugating the wishes and hopes of others without creating some evil you are trying to combat. Ther is no rational reason to mistreat people so he has to make some up.

The classic model talks about property rights, protection from abuse, and voting. These reforms have been accomplished. There is no need for classic feminism now. I'm so glad that you've decided that all of those reforms have been accomplished. I'll be happy to alert women, who still make less than their male counterparts, that all is well and good. And I'm sure all the battered women who were told by the Supreme Court of the United States that their restraining orders were worthless pieces of paper last year will jump for joy that you've said it's all a-ok.

Modern feminism is something far more radical and disturbing... the mouthpieces of the movement and oppress and ridicule students who oppose them and make them feel guilty and call them rapists for opposing them. Next you get the star students of these professors who introduce new even more radical views like porn somehow oppressing women ... This is the modern feminist. A classic feminist is not the subject of this post. We are all classic feminists. Dig?Leaving aside that you display a complete misunderstanding of Dworkin's thesis (which by-the-by wasn't embraced whole-heartedly by feminists as you seem to fear), I have to ask where the hell have you been for the last thirty years? Obviously not listening to anyone who knows anything about current feminist theory ...or reality for that matter.

I think you were confused when you said that I was the guy who talked about women being worse then men in half a dozen ways. You may have me confused with someone else. I did not even want to bring up the whole argument of men being more rational and being better at being merciless and tough better able to go it alone and avoid consensus building and other sissy nonsense that women are good at. I did not bring that stuff up. I also did not discuss physical differences.

He also created the black equality boogeyman that is out there trying to subjugate white men too. It's difficult to justify subjugating the wishes and hopes of others without creating some evil you are trying to combat. Ther is no rational reason to mistreat people so he has to make some up.

I don't remember that post. Is that a different thread?

I move the thread be abandoned.

Okay, that felt weird, quoting myself. :eek:

No, he has to make up this boogeyman, the evil modern feminist, or he cannot justify his bigotry. Did anyone else notice that after an entire thread where he continually claims women are inferior in their ability make decisions and must be submissive to men that he claims that he is a classic feminist? The absurdity of this fella is just hilarious.

He also created the black equality boogeyman that is out there trying to subjugate white men too. It's difficult to justify subjugating the wishes and hopes of others without creating some evil you are trying to combat. Ther is no rational reason to mistreat people so he has to make some up.


I never said women are inferior. I never said anything about colored people in this thread. I never talked about subjugating hopes and wishes. You maust have me confused with someone else.

And I'm sure all the battered women who were told by the Supreme Court of the United States that their restraining orders were worthless pieces of paper last year will jump for joy that you've said it's all a-ok.

Whoa what decision was this?? You gotta be kidding me!! I have to see this report for myself now. That isnt right. What site can I look up to find this?

In fact I never discussed race in any thread. The closest thing to talking about blacks was mentioning that in africa there are matriarchical tribes.

I think you were confused when you said that I was the guy who talked about women being worse then men in half a dozen ways. You may have me confused with someone else. I did not even want to bring up the whole argument of men being more rational and being better at being merciless and tough better able to go it alone and avoid consensus building and other sissy nonsense that women are good at. I did not bring that stuff up. I also did not discuss physical differences.

Pardon? Your argument that you're not a sexist is that you didn't bring all the other ways that you are a sexist? Don't worry, you don't need to give us more evidence. You gave us more than enough with your claims about how women are inferior decision makers because their brains are incapable of decision making and how they are only good at jobs designed for women and all the other over-generalized and ignorant arguments you made.

Okay, that felt weird, quoting myself. :eek:

*twilight zone themesong*

In fact I never discussed race in any thread. The closest thing to talking about blacks was mentioning that in africa there are matriarchical tribes.

Sorry, I mixed you up with the other sexist.

[QUOTE=Rubina;11865153]I'm so glad that you've decided that all of those reforms have been accomplished. I'll be happy to alert women, who still make less than their male counterparts, that all is well and good. And I'm sure all the battered women who were told by the Supreme Court of the United States that their restraining orders were worthless pieces of paper last year will jump for joy that you've said it's all a-ok.

Women make less than men because women usually take off work for a few years to care for the wee ones and lose their seniority. Also, more and more women are outearning men because the education system that beat the commies wasnt female friendly enough and now is being geared up towards girls or something. Or maybe because of feminism's break up of families boys do not have good male role models in these homes where single mommas raise kids by themselves because they do not need a man because they are such champions of feminism or whatever.

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that? I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental. This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is. When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?

Whoa what decision was this?? You gotta be kidding me!! I have to see this report for myself now. That isnt right. What site can I look up to find this?

Here (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9121). I remember this case, it was all over the news, of course, the guy took his daughters, killed them, tossed the bodies in the back of his pick-up, drove to the Castle Rock police station and committed suicide by cop.

I did not even want to bring up the whole argument of men being more rational and being better at being merciless and tough better able to go it alone and avoid consensus building and other sissy nonsense that women are good at. I did not bring that stuff up.

Well, now you have brought up your (absurd) belief that men are more rational and tough, while women are only good at "sissy nonsense," so the fact that you didn't bring it up before hardly matters, does it?

In fact I never discussed race in any thread. The closest thing to talking about blacks was mentioning that in africa there are matriarchical tribes.

No, when you attacked feminism you compared it to affirmative action.

And the difference between "classical" feminists and "modern" feminists:
Classical feminists lived where there was active oppression of women and so sought to change laws and make big sweeping changes.
Modern feminists are not being oppressed by the government, but there is still inequality in wage levels and stuff like that, so they're trying to make small changes to society.
The basic principle is the same, just the means are different.
Actually, you can have this same exact discussion on racial matters:
Classical civil rights activists lived where there was active oppression of blacks and so sought to change laws and make big sweeping changes.
Modern civil rights activists are not being oppressed by the government, but there is still inequality in wage levels and stuff like that, so they're trying to make small changes to society.
Fits exactly.

Pardon? Your argument that you're not a sexist is that you didn't bring all the other ways that you are a sexist? Don't worry, you don't need to give us more evidence. You gave us more than enough with your claims about how women are inferior decision makers because their brains are incapable of decision making and how they are only good at jobs designed for women and all the other over-generalized and ignorant arguments you made.

I never said that. That was a different guy. My argument is that one spouse needs to have ultimate decision making authority. The decision of which one, all other things being equal, should be the man where that society traditionally gives them that roll. In matriarchies it should be reversed.

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that? I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental. This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is. When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?

LOL. Yes, that's right. There are vast numbers of women out there positively begging their employers to pay them less money. "Please," say these women, "it's vitally important to me that I not make as much money as my male co-workers, despite doing exactly as much work as they do. Won't you please lower my salary right away?"

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that? I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental. This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is. When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?

Bold=sexist
Italics=absurd
EDIT: Didn't realize when I was posting this that quote italics everything in it.
Underline=absurd now

No, when you attacked feminism you compared it to affirmative action.

And the difference between "classical" feminists and "modern" feminists:
Classical feminists lived where there was active oppression of women and so sought to change laws and make big sweeping changes.
Modern feminists are not being oppressed by the government, but there is still inequality in wage levels and stuff like that, so they're trying to make small changes to society.
The basic principle is the same, just the means are different.
Actually, you can have this same exact discussion on racial matters:
Classical civil rights activists lived where there was active oppression of blacks and so sought to change laws and make big sweeping changes.
Modern civil rights activists are not being oppressed by the government, but there is still inequality in wage levels and stuff like that, so they're trying to make small changes to society.
Fits exactly.


All I understand is governmental oppression. If there is not oppression by the state? Who is keeping the brother down? The answer seems to be some mystical demon called "Whitey". It is nonsense. If Blacks want more money they should get better educations and not commit crimes. If women want more money then they have to not have babies and leave the workplace to take care of them. Also, it would help if they went into more profitable professions or learned stuff instead of committing it to short term memory or pass through class with an A by crying to the professors if they got anything less than an A. Oh yeah I have seen it so so not try to deny it.

But this does not have to do with the question of why would a man want to be in a serious relationship with a feminist.

But this does not have to do with the question of why would a man want to be in a serious relationship with a feminist.

I think if you haven't figured it out after 40 pages of posts, you probably never will.

civil rights are rights that protect you from government oppression. Any civil rights activists that go beyond that are merely robbing a name from a noble group of freedom fighters and using it to create an inequal system.

If women just worried about finding a nice husband and having a nice family they would not fall pray to these liberal often lesbian feminists.

I never said that. That was a different guy. My argument is that one spouse needs to have ultimate decision making authority. The decision of which one, all other things being equal, should be the man where that society traditionally gives them that roll. In matriarchies it should be reversed.

If the entire U.S. government thinks democracy is better then dictatorship then I don't think we should change it when you get down to two people.
And if you do, I hardly think you should be putting the one with testosterone poisoning in power, and I say that as a guy.

Here (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9121). I remember this case, it was all over the news, of course, the guy took his daughters, killed them, tossed the bodies in the back of his pick-up, drove to the Castle Rock police station and committed suicide by cop.

Pardon the language, but what the fuck is wrong with our court? Seriously. This is just fucking bullshit!

Women make less than men because women usually take off work for a few years to care for the wee ones and lose their seniority. Also, more and more women are outearning men because the education system that beat the commies wasnt female friendly enough and now is being geared up towards girls or something. Or maybe because of feminism's break up of families boys do not have good male role models in these homes where single mommas raise kids by themselves because they do not need a man because they are such champions of feminism or whatever.

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that? I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental. This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is. When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?

God, I wish this was a joke. Women make less because they want to make less. Or because they have babies. Or because their earnings are supplemental. Or because of anything that keeps you from having to admit that the system is flawed. You just throw out half a dozen unsupported speculations and pretend as if that amounts to an argument.

You do realize that wild speculations just make you seem desperate for this to be the fault of women rather than the men controlling the system.

No one wants to second the motion to abandon thread?

Though I will admit that Freedonia's amusing.

Women make less than men because women usually take off work for a few years to care for the wee ones and lose their seniority. Also, more and more women are outearning men because the education system that beat the commies wasnt female friendly enough and now is being geared up towards girls or something. Or maybe because of feminism's break up of families boys do not have good male role models in these homes where single mommas raise kids by themselves because they do not need a man because they are such champions of feminism or whatever.

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that? I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental. This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is. When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?

http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg

I think you're just trolling now.
Either that, or you should have a serious conversation with your mom

[QUOTE=Rubina;11865153]I'm so glad that you've decided that all of those reforms have been accomplished. I'll be happy to alert women, who still make less than their male counterparts, that all is well and good. And I'm sure all the battered women who were told by the Supreme Court of the United States that their restraining orders were worthless pieces of paper last year will jump for joy that you've said it's all a-ok.

Women make less than men because women usually take off work for a few years to care for the wee ones and lose their seniority. Also, more and more women are outearning men because the education system that beat the commies wasnt female friendly enough and now is being geared up towards girls or something. Or maybe because of feminism's break up of families boys do not have good male role models in these homes where single mommas raise kids by themselves because they do not need a man because they are such champions of feminism or whatever.

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that? I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental. This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is. When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?


Not all single mothers are single by choice. In fact most are single mothers because the father ditched them because he didn't want to worry about taking care of a family. And most single mothers find it hard to find a man because:

1) They are too busy with their two 10 hr a week jobs (mind you JOBS) and taking care of their child.

2) Most guys dont want to get into a relationship where the woman has a baby.

So dont start saying that single mothers are somehow trying to be martyrs for the feminist cause.

I never said that. That was a different guy. My argument is that one spouse needs to have ultimate decision making authority. The decision of which one, all other things being equal, should be the man where that society traditionally gives them that roll. In matriarchies it should be reversed.

Or you could have you know, equality, and men and women could decide such things on a case by case basis. But, hey, you're a feminist.

All I understand is governmental oppression. If there is not oppression by the state? Who is keeping the brother down? The answer seems to be some mystical demon called "Whitey". It is nonsense. If Blacks want more money they should get better educations and not commit crimes. If women want more money then they have to not have babies and leave the workplace to take care of them. Also, it would help if they went into more profitable professions or learned stuff instead of committing it to short term memory or pass through class with an A by crying to the professors if they got anything less than an A. Oh yeah I have seen it so so not try to deny it.

But this does not have to do with the question of why would a man want to be in a serious relationship with a feminist.

It works like this:
X is black.
X goes to a crappy school.
X doesn't get good standerdized test grades at the crappy school due to the crappiness of the school.
Colleges will therefore not accept X.
So X gets a crappy job.
So X lives in a crappy neighborhood with a crappy school.
Now, X has a son Y.
Y now goes to a crappy school due to X going to a crappy school, etc.
This traces back to where blacks generally lived during slavery.
To break this cycle, somebody has to be naturally gifted.
Which almost nobody is.

And you'll notice that if men want more money, they don't have to forgo having children.
So, why should women have to?

Here (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9121). I remember this case, it was all over the news, of course, the guy took his daughters, killed them, tossed the bodies in the back of his pick-up, drove to the Castle Rock police station and committed suicide by cop.Thanks, Farnhamia; my connection hiccuped before I could hit submit. Here's a link to the court opinion: Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html)

[QUOTE=Glorious Freedonia;11865201]


Not all single mothers are single by choice. In fact most are single mothers because the father ditched them because he didn't want to worry about taking care of a family. And most single mothers find it hard to find a man because:

1) They are too busy with their two 10 hr a week jobs (mind you JOBS) and taking care of their child.

2) Most guys dont want to get into a relationship where the woman has a baby.

So dont start saying that single mothers are somehow trying to be martyrs for the feminist cause.

Single moms with kids born out of wedlock decided to become moms. Abortion and adoption are legal.

If a woman is taking care of her baby she is not getting paid to do it. This is why men make more than women. Gosh! Get it through your skull already!

Modern feminists glorify these women. I despise them.

civil rights are rights that protect you from government oppression. Any civil rights activists that go beyond that are merely robbing a name from a noble group of freedom fighters and using it to create an inequal system.

If women just worried about finding a nice husband and having a nice family they would not fall pray to these liberal often lesbian feminists.

Civil rights refer to the rights should be respected by society, of which the government is a part. They aren't just about direct government oppression. If a woman is being beaten by her husband that's not government oppression, but it is a violation of her civil rights. You really are trying to redefine anything you can to justify your sexism.

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that? I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental. This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is. When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?
Wow. Just wow.


Seriously. Men don't have to provide for a family and a woman's income doesn't have to be supplemental. When will you learn that not all women want what you think they do?

I've met all kinds of women who may or may not fall into various points on the "feminist" continuum (and that, folks, is what it is -- there's no one solid definition everyone can agree on anymore). There have been completely submissive, man-is-master women (they aren't all from the Eisenhower era, either); there have been head-shaven, compliment-scorning, womyn; and there have been lawsuit-happy, fake-victim exploiters, too. However, most women I meet tend to be in the middle, between the stereotypes and extremes.

Some are reproduction-rights conservative but wage-equality friendly. Others are don't-hold-the-door-for-me but fashionista. In short, any one woman is more than the sum of possible templates in which one might try to shove someone.

To address the OP question: would I want to marry a modern feminist? You bet your ass I would -- just as soon as you can give me an unambiguous definition of "modern feminist". Better yet, I'd rather marry someone I loved whose values and ideology were near to my own with some opposition to keep the spark of conversation and debate alive.

I guess what I really mean is that the OP question is really vague, pejorative and meaningless. Marry whoever you want.

Single moms with kids born out of wedlock decided to become moms. Abortion and adoption are legal.

It works like this(excuse me for using this format again, it just works so well):
Woman X and man Y have kid Z.
Y leaves X after Z is born.
X still has Z.
X therefore needs to take care of Z without Y's help.


If a woman is taking care of her baby she is not getting paid to do it. This is why men make more than women. Gosh! Get it through your skull already!

If a man is taking care of his baby he is not getting paid to do it either. However, men do make more then women. Do you see the problem now?

Modern feminists glorify these women. I despise them.

Y'know, it's common practice to side with the underdog on these things.

It works like this:
X is black.
X goes to a crappy school.
X doesn't get good standerdized test grades at the crappy school due to the crappiness of the school.
Colleges will therefore not accept X.
So X gets a crappy job.
So X lives in a crappy neighborhood with a crappy school.
Now, X has a son Y.
Y now goes to a crappy school due to X going to a crappy school, etc.
This traces back to where blacks generally lived during slavery.
To break this cycle, somebody has to be naturally gifted.
Which almost nobody is.

And you'll notice that if men want more money, they don't have to forgo having children.
So, why should women have to?

This is such a stupid argument. It ignores the reality of social mobilitty in this country. I went to a crappy school but you know what? I made the most of it. I tried hard and did independent study outside of school. I went to the library and read and read and read. I did well on the SAT and I went to a good college and kept busting my hump. I know lots of people who had it worse than me and did fine.

It isnt about your school it is about your morals. Stay away from drugs and crime and work hard and be decent and you will rise. You do not need to be super smart you have to have a great work ethic and a great attitude.

Sorry but your liberal tripe is so disgustingly unAmerican and defeatist.

No one wants to second the motion to abandon thread?

Though I will admit that Freedonia's amusing.

Yeah, it'd almost be a shame to miss out on reading such brilliant theories as: "The real reason for unequal pay is that women truly WANT to be paid less than men for the same amount of work. How come silly feminists never think of that?" That one certainly made me laugh. :)

Single moms with kids born out of wedlock decided to become moms. Abortion and adoption are legal.

If a woman is taking care of her baby she is not getting paid to do it. This is why men make more than women. Gosh! Get it through your skull already!

Modern feminists glorify these women. I despise them.

"Despise" says more about you than it does about the women you're impugning. Why waste such vitriol on something that doesn't affect you?

Single moms with kids born out of wedlock decided to become moms. Abortion and adoption are legal.

If a woman is taking care of her baby she is not getting paid to do it. This is why men make more than women. Gosh! Get it through your skull already!

Modern feminists glorify these women. I despise them.

They decided to become moms, they didn't decide for men to not be fathers to their children. Modern feminism does not glorify deadbeat fathers, which is where the blame lies.

Meanwhile, that is not why women are paid less. Many studies have been done that account for this difference in experience and it still doesn't explain the difference in pay. It shrinks it, but it's still unequal. Try again, Squirmy McSquirmsalot.

It works like this(excuse me for using this format again, it just works so well):
Woman X and man Y have kid Z.
Y leaves X after Z is born.
X still has Z.
X therefore needs to take care of Z without Y's help.

How about this. X and Y do not get married or plan a pregnancy. X becomes pregnant. Y says hey I never signed on for this and quits. X decides to keep baby. Hey it is her body her choice and should be her responsibility.

If a man is taking care of his baby he is not getting paid to do it either. However, men do make more then women. Do you see the problem now?

Women are ususally the ones to take off to care for baby. Where are you from where it is reversed?


Y'know, it's common practice to side with the underdog on these things.

What? I do not understand. Please clarify this point for me.

This is such a stupid argument. It ignores the reality of social mobilitty in this country. I went to a crappy school but you know what? I made the most of it. I tried hard and did independent study outside of school. I went to the library and read and read and read. I did well on the SAT and I went to a good college and kept busting my hump. I know lots of people who had it worse than me and did fine.

It isnt about your school it is about your morals. Stay away from drugs and crime and work hard and be decent and you will rise. You do not need to be super smart you have to have a great work ethic and a great attitude.

Sorry but your liberal tripe is so disgustingly unAmerican and defeatist.

You realize that most kids in that situation are, well, KIDS and so do not want to study as much as would be nessisary for them to do well.
And you don't capitilize the a in the middle of unamerican.
And the "stay away from drugs" part?
A decent amount of NSers use pot.
A decent amound of those NSers are some of the smartest people I know.
Nice try there though.

What? I do not understand. Please clarify this point for me.

Adoption and abortion aren't options if the father leaves after the child is born.

If women just worried about finding a nice husband and having a nice family they would not fall pray to these liberal often lesbian feminists.

Not all women want families. It's sexist to assume that all women want to base their entire life on having children. Some women do, and it's fine as long as it's their choice, but not all women do.

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that? I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental. This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is. When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?

Now, why would women ask to make less money? Research has shown that lower salary expectations in women can lead to lower salaries (link (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2002_August/ai_95514607)), but again, you're assuming that all woman are married or want to be, and so women should be paid less since their husband will support them. That doesn't make any sense. There are plenty of women who are single and support themselves. Women should receive salaries equal to men with the same education level, experience, and job as them.

This is such a stupid argument. It ignores the reality of social mobilitty in this country. I went to a crappy school but you know what? I made the most of it. I tried hard and did independent study outside of school. I went to the library and read and read and read. I did well on the SAT and I went to a good college and kept busting my hump. I know lots of people who had it worse than me and did fine.

It isnt about your school it is about your morals. Stay away from drugs and crime and work hard and be decent and you will rise. You do not need to be super smart you have to have a great work ethic and a great attitude.

Sorry but your liberal tripe is so disgustingly unAmerican and defeatist.

Hyperbole exposes desperation. It is about your school. Going to a bad school requires to work much harder than going to a good school. That is unequal. Of course, you don't want to admit that, since it makes your argument look silly.

At your school were you beaten for having books with you? Apparently, you haven't noticed that many schools have completely inadequate libraries, inadequate school books, etc. A child that has to work 20 hours a week so his family doesn't starve can't spend the amount of time in the library that someone who doesn't have to get a job at all. All things are not equal and them being unequal has an obvious effect. The Supreme Court recognized this when they required integration half a century ago.

This is such a stupid argument. It ignores the reality of social mobilitty in this country.

Social mobility in capitalistic society is a myth.

All I understand is governmental oppression. If there is not oppression by the state? Who is keeping the brother down? The answer seems to be some mystical demon called "Whitey". It is nonsense. If Blacks want more money they should get better educations and not commit crimes. If women want more money then they have to not have babies and leave the workplace to take care of them. Also, it would help if they went into more profitable professions or learned stuff instead of committing it to short term memory or pass through class with an A by crying to the professors if they got anything less than an A. Oh yeah I have seen it so so not try to deny it.

But this does not have to do with the question of why would a man want to be in a serious relationship with a feminist.
-------------------------------
It works like this:
X is black.
X goes to a crappy school.
X doesn't get good standerdized test grades at the crappy school due to the crappiness of the school.
Colleges will therefore not accept X.
So X gets a crappy job.
So X lives in a crappy neighborhood with a crappy school.
Now, X has a son Y.
Y now goes to a crappy school due to X going to a crappy school, etc.
This traces back to where blacks generally lived during slavery.
To break this cycle, somebody has to be naturally gifted.
Which almost nobody is.

And you'll notice that if men want more money, they don't have to forgo having children.
So, why should women have to?
-----------------------------------------------
Single moms with kids born out of wedlock decided to become moms. Abortion and adoption are legal.

If a woman is taking care of her baby she is not getting paid to do it. This is why men make more than women. Gosh! Get it through your skull already!

Modern feminists glorify these women. I despise them.

Ok first off, I dont know how it is for blacks, but it is a pain in the ass to get a job and go to school when half of your employers think you're a fucking illegal immigrant from Mexico, even after you give them proof of birth. But that is off topic...

Second, I cant really agree with Sheni's example. My father can be described as person X and he has definately pushed me to not be kid Y. But it ws a good analogy for some other people.

Finally, GF, Ive tried to see some sort of anything that makes sense from what comes out of your mouth. You are a troll. Nothing more. Despising single mothers because they are struggling is just sick. They aren't trying to be glorified. They are trying to make ends meet. Some people DO have to make ends meet in this country you know.

[QUOTE=Glorious Freedonia;11865307]

"Despise" says more about you than it does about the women you're impugning. Why waste such vitriol on something that doesn't affect you?

It affects everyone. It takes two parents to raise a kid. It takes one to raise a gang banging criminal. I think that deciding to bring a child into the world is a huge decision and should be done with careful planning. KIds do not ask to be made. When you become a parent it better be because you really really wanted to and were prepared for it or else baby is not going to get the care he deserves and will wind up a loser or worse.

I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby. Men have to provide for a family. I think that it's usually men who are uncomfortable with the idea of earning less than their wives because of the sexist idea that men have to provide for their families, but women don't have to.

If women just worried about finding a nice husband and having a nice family they would not fall pray to these liberal often lesbian feminists.Firstly, what if women don't care about having husbands or families. Secondly, who cares if they're liberals or lesbians?

Ok first off, I dont know how it is for blacks, but it is a pain in the ass to get a job and go to school when half of your employers think you're a fucking illegal immigrant from Mexico, even after you give them proof of birth. But that is off topic...

Second, I cant really agree with Sheni's example. My father can be described as person X and he has definately pushed me to not be kid Y. But it ws a good analogy for some other people.

Finally, GF, Ive tried to see some sort of anything that makes sense from what comes out of your mouth. You are a troll. Nothing more. Despising single mothers because they are struggling is just sick. They aren't trying to be glorified. They are trying to make ends meet. Some people DO have to make ends meet in this country you know.

We all have to make ends meet. I know that. I despise single moms for bringing children into a world of instability, neglect, poverty, and poor role models. I alsohate people who decide to have pets and do not treat their pets well. I am not a troll. I am just kind and considerate to the helpless.

I think that it's usually men who are uncomfortable with the idea of earning less than their wives because of the sexist idea that men have to provide for their families, but women don't have to.

Firstly, what if women don't care about having husbands or families. Secondly, who cares if they're liberals or lesbians?

Because liveral lesvians are ebil. Didn't you know that?

Well I am off to eat grilled cheese sandwiches with my old lady. Bye for now.

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.
I am not expecting anything from Bottle. I was just pointing out her apparent contradiction in terms. However, it was Poliwanacraca who picked up the torch, and the rest they say is history. :D

Women make less than men because women usually take off work for a few years to care for the wee ones and lose their seniority.
Ah, yes. That must be the only reason for the wage gap between men and women. Thank you for showing us the light. :rolleyes:

Also, more and more women are outearning men because the education system that beat the commies wasnt female friendly enough and now is being geared up towards girls or something.
Oh really? Please give me some examples of how education is "now being geared up towards girls."

Or maybe because of feminism's break up of families boys do not have good male role models in these homes where single mommas raise kids by themselves because they do not need a man because they are such champions of feminism or whatever.
Utterly ridiculous. Tell me, do you really think that families should not break up if, for example, the children are being abused, simply because they are families? Do you really think that single mothers everywhere are raising their children by themselves because they think men are scum and their kids shouldn't know their fathers?

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that not all males make good fathers and not all fathers make good role models. Same goes for women, lest you think I'm being a man-hating feminazi. Not all women make good mothers and not all mothers are good role models. So maybe, just maybe, in these families that have broken up, the parent that is no longer present wouldn't have set a good example for his/her children anyway.

I do not care if women are paid 1/10 of a men. All I care is that there is an equal playing field. Maybe women want to earn less than men. Ever think about that?
No, I can honestly say that thought has never crossed my mind. Do you really think there's a multitude of women out there who ask to be paid less than their male counterparts?

I know many women that would be uncomfortable making more than hubby.
I'm sure you do. I know women like this too. Still doesn't make it true for all women.

Men have to provide for a family. A woman's income is supplemental.
Really? Thanks, I'll just go home and tell my boyfriend that he is now responsible for all our bills, and I'm going to use my paycheque to buy new purses and other frivolous things. I'm sure he'll appreciate that. Especially a few years down the road, when we both expect I'll be making substantially more money than he will.

Now then, why does it have to be the man's job to provide for the family? Would it really make you that uncomfortable if your wife/girlfriend were earning more money than you? If a couple has children, isn't it just as much the woman's responsibility to provide for them as it is the man's?

This means that woman are freer to choose any job they want whereas men have to go where the money is.

It is not fair to men to make them shoulder all the financial responsibility for a family. They should not "have to go where the money is." Equally, women should not be relegated to the role of secondary breadwinner simply because they are women.

When will the feminists ever learn to abandon that goofy claim that a flawed system produces earnings inequality?
If you show us concrete evidence that earnings equality isn't due to a flawed system, maybe we'll start thinking about it.

It affects everyone. It takes two parents to raise a kid. It takes one to raise a gang banging criminal. I think that deciding to bring a child into the world is a huge decision and should be done with careful planning. KIds do not ask to be made. When you become a parent it better be because you really really wanted to and were prepared for it or else baby is not going to get the care he deserves and will wind up a loser or worse.

I don't know why we bother. What better argument is there that you're not looking at this rationally than this post?

And what happens when the other parent leaves? Should that put the baby in the blender? Yep, it's the parent who stays and tries to be a good parent who is at fault. Those evil single mothers doing their best in a bad situation. Yep. I notice you don't even mention the deadbeats who leave women in this situation. Yes, feminism has accomplished it's goals. It's clear there are no battles for equality left when there are people like you who blame women for men abandoning their children.

It affects everyone. It takes two parents to raise a kid. It takes one to raise a gang banging criminal. I think that deciding to bring a child into the world is a huge decision and should be done with careful planning. KIds do not ask to be made. When you become a parent it better be because you really really wanted to and were prepared for it or else baby is not going to get the care he deserves and will wind up a loser or worse.

Yep, my mom sure did a crappy job, raising 3 kids alone and seeing them through university... :rolleyes:

We all have to make ends meet. I know that. I despise single moms for bringing children into a world of instability, neglect, poverty, and poor role models. I alsohate people who decide to have pets and do not treat their pets well. I am not a troll. I am just kind and considerate to the helpless.

Amusing. You're kind and considerate to the helpless, yet you mention fatherless children several times without ever indicting the fathers who abandon them while 'despising' the women who stick around and do their best for the helpless. The people generally mistreating these fatherless children are the fathers who aren't there. But, hey, why blame the culprits when there's a perfectly good 'old lady' to take the blame? Yeah, you're a CLASSIC feminist. Amusing.

Amusing. You're kind and considerate to the helpless, yet you mention fatherless children several times without ever indicting the fathers who abandon them while 'despising' the women who stick around and do their best for the helpless. The people generally mistreating these fatherless children are the fathers who aren't there. But, hey, why blame the culprits when there's a perfectly good 'old lady' to take the blame? Yeah, you're a CLASSIC feminist. Amusing.

Of course, I mean, did Adam pick that apple off the Tree?

Of course, I mean, did Adam pick that apple off the Tree?

well, of course it's his fault, where the heck was he when Eve was getting into trouble, some head of the household he was. :rolleyes:










:p

It affects everyone. It takes two parents to raise a kid. It takes one to raise a gang banging criminal. I think that deciding to bring a child into the world is a huge decision and should be done with careful planning. KIds do not ask to be made. When you become a parent it better be because you really really wanted to and were prepared for it or else baby is not going to get the care he deserves and will wind up a loser or worse.

Okay, pal, you're veering into dangerous territory. I'm no gangbanger, I'm a college professor. I was raised by *drumroll* A SINGLE MOTHER! Went to college, did fairly well on the SATs for having never studied for them (1210 on the old 1600-point scale -- had the untimed version for clock-o-phobics been around then, I'd have scored much higher...kids today...). So you can take your faulty assumption horseshit and shovel it elsewhere.

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.
That is not the definition of "feminist"?

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/feminist.html

A "non-feminist" can believe that men and women are created equal. A feminist on the other hand does not believe that men and women are created equal, but is compelled to work towards that goal.

That is not the definition of "feminist"?

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/feminist.html

A "non-feminist" can believe that men and women are created equal. A feminist on the other hand does not believe that men and women are created equal, but is compelled to work towards that goal.

Nitpicker!:D

Because liveral lesvians are ebil. Didn't you know that?

teh eht3ro05eksual d00d5 R teh 5a7an5 2

teh eht3ro05eksual d00d5 R teh 5a7an5 2

:D

That is not the definition of "feminist"?

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/feminist.html

A "non-feminist" can believe that men and women are created equal. A feminist on the other hand does not believe that men and women are created equal, but is compelled to work towards that goal.

A tip: Merriam-Webster is a much more reliable source of definitions than Encarta. And, sayeth the noble M-W:

feminism, n, 1: the belief in the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

:)

Seeing as I consider myself to be a feminist, albeit not of a particularly extreme stripe, I should think that marrying or being in a serious relationship with a feminist isn't something I'm trying to avoid.

Sometimes the anti-feminist women are pretty awkward to be around.

Yeah.

Nitpicker!:D
I have been called much worse. :D

well, of course it's his fault, where the heck was he when Eve was getting into trouble, some head of the household he was. :rolleyes:
well probably Eve had stopped nagging him for a while, and he was glad of the chance to relax. :D

That is not the definition of "feminist"?

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/feminist.html

A "non-feminist" can believe that men and women are created equal. A feminist on the other hand does not believe that men and women are created equal, but is compelled to work towards that goal.

She defined the term for the purpose of her argument at the very beginning of the post. You have to erase a portion of her post in order to not see that. You can say you disagree with her definition of feminist, but she made it clear that her post was about people who DO NOT believe in equality.

well probably Eve had stopped nagging him for a while, and he was glad of the chance to relax. :D

well, if he wouldn't have named the animals all those stupid names she wouldn't have had to nag him, I mean he didn't even have socks to leave on the floor yet....

well, if he wouldn't have named the animals all those stupid names she wouldn't have had to nag him, I mean he didn't even have socks to leave on the floor yet....
can you imagine after the apple? if it was that bad before clothing, i bet her nagging about his fig leaves lying around was just horrendous.

can you imagine after the apple? if it was that bad before clothing, i bet her nagging about his fig leaves lying around was just horrendous.

Adam, does this fig leaf make me look fat?

Adam, does this fig leaf make me look fat?

LOL :D

Adam, does this fig leaf make me look fat?
and thus, shortly after the expulsion, the first mirror was invented.

and thus, shortly after the expulsion, the first mirror was invented.

Until expulsion there was no need for Adam to ask directions either. He was already at the place where he wanted to be.

Until expulsion there was no need for Adam to ask directions either. He was already at the place where he wanted to be.

Like the Non Sequitur comic in my permanent collection, entitled "Mr. and Mrs. Moses" and Mrs. M. is saying, "But would you ask the Burning Bush for directions? Noooo, not Mr. I'd-Rather-Wander-The-Wilderness-For-40-Years!" And over Mr. M's head there's the little smouldering cloud.

A tip: Merriam-Webster is a much more reliable source of definitions than Encarta. And, sayeth the noble M-W:
:)

And the OED is by far, the best, most reliable, and most accurate of the dictionaries. They say
1. The qualities of females.
2. [After F. féminisme.] Advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes). (Cf. WOMANISM.)
3. Path. The development of female secondary sexual characteristics in a male.

you two can decide who that backs best:)

But:

1) my 'shortass' wife would be noticably stronger than 900 of the 1000 random guys, and:

2) statistics are just numbers. There ARE no 'averages'.

Do you have any concept of the terms 'tend' or 'trend'?

Your wife may beat 900 out of 1000 men, and if that is the case she will probably beat 999 out of the 1000 women (her being the 1000th one). That would mean she is in the top 0.1% for her gender, she is well outside the average and definately an exception rather than the norm - being stronger than 99.9% of women.

Men 'tend' to be stronger than women. This does not mean ALL men are stronger than ALL women. Your wife is an example of this. It does mean that the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women - through a tendancy to hav a larger build with a greatre portion of body weight in muscle. There will be exceptions to this, but there will also be exceptions in women in the same way.

Do you have any concept of the terms 'tend' or 'trend'?

Your wife may beat 900 out of 1000 men, and if that is the case she will probably beat 999 out of the 1000 women (her being the 1000th one). That would mean she is in the top 0.1% for her gender, she is well outside the average and definately an exception rather than the norm - being stronger than 99.9% of women.

Men 'tend' to be stronger than women. This does not mean ALL men are stronger than ALL women. Your wife is an example of this. It does mean that the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women - through a tendancy to hav a larger build with a greatre portion of body weight in muscle. There will be exceptions to this, but there will also be exceptions in women in the same way.


And what does that tell us? Does it tell me that Smunkee is stronger than me? Or vice versa?

Do you have any concept of the terms 'tend' or 'trend'?

Your wife may beat 900 out of 1000 men, and if that is the case she will probably beat 999 out of the 1000 women (her being the 1000th one). That would mean she is in the top 0.1% for her gender, she is well outside the average and definately an exception rather than the norm - being stronger than 99.9% of women.

Men 'tend' to be stronger than women. This does not mean ALL men are stronger than ALL women. Your wife is an example of this. It does mean that the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women - through a tendancy to hav a larger build with a greatre portion of body weight in muscle. There will be exceptions to this, but there will also be exceptions in women in the same way.


do you have an understanding of the concept of SO WHAT?

in a thread about feminism when someone brings up that men are stronger than women, its perfectly legitimate to point out that that is not universally true and to give a practical example

men tend to be stronger than women, what does that have to do with feminism?

That's because you rock, though, my friend. :)
Oh, right, I forgot, thanks. :D


Oh, and PS: :fluffle: ;)

And what does that tell us? Does it tell me that Smunkee is stronger than me? Or vice versa?

but of course I am stronger than you


I am woman *roars*

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.


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 prefer women who like to be treated as people, not blow up dolls.


I couldn't stand to go out with a woman who was a weakling. My girlfriend is a very nice, compassionate person, but I greatly admire her for her toughness.

I find it attractive when women leave no room for anyone to think that they're any less than equal. I like strong women, both in terms of romantic partners and also for friends. I wish more would shake off the silly limits that society has placed on them as to how they're "supposed" to behave.

Now, a better question is why any woman who likes being treated better than a doormat would become romantically involved with a pig-headed jerk who thinks that women should be in a place of subserviance, you know, such as yourself.

do you have an understanding of the concept of SO WHAT?

in a thread about feminism when someone brings up that men are stronger than women, its perfectly legitimate to point out that that is not universally true and to give a practical example

men tend to be stronger than women, what does that have to do with feminism?


What does physical strength matter?

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.
Yes, this seems obvious to me.

However, I think I also understand where CanuckHeaven is coming from. He seems to be objecting to what he saw as Bottle's suggestion that a woman who chooses to conform to a traditional gender role deserves to be put down. He seems to be assuming a set of behaviors for "feminist" or "non-feminist" rather than a set of beliefs or ideals. It is perfectly possible to be a feminist and still be stay-at-home mom who bakes cookies all day and really enjoys having babies.

This would be sort of the flip side of the criticisms that have been laid on me for not being "feminine" enough. I've heard that from BOTH anti-feminists and feminists, both of whom are trying to define what "feminine," "feminist," and even "woman" mean. Part of my feminist ideals include the idea that no one has any right to dictate to me what I have to do in order to be a "proper woman," just as no one has any right to dictate to a man what he has to do in order to be a "proper man."

CanuckHeaven's posts read as if he thinks that is what Bottle is trying to do. I don't think Bottle would do that, though. I think she only meant to refer to people who do not believe the sexes are or should be equal.

well theres 4 bakers.

do y'all bake CAKES? they are the most difficult to do well from scratch without having specialized ingredients in the house (cake flour).

mmmmm spice cake, that would be SOOO good this time of year

or gingerbread!

or a nice carrot cake from scratch

mmmmmm

i promised my son id show him how to make biscuits. so few people make them from scratch now but its so much easier than it was for our great (great?) grandparents who had to know how to get a wood oven to the proper temperature without a thermostat.

mmmm home made biscuits..

anyone hungry?
5 bakers. I specialize in pies. Especially apple pies.

6 bakers if you count my mom, which I'd like to do at this time on account of the holiday baking season is just about to begin, and I'm already getting all misty and dreamy about it. Cookies....

Yes, this seems obvious to me.

However, I think I also understand where CanuckHeaven is coming from. He seems to be objecting to what he saw as Bottle's suggestion that a woman who chooses to conform to a traditional gender role deserves to be put down. He seems to be assuming a set of behaviors for "feminist" or "non-feminist" rather than a set of beliefs or ideals. It is perfectly possible to be a feminist and still be stay-at-home mom who bakes cookies all day and really enjoys having babies.

This would be sort of the flip side of the criticisms that have been laid on me for not being "feminine" enough. I've heard that from BOTH anti-feminists and feminists, both of whom are trying to define what "feminine," "feminist," and even "woman" mean. Part of my feminist ideals include the idea that no one has any right to dictate to me what I have to do in order to be a "proper woman," just as no one has any right to dictate to a man what he has to do in order to be a "proper man."

CanuckHeaven's posts read as if he thinks that is what Bottle is trying to do. I don't think Bottle would do that, though. I think she only meant to refer to people who do not believe the sexes are or should be equal.

and yet a lot of "feminists" seem to run around bashing my own life choices, even though I agree that men and women are equal, that one's worth is not based on your gender, etc....

I have read essays that say that I must have been brainwashed to choose my lifestyle and if I were not brainwashed then just stupid.

What does physical strength matter?

thats the question eh?

it matters to ME when i have to hand the pickle jar to my husband to open. other than things like that i cant see a reason to bring it up in a discussion of the worthiness of feminists as wives and girlfriends.

and yet a lot of "feminists" seem to run around bashing my own life choices, even though I agree that men and women are equal, that one's worth is not based on your gender, etc....

I have read essays that say that I must have been brainwashed to choose my lifestyle and if I were not brainwashed then just stupid.

women of all stripes seem to me to be way too critical of each other. "working" mothers sneer at stay at home moms; stay at home moms think working mothers are abandoning their children. fashionable women look down on their practically dressed sisters; jeans wearing women think fashionable women are shallow. we are our own worst enemies some times.

we should learn to cut each other some slack.

noooo youre not a troll...


it is a much better idea to take a role model for good fatherhood from a real life father rather than some fictional ideal. real fathers have to deal with real life problems, they are imperfect people who learn to do the best then can in difficult circumstances. ficitional dads do great because thats how the book/script is written.
I didn't have good dad models in my family, so I relied on a fictional model. I used Gomez Addams. I consider him to be the ideal father and husband.

Muravyets and her dream date:
http://www.morticiasmorgue.com/af/1a.html

<snip>
Have you missed the point of every feminist who has posted in this thread? Feminists believe in the equality of the sexes, not in the superiority of women. Furthermore, the idea that feminism is universally unattractive to males interested in a long term relationship is laughable. I am a feminist, and have had no trouble attracting men (or women, for that matter). My boyfriend of three and a half years would be happy to tell you that I am neither henpecking nor domineering, and would also tell you that he has no interest in dating someone who doesn't believe in the equality of the sexes.
Our OP apparently doesn't care about the point of people's posts. He seems to be having too much fun amusing himself with little jokes.

I didn't have good dad models in my family, so I relied on a fictional model. I used Gomez Addams. I consider him to be the ideal father and husband.

Muravyets and her dream date:
http://www.morticiasmorgue.com/af/1a.html

lol

id consider gomez more of a great husband role model than a father role model

lol

id consider gomez more of a great husband role model than a father role model
i bet the birds and the bees talk in that family was great.

and to my two cents in, women who think that their role is to have babies are boring. my last girlfriend kept telling me that she'd be a good wife, and could learn to cook, and all that, but never had an opinion of her own. that lasted all of 2 months. if feminism is required for a personality, i am unrepentingly feminist.

and yet a lot of "feminists" seem to run around bashing my own life choices, even though I agree that men and women are equal, that one's worth is not based on your gender, etc....

I have read essays that say that I must have been brainwashed to choose my lifestyle and if I were not brainwashed then just stupid.
I get the same BS from the opposite direction. If you're not "independent" or whatever enough, then I assure you, I am WAY TOO "independent" or whatever to suit some of our more whiney "feminist" sisters. That problem just stems from certain people's need to criticize others, no matter what it's about.

I didn't have good dad models in my family, so I relied on a fictional model. I used Gomez Addams. I consider him to be the ideal father and husband.

Muravyets and her dream date:
http://www.morticiasmorgue.com/af/1a.html

Lol, yes, best family ever.

Ever read any of the original New Yorker cartoons of them?

do you have an understanding of the concept of SO WHAT?

in a thread about feminism when someone brings up that men are stronger than women, its perfectly legitimate to point out that that is not universally true and to give a practical example



This origionally started when someone said something along the lines that men and women are exactly the same. To which someone pointed out that that is not true, and that in some instances different rules do apply, for example men tend to be stronger physically than women. To which he retorted that is not true with an exception rather than the norm.

men tend to be stronger than women, what does that have to do with feminism?
To deny differences between genders is at best unproductive and at worst dangerous. The genders do have different strengths and weaknesses, this is not to imply that one gender is *better* than the other, and really pointing out differences should not be taken to be belittleing a gender. For every strength one has they also have a weakness. Both genders benefit when differences in them are recognised and addressed. Denying differences in genders and trying for a one-size-fits-all benefits nobody. Working to recognise differences and to benefit both genders thorugh those differences is a feminist issue.

In physical strength - a mixed team in a contact sport is not the greatest idea in many cases, particulary after puberty. In general the men will be much stronger and the women will be much more prone to injury due to the much heavier impacts. Of course there are exceptions, but as a trend this will be the case. Denying differences between men and women in this case will harm both genders. This is a feminist issue.

In training for entry to the armed forces - I think it is reasonable that all should pass the same physical test, however the training is an issue - women are much more likely to have to drop out due to injuries in the training - even if they are capeable of the physical tests. The training needs to be adjusted to suit them so they don't have to quite before they are even tested. That is a feminist issue.

Men need to recognise and be aware that they are generally physically stronger, they need to know that they have to be responsible with that strength and that using that strength against a woman who is much weaker physically is very very very wrong. Men who abuse their strength to rape is a feminist issue. Women being aware that men tend to have MUCH more upper body strength and knowig how to combat this when attacked is a feminist issue. Domestic violence by men abusing their strength is a feminist issue (although domestic violence is perpetuated by both genders).

And a non-physical example.
In education in the UK women/girls are doing academically better than men/boys. This is partly because the education system is more suited to ways that women tend to do better in. This is neutral to women and detremental to men. A system that benefits women and a system that benefits men will be better for both genders than a single system that benefits only one gender. This is a feminist issue.

lol

id consider gomez more of a great husband role model than a father role model
Oh, I don't know about that. He spent lots of time with the kids, was active in their education, gave them little talks, etc. He was very involved with their play time and mental development and showed a lot of respect for them as people. But mutual respect was really the hallmark of the whole Addams family. That and explosives.

Lol, yes, best family ever.

Ever read any of the original New Yorker cartoons of them?
Of course! I often use the one with the family pouring boiling oil on Christmas carolers as a holiday card. My other favorite is the one with Morticia* telling a stricken-looking little Wednesday, "Don't complain to me if your brother poisoned you. Go and poison him back."




*though, of course, Chas Addams didn't name the characters. The tv series did that.

This origionally started when someone said something along the lines that men and women are exactly the same. To which someone pointed out that that is not true, and that in some instances different rules do apply, for example men tend to be stronger physically than women. To which he retorted that is not true with an exception rather than the norm.


no one made that claim. NO ONE. it was refuted but the claim itself was never made.


To deny differences between genders is at best unproductive and at worst dangerous. The genders do have different strengths and weaknesses, this is not to imply that one gender is *better* than the other, and really pointing out differences should not be taken to be belittleing a gender. For every strength one has they also have a weakness. Both genders benefit when differences in them are recognised and addressed. Denying differences in genders and trying for a one-size-fits-all benefits nobody. Working to recognise differences and to benefit both genders thorugh those differences is a feminist issue.



given that there is a great variety in BOTH genders, it is "dangerous" to deny individual differences.

i wont bother to quote the rest since my point is the same.

individual differences are more important that classifying each gender by its statistical averages.

no one made that claim. NO ONE. it was refuted but the claim itself was never made.
[/quote=Kyronea]
I'm a male feminist. I get annoyed and frustrated, not to mention downright angry whenever I see typical female stereotypes, such as helplessness and need to be rescued, in anything.

On that same token, equal means equal. Men and women are equal. Not one above the other. Equal.
then in response:

As a female myself, I disagree. It's childish to claim men and women are equal on a biological level. One is inherently of greater physical strength.
then Grave and Idle chipped in with:
This is so far beyond not true, it's not even funny.

In tests of strength, I'd put money on my wife, over... 90% of the guys on the forum.
Someone made a comment that both genders were the same. Then someone said that men are inherently stronger than women. Then somone said that was 'so far beyond true it's not even funny'. Which is how we got to pointing out trends and the like.



i wont bother to quote the rest since my point is the same.

What? you're going to skip the list of examples where trends of differences in physical strength between the genders are feminist issues when you asked "men tend to be stronger than women, what does that have to do with feminism?"?

no one made that claim. NO ONE. it was refuted but the claim itself was never made.



given that there is a great variety in BOTH genders, it is "dangerous" to deny individual differences.

i wont bother to quote the rest since my point is the same.

individual differences are more important that classifying each gender by its statistical averages.
It gets my hackles up when people start talking about how "women are this way" and "men are that way" -- that whole Venus and Mars BS. Yes, yes, fine, we all know boys and girls are different. But as you say, individual differences matter far more in actual practice than statistical generalizations about group differences. For instance, when it comes to education, I don't believe any amount of gender-skewed teaching will overcome the negative effect of having classes that are too large. Manageably small class size that allows the teacher to pay attention to each student and adjust for individual differences to keep them all up to speed with each other will do far more to overcome any potential differences that can be traced to gender, than having special programs for girls and special programs for boys, as some education reformers sometimes suggest.

I was lucky enough to attend a public school that was small enough for the teachers to really know their students, and the difference between our average grade levels and those of students in bigger schools was noticeable -- on average, we were 3 - 4 levels ahead -- but the difference between boys and girls was not, even though we all worked together and were subject to the same teaching methods.

I get the same BS from the opposite direction. If you're not "independent" or whatever enough, then I assure you, I am WAY TOO "independent" or whatever to suit some of our more whiney "feminist" sisters. That problem just stems from certain people's need to criticize others, no matter what it's about.

I know, I think Ashmoria is right, we all need to cut eachother a little slack ;)

I hear from a lot of people that they think I am a very strong and independent woman, until they find out that I submit to my husband, then all of the sudden they look at me like my brains are oozing out of my ears....it's like they think my IQ suddenly drops, that I no longer am secure, that I must have been beaten with a club and chained to the kitchen table....otherwise why would I choose this? (of course I hear a similar arguement when they figure out that I am not an atheist....)

<snip>
What? you're going to skip the list of examples where trends of differences in physical strength between the genders are feminist issues when you asked "men tend to be stronger than women, what does that have to do with feminism?"?
If I may chime in, I would not disagree with your assertion that all questions of social inequality rooted in or aggravated by exploitation of physical differences becomes a feminist issue by virtue of feminism being an ideology concerned with achieving social equality.

However, I do hesitate at the idea that boys should be taught not to hit girls because they are weaker and smaller. Shouldn't boys be taught not to ANYONE who is weaker or smaller than them? In fact, wouldn't it be better if boys were taught to avoid hitting people altogether? In addressing existing issues of violence against women and the unequal social conditions and attitudes that seem to excuse it, yes, boys should be talked to about relations between the sexes, but when it comes to parents and schools educating children about violence, I would rather live in a society in which BOTH sexes are taught that violence is a bad response in general.

thats the question eh?

it matters to ME when i have to hand the pickle jar to my husband to open. other than things like that i cant see a reason to bring it up in a discussion of the worthiness of feminists as wives and girlfriends.
Oh please... I am a really skinny guy, and yet I can still open pickle jars. It's mostly a matter of willpower -- most women I've seen simply give up before they've even tried. Solution? Work those weak arms (and all related limbs) out and tone them! Same with women needing men for "protection" -- learn how to DIY!

I know, I think Ashmoria is right, we all need to cut eachother a little slack ;)

I hear from a lot of people that they think I am a very strong and independent woman, until they find out that I submit to my husband, then all of the sudden they look at me like my brains are oozing out of my ears....it's like they think my IQ suddenly drops, that I no longer am secure, that I must have been beaten with a club and chained to the kitchen table....otherwise why would I choose this? (of course I hear a similar arguement when they figure out that I am not an atheist....)
We all pick our own paths in life. We are not required to pick paths that others approve of. I wouldn't choose your path -- I couldn't -- but I don't think those particular choices say anything much about your character as a human being. And frankly, I don't believe your critics care much about your character, either (or mine). I think they just like telling other people how to live, and I personally don't see much difference between them and the kinds of people who want to legislate morality. No matter what ideology they espouse, they are still bigots.

then in response:

then Grave and Idle chipped in with:

Someone made a comment that both genders were the same. Then someone said that men are inherently stronger than women. Then somone said that was 'so far beyond true it's not even funny'. Which is how we got to pointing out trends and the like.

free, you just looked at it yourself. NO ONE made the assertion that men and women are the same. ebri took it on herself to refute it AS IF IT HAD BEEN MADE. thats why grave jumped in with his example of his wife. not because he thought men and women are exactly the same but because ebri was being stupid.



What? you're going to skip the list of examples where trends of differences in physical strength between the genders are feminist issues when you asked "men tend to be stronger than women, what does that have to do with feminism?"?

yes i am because the point is that men and women vary as individuals. many women are not physically capable of getting through male standards of basic training but that doesnt mean that NO woman can. it also doesnt mean that ALL men can.

people need to be treated as individuals. assuming that stereotypes define all humans is not sensible. feminism means that you dont assume that an individual is defined by his or her gender.

She defined the term for the purpose of her argument at the very beginning of the post. You have to erase a portion of her post in order to not see that. You can say you disagree with her definition of feminist, but she made it clear that her post was about people who DO NOT believe in equality.
I don't exactly agree with you on that matter, and I do believe that I have explained that thoroughly with my posts.

I initially was contesting Bottle's claim to her feminism. How does a feminist fight for equal rights if they in fact contend that they themselves are superior to non-feminists and/or anti-feminists? And I do believe there is a distinction between the two.

All people are created equal but some are more equal than others? Hard sell?

This origionally started when someone said something along the lines that men and women are exactly the same. To which someone pointed out that that is not true, and that in some instances different rules do apply, for example men tend to be stronger physically than women. To which he retorted that is not true with an exception rather than the norm.


To deny differences between genders is at best unproductive and at worst dangerous. The genders do have different strengths and weaknesses, this is not to imply that one gender is *better* than the other, and really pointing out differences should not be taken to be belittleing a gender. For every strength one has they also have a weakness. Both genders benefit when differences in them are recognised and addressed. Denying differences in genders and trying for a one-size-fits-all benefits nobody. Working to recognise differences and to benefit both genders thorugh those differences is a feminist issue.

In physical strength - a mixed team in a contact sport is not the greatest idea in many cases, particulary after puberty. In general the men will be much stronger and the women will be much more prone to injury due to the much heavier impacts. Of course there are exceptions, but as a trend this will be the case. Denying differences between men and women in this case will harm both genders. This is a feminist issue.

In training for entry to the armed forces - I think it is reasonable that all should pass the same physical test, however the training is an issue - women are much more likely to have to drop out due to injuries in the training - even if they are capeable of the physical tests. The training needs to be adjusted to suit them so they don't have to quite before they are even tested. That is a feminist issue.

Men need to recognise and be aware that they are generally physically stronger, they need to know that they have to be responsible with that strength and that using that strength against a woman who is much weaker physically is very very very wrong. Men who abuse their strength to rape is a feminist issue. Women being aware that men tend to have MUCH more upper body strength and knowig how to combat this when attacked is a feminist issue. Domestic violence by men abusing their strength is a feminist issue (although domestic violence is perpetuated by both genders).

And a non-physical example.
In education in the UK women/girls are doing academically better than men/boys. This is partly because the education system is more suited to ways that women tend to do better in. This is neutral to women and detremental to men. A system that benefits women and a system that benefits men will be better for both genders than a single system that benefits only one gender. This is a feminist issue.

First, no one ever said that men and women are exactly the same. Second, still don't see the value of your point. It tells me nothing about Me or Smunkee or Bottle or anyone else really. It's not a basis for decision-making or shouldn't be. It has little to no value unless some day I'm trying to figure out how many average women it takes to life up an elephant and I don't even know a joke for that one.

I don't exactly agree with you on that matter, and I do believe that I have explained that thoroughly with my posts.

I initially was contesting Bottle's claim to her feminism. How does a feminist fight for equal rights if they in fact contend that they themselves are superior to non-feminists and/or anti-feminists? And I do believe there is a distinction between the two.

All people are created equal but some are more equal than others? Hard sell?

You don't agree, yet the post you linked and replied to stated exactly what her use of feminism means. It's really sad that you chose rather to read it to tell her what she meant and then get mad at her for meaning it.

Equality doesn't say that ever type of belief is equal. It can't. It's a contradiction. If you believe in equality, you are by nature saying that opposing beliefs are inferior. You can fight for equality and say that people who molest children belong in prison for example. These are choices, actions. Equality has nothing to do with claiming that every belief has equal value or even that every person who holds those beliefs are equal.

You just keep making up meanings and then arguing against them. I'm sure that's going to eventually be productive for you.

EDIT: The original post -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859951&postcount=199
I find it adorable that so many people assume all women (or all feminists) want to get married so badly that they would put up with an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him.

If you actually are interested in hearing from a feminist (which I kinda doubt), then here you go:

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.

Hence, I don't have to ever worry about ending up with some dude/dudette who bitches about me being a feminist, because I wouldn't be dating them unless they were a feminist as well. I also don't have to worry about snivveling weaklings who can't handle a strong-willed partner, because I don't date that kind of coward.

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.

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

Yep, looks like she defined her terms and you chose instead to ignore that and declare her to mean something else and to declare equality to mean something else as well. Sad really.

That's not feminism, that's sexism. Rather ridiculous too, IMHO. How on earth would you determine what kind of porn only men would buy?
If I recall, that was brought up by some pundit at the time...

Oh please... I am a really skinny guy, and yet I can still open pickle jars. It's mostly a matter of willpower -- most women I've seen simply give up before they've even tried. Solution? Work those weak arms (and all related limbs) out and tone them! Same with women needing men for "protection" -- learn how to DIY!

ya ya, i should get an aid for opening jars. i used to have a rubber thing but i lost it in some move or other. i could even buy a machine to do it for me. but i give it my best then when the damned thing wont open i give it to him. sometimes HE cant even get a pickle jar open. we think its a communist plot.

then in response:

then Grave and Idle chipped in with:

Someone made a comment that both genders were the same. Then someone said that men are inherently stronger than women. Then somone said that was 'so far beyond true it's not even funny'. Which is how we got to pointing out trends and the like.



What? you're going to skip the list of examples where trends of differences in physical strength between the genders are feminist issues when you asked "men tend to be stronger than women, what does that have to do with feminism?"?

It isn't true. If I say men tend to be stronger than women that would be true. If I say men are stronger than women, that is false. She didn't say anything about 'tend', so why you're arguing about 'tend' when it doesn't relate to any argument at all.

We you make a generalized statement with a word like 'inherently', you're setting yourself up to get example of why your statement isn't true or useful.

ya ya, i should get an aid for opening jars. i used to have a rubber thing but i lost it in some move or other. i could even buy a machine to do it for me. but i give it my best then when the damned thing wont open i give it to him. sometimes HE cant even get a pickle jar open. we think its a communist plot.
Meh, some of those bloody jar caps are glued to the bottle. <.< Try sticking them in boiling water. It sometimes helps loosen the metal caps.

[/off topic]

I would, except I'm gay.

free, you just looked at it yourself. NO ONE made the assertion that men and women are the same. ebri took it on herself to refute it AS IF IT HAD BEEN MADE. thats why grave jumped in with his example of his wife. not because he thought men and women are exactly the same but because ebri was being stupid.
Although not 100% correct many people intepret 'equal' to mean 'same'.


yes i am because the point is that men and women vary as individuals. many women are not physically capable of getting through male standards of basic training but that doesnt mean that NO woman can. it also doesnt mean that ALL men can.

people need to be treated as individuals. assuming that stereotypes define all humans is not sensible. feminism means that you dont assume that an individual is defined by his or her gender.
Feminism is about the general case as much as the individual.

Example - men on average earn more than women for doing the same job. Focusing on the individual this would appesr not be a feminist issue on your reasoning as there are also cases where women earn just as much as men and in some cases more - therefore men do not earn more than women and there is no pay discrimination. The struggle for equal pay for women is a feminist issue. It is daft to say that all men are paid more than all women. It is also daft to say that because some women are paid equally or better that does not mean there is not a tendancy for discrimination. you look at the general case, the average and it becomes clear that women are discriminated against.

Likewise for issues on strength.

For example - in self defense it would be very dangerous to habitually advise women that they will be able to overpower a male attacker. Even very strong women will have a hard time overpowering an average strength male attacker. Instead rather than assess the combat skills of each and every women in a rape defense class you make an assumption that most of them will not win in a straight fight based on strength and you tailor the course accordingly. Yes there are some women who this is not appropriate for, but pretending the differences in gender is on an individual level rather than on a trend is very unwise if you do not have unlimited time and resources to do individually tailored training schedules.

In medicine - women are more prone to anemia and osteoperosis. A doctor would be negligant if he did not keep an eye out for such conditions in women, but would unless there was good reasons not need to be so consious when dealing with men. It is a senseible allocation of resources.

It isn't true. If I say men tend to be stronger than women that would be true. If I say men are stronger than women, that is false. She didn't say anything about 'tend', so why you're arguing about 'tend' when it doesn't relate to any argument at all.

We you make a generalized statement with a word like 'inherently', you're setting yourself up to get example of why your statement isn't true or useful.

The initial wording was poor, and it is true that there are plenty of exceptions, however Grave maintained his example proved against the existance of a trend even once 'tend' was introduced.

The initial wording was poor, and it is true that there are plenty of exceptions, however Grave maintained his example proved against the existance of a trend even once 'tend' was introduced.

Link? He pointed out that it's not useful in addressing individuals. He was correct. It's similar to my response to you. The trends have no practical value.

You don't agree, yet the post you linked and replied to stated exactly what her use of feminism means. It's really sad that you chose rather to read it to tell her what she meant and then get mad at her for meaning it.

Equality doesn't say that ever type of belief is equal. It can't. It's a contradiction. If you believe in equality, you are by nature saying that opposing beliefs are inferior. You can fight for equality and say that people who molest children belong in prison for example. These are choices, actions. Equality has nothing to do with claiming that every belief has equal value or even that every person who holds those beliefs are equal.

You just keep making up meanings and then arguing against them. I'm sure that's going to eventually be productive for you.
What is sad is your failure to understand the thrust of my argument.

If one wants to proclaim their feminism and truly embrace it, and work towards thier goal of equality, that is noble. However, by denigrating others as being inferior, the battle is lost. Four legs good, two legs bad?

Although not 100% correct many people intepret 'equal' to mean 'same'.

which was the mistake that ebri made



Feminism is about the general case as much as the individual.

Example - men on average earn more than women for doing the same job. Focusing on the individual this would appesr not be a feminist issue on your reasoning as there are also cases where women earn just as much as men and in some cases more - therefore men do not earn more than women and there is no pay discrimination. The struggle for equal pay for women is a feminist issue. It is daft to say that all men are paid more than all women. It is also daft to say that because some women are paid equally or better that does not mean there is not a tendancy for discrimination. you look at the general case, the average and it becomes clear that women are discriminated against.

Likewise for issues on strength.

For example - in self defense it would be very dangerous to habitually advise women that they will be able to overpower a male attacker. Even very strong women will have a hard time overpowering an average strength male attacker. Instead rather than assess the combat skills of each and every women in a rape defense class you make an assumption that most of them will not win in a straight fight based on strength and you tailor the course accordingly. Yes there are some women who this is not appropriate for, but pretending the differences in gender is on an individual level rather than on a trend is very unwise if you do not have unlimited time and resources to do individually tailored training schedules.


its fine to offer a generalized self defense class that is taylored to the average woman. it does however leave out large numbers of women who do not fit into the average for whatever reason. if it is a feminist issue to offer training to every woman then a wider variety of courses need to be offered.

how the difference in average strength between men and women fit into this politically escapes me though


In medicine - women are more prone to anemia and osteoperosis. A doctor would be negligant if he did not keep an eye out for such conditions in women, but would unless there was good reasons not need to be so consious when dealing with men. It is a senseible allocation of resources.

medical differences can be an issue of equality. its a specialized area where the physical differences between men and women do make a difference. thats why its OK to have gynecologists and ...uh...proctologist must treat women too (in nonprostate issues), is there a specialty that only deals with men?

but besides the fight over money and recognition, does that spill over into nonmedical feminist/equality issues?

What is sad is your failure to understand the thrust of my argument.

If one wants to proclaim their feminism and truly embrace it, and work towards thier goal of equality, that is noble. However, by denigrating others as being inferior, the battle is lost. Four legs good, two legs bad?

I think people are having trouble understanding your argument, not because we're "sad," but because your argument, as you've presented it, doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. I think non-feminists (i.e., as has been previously established, people who do not believe in the equality of the genders) are inferior to feminists, at least in that regard. I also think racists are inferior to non-racists, that serial killers are inferior to non-serial-killers, and that people who beat their children are inferior to people who are nice to their children - again, at least in those particular regards. Do those statements also constitute unfair denigration of others or an attempt to make some "more equal than others"? 'Cause, to me, they seem like pretty simple statements of the belief that treating other people badly is wrong.

What is sad is your failure to understand the thrust of my argument.

If one wants to proclaim their feminism and truly embrace it, and work towards thier goal of equality, that is noble. However, by denigrating others as being inferior, the battle is lost. Four legs good, two legs bad?

Amusing. So I guess when I seek equality for the races and call racists bad, I'm hurting the cause too. She simply said that her opinion is that people who don't believe in equality are not good people. It's really simple. It's not shocking that she thinks so.

Again, you need to completely redefine the term equality for her statement to be inconsistent. It's like saying you don't believe in equality if you think pedophiles are damaged. Believing certain things, acting on certain things, defending certain things offend people. She simply stated it as such.

I don't miss the thrust of your argument. You simply admit that you ignore how she defined her terms, which of course is illogical, and then chastise her for saying something she didn't say. That's not a misunderstanding. You've clearly stated that you don't believe that she was talking feminism in terms of a belief in the equality of the sexes. When I pointed out that she defined her terms, you said you disagreed. It's plain that you're more interested in chastising her than dealing with the facts.

Meh, some of those bloody jar caps are glued to the bottle. <.< Try sticking them in boiling water. It sometimes helps loosen the metal caps.

[/off topic]

I have developed a technique of rapidly and firmly rapping glancing blows on the jar lid with a heavy spoon or utensil handle (not wood; it'll break) while turning the jar in the direction that it will open. This usually works within a few seconds.

[/off topic, but seriously, those damned jars...]

Amusing. So I guess when I seek equality for the races and call racists bad, I'm hurting the cause too. She simply said that her opinion is that people who don't believe in equality are not good people. It's really simple. It's not shocking that she thinks so.

Again, you need to completely redefine the term equality for her statement to be inconsistent. It's like saying you don't believe in equality if you think pedophiles are damaged. Believing certain things, acting on certain things, defending certain things offend people. She simply stated it as such.

I don't miss the thrust of your argument. You simply admit that you ignore how she defined her terms, which of course is illogical, and then chastise her for saying something she didn't say. That's not a misunderstanding. You've clearly stated that you don't believe that she was talking feminism in terms of a belief in the equality of the sexes. When I pointed out that she defined her terms, you said you disagreed. It's plain that you're more interested in chastising her than dealing with the facts.
You are totally off base with your assumptions, you have misconstrued Bottle's initial post, you fail to understand my point of view in regards to non-feminist, and ant-feminist (Bottle did use both terms), and you fail to understand my initial comment to her.

Your suggestion that I "ignored" the definition of feminism as she expressed it, is unfounded, and to suggest that I fail in the logical aspect of the situation is laughable. Also, I did not chastize her in any sense. I made a simple comment followed by a couple of questions.

BTW, your analogy regarding racism doesn't fit the mold. Bottle didn't say non-feminists/anti-feminists were bad, she stated that they were inferior. It is that simple. If you don't believe me, go back to her post and read what she wrote.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859951&postcount=199

It is not about promoting equality, it is about bashing people who she perceives to be "inherently sub-par individuals".

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 don't think you really know what a feminist is. Feminists want equal rights for women. Only a small minority want supremacy.

47 pages...
Marry.-No
Serious Relationship.-No, i have two problems with this question.

I'd happily have a relationship with a feminist.

To me the most important qualities are intelligence, passion and independent thought - all found most frequently in feminists.

There are few people more dull than fake blonde fashion slaves who can't think for themselves.

Oh please... I am a really skinny guy, and yet I can still open pickle jars. It's mostly a matter of willpower -- most women I've seen simply give up before they've even tried. Solution? Work those weak arms (and all related limbs) out and tone them! Same with women needing men for "protection" -- learn how to DIY!

Solution would be a mom who gives the jar of pickles to her daughter and asks her to open it instead of her son.
Women keep being taught by society that they are weaker, that they're supposed to be non-aggressive, to give the hard jobs to men because they themselves are to delicate...
Never underestimate the influence role models have on your own perception of yourself.

A good friend of mine teaches Judo and self-defense classes, she once gave me a brilliant example of what I'm talking about here:
We were on an outing with the Youth group we were both involved with, there were about 30 kids, ages 10 to 13, both boys and girls. We were taking a break and having a little picknick at that time, and she said she was going to demonstrate the first major obstacle she always had to overcome when teaching girls.
She stood up, walked past a small group of boys, and suddenly made a fast, aggressive move, as if she was going to hit one of the boys. The boy was on his feet immediatly in a move to hit her back. They never touched each other, and she pretended she was just having a bit of a laugh.
She came back to me, made sure I had seen what happened, and said : "Now watch this". She walked up to a small group of girls, who hadn't payed much attention to what had happened with the boys just then, and made the exact same move towards a girl. The girl shriecked, cowered down and held her hands over her head.

When she came back to me, she told me that whenever she teaches girls, it takes the first one or two lessons just to teach them to hit back. Boys have been taught how to do that already, they are constantly encouraged to be aggressive in all ways of life; "Boys will be boys, eh?", "When someone hits somebody who is weaker than they are, you have to defend the weak". Girls kept being told not to be aggressive; "Don't do that, you might hurt someone".

It's a lesson taught so thouroughly by society that people mistake it for biology.

Well I just was not sure what the singular of womnyn is. I am not fluent in Poltical Correct speech as I refuse to use it out of my paranoid Orwellian fear for the English language.

It has nothing to do with being 'PC', as (I suspect) you well know.

It is explicitly about asserting the feminine as OPPOSED to being merely 'derived' from 'man'.

Woman = derived from man

Womyn = asserting an identity separate from 'man'.

...I know many women...

I doubt it.

Likewise for issues on strength.

For example - in self defense it would be very dangerous to habitually advise women that they will be able to overpower a male attacker. Even very strong women will have a hard time overpowering an average strength male attacker. Instead rather than assess the combat skills of each and every women in a rape defense class you make an assumption that most of them will not win in a straight fight based on strength and you tailor the course accordingly. Yes there are some women who this is not appropriate for, but pretending the differences in gender is on an individual level rather than on a trend is very unwise if you do not have unlimited time and resources to do individually tailored training schedules.

I beg to differ. While it may be true that many women would not win a fair wrestle in the ring with all rules adhered to, most women are quite capable of defending themselves against an average man, once they overcome the little "don't hit too hard, you might hurt someone" planted into their subconscience by their upbringing. We're programmed right from the start to view ourselves as delicate little flowers that are too sweet to ever hurt anyone and that rely on male protection entirely. Once that silly assumption is out of the way, the average woman is quite capable to defend herself against the average man in threatening situation. She won't be able to knock him out cold and rape him, mind you, but she's well able to temporarily incapacitate him and run for it. Which is really all that's required.

47 pages...
Marry.-No
Serious Relationship.-No, i have two problems with this question.

What problems?

It affects everyone. It takes two parents to raise a kid. It takes one to raise a gang banging criminal.

So - every child of a single parent is a criminal... and every child of two parents is an angel?

To deny differences between genders is at best unproductive and at worst dangerous.

That's the problem, though... right there.

There are differences between INDIVIDUALS. Creating these 'tend' or 'trend' delineations doesn't actually help... it's akin to the arguments people use about the differences between 'races' - when the difference WITHIN an ethnic group tends to exceed the differences BETWEEN ethnic groups.

If you think in terms of 'tend' and 'trend' too comfortably, you find yourself basing your choices on such assumptions - e.g. We need to move this heavy thing, we NEED someone with a penis.

no one made that claim. NO ONE. it was refuted but the claim itself was never made.



given that there is a great variety in BOTH genders, it is "dangerous" to deny individual differences.

i wont bother to quote the rest since my point is the same.

individual differences are more important that classifying each gender by its statistical averages.

Exactly - Ashmoria cuts through all my bullshit, and makes the point more concisely, AND earlier, than me. Bugger.

Originally Posted by Ebri
As a female myself, I disagree. It's childish to claim men and women are equal on a biological level. One is inherently of greater physical strength.

then Grave and Idle chipped in with:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GravenIdle
This is so far beyond not true, it's not even funny.


Someone made a comment that both genders were the same. Then someone said that men are inherently stronger than women. Then somone said that was 'so far beyond true it's not even funny'. Which is how we got to pointing out trends and the like.



Read it carefully - the first post wasn't about trends, it was a generalisation that is patently untrue.

And, as a trend, it is still dangerous, because it asserts these potentially deceptive rules.

It has nothing to do with being 'PC', as (I suspect) you well know.

It is explicitly about asserting the feminine as OPPOSED to being merely 'derived' from 'man'.

Woman = derived from man

Womyn = asserting an identity separate from 'man'.

Although I agree with your show of independence I feel I must make some linguistic points.

Old English
mann = person (it had no gender implication at all)
wyf / wyfmann = female / female person (it had no marriage implication at all)
wer / wermann = male / male person (still used in "werewolf" and in the Latin-derived variations, "virile" and, surprisingly, "virtuous")

In the time it took for English to evolve from old English the meanings of the words changed.

mann became man and acquired a strong implication of male person. Indeed it is now the most usual interpretation.

wyf became wife

wyfman became woman

Linguistically woman <> derived from man, ie male person. The changes have occured in the modern words "man" and "wife".

Although I agree with your show of independence I feel I must make some linguistic points.

Old English
mann = person (it had no gender implication at all)
wyf / wyfmann = female / female person (it had no marriage implication at all)
wer / wermann = male / male person

In the time it took for English to evolve from old English the meanings of the words changed.

mann became man meaning either any person or male person with the usual interpretation being the latter.

wyf became wife

wyfman became woman

Linguistically woman <> derived from man, ie male person. The changes have occured in the modern words "man" and "wife".
but that's not what the Bible says......:eek:



:D

Although I agree with your show of independence I feel I must make some linguistic points.

Old English
mann = person (it had no gender implication at all)
wyf / wyfmann = female / female person (it had no marriage implication at all)
wer / wermann = male / male person

In the time it took for English to evolve from old English the meanings of the words changed.

mann became man meaning either any person or male person with the usual interpretation being the latter.

wyf became wife

wyfman became woman

Linguistically woman <> derived from man, ie male person. The changes have occured in the modern words "man" and "wife".

Ah - you make too many assumptions, my friend. I am not discussing etymology, I am discussing perception.

The thing I hate about feminists is how I am now looked down on for being "just a housewife". Instead of acknowledging that raising your children is the most important job we get put down because it's not a real job, even though it's 10 times harder than most peoples jobs. They say it's about women being free to choose, then why is it not acceptable for me to choose to take care of my family?

but that's not what the Bible says......:eek:



:D

*lol

Could that be because the writers of the bible didn't speak English?

but that's not what the Bible says......:eek:



:D

Actually... look at the way 'Adam' is used, and it starts out as a collective term that applies equally over genders, then....

never mind.... :)

Could that be because the writers of the bible didn't seak English?

Wash your mouth out with gin! English is God's Chosen Language (tm)... everyone knows the Bible was originally written in English, at the request of King James!

Wash your mouth out with gin! English is God's Chosen Language (tm)... everyone knows the Bible was originally written in English, at the request of King James!

It was written in German, by Martin Luther, you heretic!

The thing I hate about feminists is how I am now looked down on for being "just a housewife". Instead of acknowledging that raising your children is the most important job we get put down because it's not a real job, even though it's 10 times harder than most peoples jobs. They say it's about women being free to choose, then why is it not acceptable for me to choose to take care of my family?
because they think we were brainwashed into it, they are taught that women are told they have to stay home and look after the kids, for one of us to choose to do so means we must not be one of them (the "enlightened" ones)

*lol

Could that be because the writers of the bible didn't speak English?
sure they did, I am reading my English Bible. ;)



Actually... look at the way 'Adam' is used, and it starts out as a collective term that applies equally over genders, then....

never mind.... :)

I am feeling mischief boiling inside me today......

It was written in German, by Martin Luther, you heretic!

Silly Rabbit.... German is English, just spoken by the heathen.

;)

I am feeling mischief boiling inside me today......

That'll be the chili...

Ah - you make too many assumptions, my friend. I am not discussing etymology, I am discussing perception.

And you are right. Keep on fighting.

I beg to differ. While it may be true that many women would not win a fair wrestle in the ring with all rules adhered to, most women are quite capable of defending themselves against an average man, once they overcome the little "don't hit too hard, you might hurt someone" planted into their subconscience by their upbringing. We're programmed right from the start to view ourselves as delicate little flowers that are too sweet to ever hurt anyone and that rely on male protection entirely. Once that silly assumption is out of the way, the average woman is quite capable to defend herself against the average man in threatening situation. She won't be able to knock him out cold and rape him, mind you, but she's well able to temporarily incapacitate him and run for it. Which is really all that's required.

You have just stereotyped both genders into a hypothetical brawl which started as a threatening situation (I suppose the men threatened?) and which ended with most men incapacitated by most women whilst the women made clean getaways.

I am not 100% sure I can accept this scenario as a model of reality.

And you are right. Keep on fighting.

;)

I've never needed to be told to keep fighting before... :)

You have just stereotyped both genders into a hypothetical brawl which started as a threatening situation (I suppose the men threatened?) and which ended with most men incapacitated by most women whilst the women made clean getaways.

I am not 100% sure I can accept this scenario as a model of reality.

True, but I based it on the ideal assumption of the majority of women realising that they actually CAN hit back... that's a far cry from reality yet.

;)

I've never needed to be told to keep fighting before... :)

Pure selfishness. If you keep fighting I can keep reading your posts.

True, but I based it on the ideal assumption of the majority of women realising that they actually CAN hit back... that's a far cry from reality yet.

Be even better if nobody hit eachother in the first place, but martial training is good too I suppose.

Although I agree with your show of independence I feel I must make some linguistic points.

Old English
mann = person (it had no gender implication at all)
wyf / wyfmann = female / female person (it had no marriage implication at all)
wer / wermann = male / male person (still used in "werewolf" and in the Latin-derived variations, "virile" and, surprisingly, "virtuous")

In the time it took for English to evolve from old English the meanings of the words changed.

mann became man and acquired a strong implication of male person. Indeed it is now the most usual interpretation.

wyf became wife

wyfman became woman

Linguistically woman <> derived from man, ie male person. The changes have occured in the modern words "man" and "wife".

thats very interesting. thanks for posting it. i had never looked into it myself.

it reminds me of when women's history used to be sometimes called "HERstory" as if the word history derived from "his story". i dont think anyone really believed that, it was, as grave said, a perception thing rather than an etymology thing.

The thing I hate about feminists is how I am now looked down on for being "just a housewife". Instead of acknowledging that raising your children is the most important job we get put down because it's not a real job, even though it's 10 times harder than most peoples jobs. They say it's about women being free to choose, then why is it not acceptable for me to choose to take care of my family?

i dont think those women are speaking as feminists*. i think its the recognition that they had to make choices, that they were different than yours, and the deep seated fear that they may have made the wrong choice. stay at home moms have the same fear. it can lead them to accuse career women of abandoning their children or at least of not being good mothers. and that doesnt even leave room for the mothers who have no choice but to work for the support of their families but might prefer to stay home or who must stay home with their kids but would prefer to be building a career.

as i said before, we need to cut each other some slack. we are all different and all in different circumstances. your choice is not a slap in MY face.

*not to divert attention from the hard time that many women and feminist leaders have had in accepting that there are women who would rather concentrate on raising their children by staying home than concentrate on building a career by putting their children into daycare. i think it reflects the more prosperous backgrounds of most feminists leaders over the years who dont really understand those who would forgo striving for power and money for any reason.

Aslong as the Feminist's idea of equal isint "Women above Men" which you get allot.

If she isint like that then yes, i have no problem with being equal to a future Wife, because thats the way marriage is ment to be.

Solution would be a mom who gives the jar of pickles to her daughter and asks her to open it instead of her son.
Women keep being taught by society that they are weaker, that they're supposed to be non-aggressive, to give the hard jobs to men because they themselves are to delicate...
Women are lazy on feats of strength because there's no pressure for them to succeed. Men have to be able to do it or they will look weak.

Women are lazy on feats of strength because there's no pressure for them to succeed. Men have to be able to do it or they will look weak.

That's what I'm talking about. As long as these images keep being enforced by society, people will go on following the stereotypes.

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:

fuuny thing is, i never used the word 'devorce' in any of my arguements.
again STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

But you don't like feminists, who have allowed women to get an education and enter the work force to get paid equally?

the start of the thread points out the difference betwwen past feminists and current feminists.

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

i dont really mind if its a man or woman, who decides to randomly bake me something.

Read it carefully - the first post wasn't about trends, it was a generalisation that is patently untrue.

And, as a trend, it is still dangerous, because it asserts these potentially deceptive rules.

Generalisations are comments on Trends. unless you qualify a generalisation with a prefix of "All", "Only", "None" etc. it is often assumed you are talking about the general case. The statement "Men are stronger than women" is very different to the statement "All men are stronger than all women". the first is normally taken as a comment on the general case, for which it is true. The second includes everyone and is obviously false.

People rarely qualify generalisations with statements like 'except for'. The statement "Men have penises" for example - fair statement or would you explode with fury for not qualifying it as "Men who have not been castrated or born with severe birth defects have penises". "Dogs bark" - or would you prefer "Many dogs bark, but some growl and some more of yelp and some are mute". It is impossibe to make a statement that is accurate about every person/situation it could possibly affect, but it is also really anal to demand qualifiers when you know it is a general statement, not a specific one.

The vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women. This is why self defense classes for women focus on very different ways of defending yourself than they would for men. CabraWests example that seemed to assume most women could beat most men - hell - most men can't beat most men (obviously....) in a straight up fight OR when both sides fight dirty. What most women CAN do is incapacitate a stronger man and escape or put up enough of a fight that the attacker decides to go after an easier prey. This is not to say that some women (but not many) won't be able to beat the man.

Until this discussion I always thought the only people who hid behind the individual and exception cases were the people discriminating - "We don't need leglislation to ensure men and women are paid the same for the same work. There are penty of women who earn tha same as men for the same job, and some earn even more. And some men earn less than other men. It really boils down to the individual case". Then you look at the averages, the general case and see discrimination on a vast scale.

I don't understand what the objection is to the statement that men tend to be much more physically powerful than women, all I can think is that people for some reason think that infers that women are inherently inferior. Which is a very strange way to look at it.

Generalisations are comments on Trends. unless you qualify a generalisation with a prefix of "All", "Only", "None" etc. it is often assumed you are talking about the general case. The statement "Men are stronger than women" is very different to the statement "All men are stronger than all women". the first is normally taken as a comment on the general case, for which it is true. The second includes everyone and is obviously false.

People rarely qualify generalisations with statements like 'except for'. The statement "Men have penises" for example - fair statement or would you explode with fury for not qualifying it as "Men who have not been castrated or born with severe birth defects have penises". "Dogs bark" - or would you prefer "Many dogs bark, but some growl and some more of yelp and some are mute". It is impossibe to make a statement that is accurate about every person/situation it could possibly affect, but it is also really anal to demand qualifiers when you know it is a general statement, not a specific one.

The vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women. This is why self defense classes for women focus on very different ways of defending yourself than they would for men. CabraWests example that seemed to assume most women could beat most men - hell - most men can't beat most men (obviously....) in a straight up fight OR when both sides fight dirty. What most women CAN do is incapacitate a stronger man and escape or put up enough of a fight that the attacker decides to go after an easier prey. This is not to say that some women (but not many) won't be able to beat the man.

Until this discussion I always thought the only people who hid behind the individual and exception cases were the people discriminating - "We don't need leglislation to ensure men and women are paid the same for the same work. There are penty of women who earn tha same as men for the same job, and some earn even more. And some men earn less than other men. It really boils down to the individual case". Then you look at the averages, the general case and see discrimination on a vast scale.

I don't understand what the objection is to the statement that men tend to be much more physically powerful than women, all I can think is that people for some reason think that infers that women are inherently inferior. Which is a very strange way to look at it.

This is a gross oversimplification aimed to be contrary. You know it. We know it. Why you're still trying to convince us that your contrarian post has some value when you already know we've seen through it is beyond me.

Meanwhile, generalizations, particularly generalizations like the one GnI was responding to, suggest rules. GnI gave the exception that disproves the rule. It was a valid thing to do. He had a clear goal. And he accomplished. You pretended as if his goal was something other than it was and tried to pretend like he was wrong. Try arguing against what he actually said. Prove that a woman can't be stronger than a man and stop arguing against ghost arguments.

i dont really mind if its a man or woman, who decides to randomly bake me something.

you mean youre bisexual?

fuuny thing is, i never used the word 'devorce' in any of my arguements.
again STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

Maybe that's because it's not a word. Now 'divorce' on the other hand.

you mean youre bisexual?

no. i'm just hungry.

Maybe that's because it's not a word. Now 'divorce' on the other hand.

again instead of making any points, you go off topic to insult me.

the start of the thread points out the difference betwwen past feminists and current feminists.

An imaginary difference. Modern feminists are fighting for equality and so were past feminists. It's all the same movement. There are some that are radical and there always have been, but that doesn't change the meaning of the term "feminist".

An imaginary difference. Modern feminists are fighting for equality and so were past feminists. It's all the same movement. There are some that are radical and there always have been, but that doesn't change the meaning of the term "feminist".

here women can vote. here women are supose to get equal pay. if they dont get equal pay, they can take legal action. if they get harrassed in a work place, they can take legal action.

again instead of making any points, you go off topic to insult me.

Insult you? You're insulted because "devorce" isn't a word. Sorry. I take it back. Poof, it's a word. Sorry, that noticing your misspelling insults you.

Meanwhile, how is pointing out that a post that talks about a word isn't talking about a real word off-topic?

What is off-topic is your rants.

I don't understand what the objection is to the statement that men tend to be much more physically powerful than women, all I can think is that people for some reason think that infers that women are inherently inferior. Which is a very strange way to look at it.

now youre being silly

you are taking a specific discussion in a thread and reading it wrong. all that happened is that ebri said something stupid and gni spent the next few pages making a fool out of her. it wasnt a big philosophical discussion.

you are now taking up her banner and are on your way to making yourself seem foolish for the very same reason.

NO ONE ever claimed men and women are the same and NO ONE is doing so because they feel that women are inherently physically inferior.

you make the point that there are physical differences between men and women. NO ONE disagrees with you

you make the point that there are some times when those differences need to be taken into consideration. specifically in medicine. NO ONE thinks that equality means that women get prostate exams.

you make the point that on average men are stronger than women. NO ONE thinks otherwise.

i do not think that you would disagree with the idea that even though MOST women are too weak to be lumberjacks, the field should be open to those women who are physically capable of doing the job.

i do not think that you would AGREE with the idea that because most math geniuses are men, women should be barred from math phd programs.

the "trick" is figuring out just where those differences and statistical averages matter and where we are just acting out of our own preconceived notions of the capabilities of men and women.

i would want to marry a woman who appreceates(sp?) that men and women are equal.

here women can vote. here women are supose to get equal pay. if they dont get equal pay, they can take legal action. if they get harrassed in a work place, they can take legal action.

Sometimes. They don't get equal pay and they can take legal action if they can prove the reason is their sex which is nearly impossible, however when look at 100 women and 100 men who have equal experience and education, you'll generally find that men make slightly more. That doesn't prove that sex is the factor in the individual case, but it does show that the problem still exists.

Women are still horribly abused in your country and most countries. They are STILL being trapped in dangerous situations. They are still not getting the support they need to feel safe to leave.

10 years ago a law was passed in Ireland that makes abused women go through certain kinds of attempts to fix their marriage before they can get divorce, forcing them to remain in the situation.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001362901&er=deny

http://www.womensaid.ie/

! in 5 women in Ireland is abused and that is just in the cases where it is reported. If you don't think this is a problem, then I just don't know what to say. The law helps after the fact, but it's clear it's not actually preventing the abuse. Clearly there is something wrong in a society, any society, where this level of abuse occurs. Feminism is dealing with the origins of these problems not just the law related to them.

You oversimplify equality so that you can claim it's already been acheived while you brag about how you don't respect a woman's right to say no, seeking to coerce her into sex even when she doesn't want to. As long as attitudes like yours exist, then there will be a need for feminism. Thank you for being such a wonderful example of why we proudly declare ourselves feminists.

You oversimplify equality so that you can claim it's already been acheived while you brag about how you don't respect a woman's right to say no, seeking to coerce her into sex even when she doesn't want to. As long as attitudes like yours exist, then there will be a need for feminism. Thank you for being such a wonderful example of why we proudly declare ourselves feminists.

stop being so crazy. i have never forced any woman to have sex with me. i have also said earlier, if a woman says no, i stop. but that has never happend before, cause i dont ask. do people in your country actually go up to people and say, "do want to have sex with me?" that seems wierd.