NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

I didn't say 'forced'. I said 'coerced'. This is English, man, if you're not sure what I'm saying then perhaps you need to bone up. That's like the tenth time your reply to a similar comment was something about force. No one is saying that you're physically forcing women to do anything. We're saying you admit that women don't want to have sex with you but you coerce them into doing it anyway. You plainly stated exactly that, bragging, even.

I didn't say 'forced'. I said 'coerced'. This is English, man, if you're not sure what I'm saying then perhaps you need to bone up. That's like the tenth time your reply to a similar comment was something about force. No one is saying that you're physically forcing women to do anything. We're saying you admit that women don't want to have sex with you but you coerce them into doing it anyway. You plainly stated exactly that, bragging, even.

thats like saying, "i went into a restaurant, i didnt want to get the salad, but then i found out what was in it, so i did." is the menu coercing you?

thats like saying, "i went into a restaurant, i didnt want to get the salad, but then i found out what was in it, so i did." is the menu coercing you?

It certainly may be. Sales is about coersion. It's about selling something to someone they may not normally buy. In this case, you bragged not about showing women that they actually DO want to sleep with you, but getting them to sleep with you despite not wanting to. These are different acts.

I sell projects by showing people that what I'm offering them is what they need. They wouldn't have purchased without my salesmanship, but I'm also not giving them something they don't want, something you openly bragged about.

It certainly may be. Sales is about coersion. It's about selling something to someone they may not normally buy. In this case, you bragged not about showing women that they actually DO want to sleep with you, but getting them to sleep with you despite not wanting to. These are different acts.

I sell projects by showing people that what I'm offering them is what they need. They wouldn't have purchased without my salesmanship, but I'm also not giving them something they don't want, something you openly bragged about.

oh grand i thought you were complaining about something i'm hugely against, but now i know you are talking about complete nonsense.
men chatt up women to get them to sleep with them. deal with it or become a lesbien. women to it two. fake tan, heels and padding bras.

oh grand i thought you were complaining about something i'm hugely against, but now i know you are talking about complete nonsense.
men chatt up women to get them to sleep with them. deal with it or become a lesbien. women to it two. fake tan, heels and padding bras.

Wait, you want me to change into a woman and then become gay? Hmmmm... that's really your argument?

Meanwhile, again, you point out that you don't understand the difference between prettying up the package and getting people to do something they don't want to do through coersion. You bragged about getting women to sleep with you when they don't want to. That's coersion and you are wrong. And, yes, I realize you're not against getting women to do things they don't want to do. You have no respect for women at all, why should this be any different?

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.

Right... that never happened to me in Ireland, ever. :rolleyes:

Wait, you want me to change into a woman and then become gay? Hmmmm... that's really your argument?

Meanwhile, again, you point out that you don't understand the difference between prettying up the package and getting people to do something they don't want to do through coersion. You bragged about getting women to sleep with you when they don't want to. That's coersion and you are wrong. And, yes, I realize you're not against getting women to do things they don't want to do. You have no respect for women at all, why should this be any different?

sorry i thought you were a chick.
pretending to have a tan and bigger breasts, is annoying. not that rank having big breasts very highly.

Right... that never happened to me in Ireland, ever. :rolleyes:

thats disgusts me. how rude.

thats disgusts me. how rude.

What disgusts you? Drunk guys asking girls to sleep with them?
You should never leave your room after 9 pm, then.

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.

I'll see if I can dig it up, but in a survey of American College men a disturbing portion admitted to using acts on women to get them to have sex that meet legal definitions of rape or attempted rape. Almost none of them viewed there was anything wrong with their actions.

Also - many rape victims do not say no. They have been coherced or are too afraid or are not in a sound state of mind (the biggest date rape drug is alcohol). A lack of "No" does not mean a rape has not occured.

What disgusts you? Drunk guys asking girls to sleep with them?
You should never leave your room after 9 pm, then.

oh drunk guys, that doesnt count. its allowed not to be a complete gentleman when drunk.

sorry i thought you were a chick.
pretending to have a tan and bigger breasts, is annoying. not that rank having big breasts very highly.

More gems from our resident sexist. Perhaps if you chose women on something more than their skin color and breast size, you'd not have to worry about such things.

Also - many rape victims do not say no. They have been coherced or are too afraid or are not in a sound state of mind (the biggest date rape drug is alcohol). A lack of "No" does not mean a rape has not occured.

i dont use alcohol to take advantage of women. if i think a girl is drunker than i am, i get them water.

oh drunk guys, that doesnt count. its allowed not to be a complete gentleman when drunk.

Are you drunk now? Because talking about how women are incapable of decision-making, that they should sleep with you even if they don't want to, and talking about breast size are things that are not gentlemanly.

oh drunk guys, that doesnt count. its allowed not to be a complete gentleman when drunk.

*lol
Can't say I met a lot of complete gentlemen here, even when they are sober ;)

More gems from our resident sexist. Perhaps if you chose women on something more than their skin color and breast size, you'd not have to worry about such things.

didnt i just say i didnt consider breast size as very important?
stop trying to twist my words.
too plae skin can cause skin problems. i like healthy women. also fake tan makes women taste nasty.

talking about breast size are things that are not gentlemanly.

you are an idiot. i shouldnt have to point it out anymore. stop saying i promote things that i dont.

too plae skin can cause skin problems. i like healthy women.

rascist. :p

rascist. :p

purge the infedels of patchy skin!:mp5:

didnt i just say i didnt consider breast size as very important?
stop trying to twist my words.
too plae skin can cause skin problems. i like healthy women. also fake tan makes women taste nasty.

You mentioned a bunch of shallow things and then talked about how a padded bra pisses you off. I'm a gentleman. I could care less what bra makes a woman feel best about herself. But what matters to you apparently is how her bra affects you.

I hate to tell you, but here's a clue... you don't have to hook up with women that have fake tans. You can see the fake tan and if it bothers you, turn away. According to you, she doesn't want to sleep with you anyway. And tanning is much worse for your skin than being pale. I find it amusing that you call me an idiot and then pretend like a tan has anything to do with how healthy a person is.

you are an idiot. i shouldnt have to point it out anymore. stop saying i promote things that i dont.

You did promote these things. Right here. You brought up how 'padded bras' piss you off. If you don't care about breast size, what difference does a padded bra make to you?

By the way, you live in Ireland. If the tans aren't fake, where do you think these women are getting them? Are the all the women travelling to Miami Beach every weekend?

You did promote these things. Right here. You brought up how 'padded bras' piss you off. If you don't care about breast size, what difference does a padded bra make to you?

By the way, you live in Ireland. If the tans aren't fake, where do you think these women are getting them? Are the all the women travelling to Miami Beach every weekend?

tanning beds. also people here travel alot, usually enough to get enough sun to keep skin healthy. note too much skin is unhealthy.

tanning beds. also people here travel alot, usually enough to get enough sun to keep skin healthy. note too much skin is unhealthy.

I did not think the Irish were noted for having skin types suitable for tanning beds...

tanning beds. also people here travel alot, usually enough to get enough sun to keep skin healthy. note too much skin is unhealthy.

Generally at the point you begin to tan, you're getting too much sun. You can get plenty of sun (enough to produce adequate amounts of Vitamin D) and not tan. And tanning beds are fake, my friend, and very unhealthy. You'll never meet a dermatologist recommending that you hit the tanning beds. You don't care about health, you care about women looking a particular way. At least have the balls to admit it.

tanning beds. also people here travel alot, usually enough to get enough sun to keep skin healthy. note too much skin is unhealthy.

......what the heck are you talking about?

Tanning beds = not healthy or natural.

Being pale in a climate such as Ireland's = both healthy and natural.

As for your incomprehensible comment that "too much skin is unhealthy," I'm just amused. After we abolish abortion and make the womenfolk bake you cookies, should we start flaying people alive to remove that unhealthy excess skin? :p

......what the heck are you talking about?

Tanning beds = not healthy or natural.

Being pale in a climate such as Ireland's = both healthy and natural.

As for your incomprehensible comment that "too much skin is unhealthy," I'm just amused. After we abolish abortion and make the womenfolk bake you cookies, should we start flaying people alive to remove that unhealthy excess skin? :p

who knows.. maybe the sight of bare mucles and fat turn him on...

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/flood6/womensewing.jpg

I can imagine feminist communists must be GF's worst nightmare.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/flood2/women&guns.gif

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.
I see. Admitting that, if a woman says no, you'd have to stop, you prevent the possibility of her saying no by not asking. You just jump on and start humping like that proverbial horny chihuahua?

do people in your country actually go up to people and say, "do want to have sex with me?" that seems wierd.
I'm not surprised it seems weird to you. After all, it would require you to treat women as if they are human and have rights and brains and whatnot.

Here's how it works on planet Earth: You're dating. The passion builds. One person asks the other something along the lines of "Do you want to do have sex?" (or more romantic version of same). If the answer is yes, you both go at it. If the answer is no, the date ends.

What you don't do is just jump on and, if she doesn't beat the living crap out of you immediately, it must mean she wants it.

PS: Why are you bragging about your "sex" life again? Haven't you gotten ridiculed enough on this? You're funny enough when you stick to the topic.

you are an idiot. i shouldnt have to point it out anymore. stop saying i promote things that i dont.
Stop grossing us out by bragging about your (mythical) sexual prowess.

You're dating. The passion builds. One person asks the other something along the lines of "Do you want to do have sex?" (or more romantic version of same). If the answer is yes, you both go at it. If the answer is no, the date ends.

:D

That's refreshingly honest of you to admit you're only after flings Muravyets.

Stop grossing us out by bragging about your (mythical) sexual prowess.

This thread gets funnier and funnier every time I check on it...

:D

That's refreshingly honest of you to admit you're only after flings Muravyets.
Well, it's true that I have no interest in getting married but even less interest in being a nun, but how did you pick that up from my post?

What that post was saying is that normal people don't have sex with people who say they don't want to have sex with them, so if you are looking for sex, and your date says "no," that effectively ends the date, doesn't it? I mean, it would start winding down from that point, wouldn't it? And if you did see each other again, it wouldn't be a date in the romantic sense, would it?

This thread gets funnier and funnier every time I check on it...
Feh. Gorias doesn't have enough material. The only new thing is this tan/no tan stuff, and it's pretty lame.

Well, it's true that I have no interest in getting married but even less interest in being a nun, but how did you pick that up from my post?

What that post was saying is that normal people don't have sex with people who say they don't want to have sex with them, so if you are looking for sex, and your date says "no," that effectively ends the date, doesn't it?

It depends if you're only interested in sex, I suppose. I didn't read that into your post initially.

I mean, it would start winding down from that point, wouldn't it? And if you did see each other again, it wouldn't be a date in the romantic sense, would it?

A successful date always ends in sex? Now who's boasting about sexual prowess? :D

It depends if you're only interested in sex, I suppose. I didn't read that into your post initially.



A successful date always ends in sex? Now who's boasting about sexual prowess? :D
Oh, dude, go back and read the post I was responding to. In fact, give yourself a nice laugh and read all of Gorias's posts, just for fun. HE was talking about how he gets sex from women who don't want him. So obviously, I'm talking to him about dates in which at least one person is interested in getting sex. Not ALL dates. Just the sex-hunting ones. Duh.

Oh, dude, go back and read the post I was responding to. In fact, give yourself a nice laugh and read all of Gorias's posts, just for fun. HE was talking about how he gets sex from women who don't want him. So obviously, I'm talking to him about dates in which at least one person is interested in getting sex. Not ALL dates. Just the sex-hunting ones. Duh.

Yeah, I know. I was just messing you around. ;)

Yeah, I know. I was just messing you around. ;)
*SLAP!*

*SLAP!*

This means we won't be having sex, right?

too plae skin can cause skin problems.
Not at all especially in Ireland... I love das weiss überfrau.

This means we won't be having sex, right?
Not necessarily. You haven't asked the magic question yet.

That slap was for messing with my head. Were you also humping my leg? I hadn't noticed.

too plae skin can cause skin problems. i like healthy women.

what type of skin problems specifically does my pale skin cause? how am I unhealthy with the skin shade that genetics provided me?

what type of skin problems specifically does my pale skin cause?

Well, if you're anything like my fianceé you'll burn if you stay in a weak, winters sun for more than 2 minutes. :p

Aside from that, I haven't a clue what he's on about either.

tanning beds. also people here travel alot, usually enough to get enough sun to keep skin healthy. note too much skin is unhealthy.
Dude Irish girls are naturally white and I love the that way. It's widely expected that there will be a boom in skin cancer rates in a decade due to all this tanning crap.

I'm not surprised it seems weird to you. After all, it would require you to treat women as if they are human and have rights and brains and whatnot.
Remember that Ireland's society is a bit more conservative than America's on sexual matters, please stop being so Amero-centric.

Well, if you're anything like my fianceé you'll burn if you stay in a weak, winters sun for more than 2 minutes. :p

Aside from that, I haven't a clue what he's on about either.

spf 45 whenever I leave the house for that very reason....

today when I went to get my manicure done, I recieved the standard greeting from all the people at the nail salon

"IT'S SNOW WHITE!!!!!!!"

apparently that's the only english they speak, but hey, I get to be a princess LOL

<snip>
Remember that Ireland's society is a bit more conservative than America's on sexual matters, please stop being so Amero-centric.
Remember that Gorias is a troll. Please let's try to be less nonsense-centric.

You haven't asked the magic question yet.


How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

oh drunk guys, that doesnt count. its allowed not to be a complete gentleman when drunk.

It's okay to be an asshole if you use alcohol as an excuse?

Maybe it's just the light, but you are becoming more desirable with every passing word...

It's okay to be an asshole if you use alcohol as an excuse?

Maybe it's just the light, but you are becoming more desirable with every passing word...

I have no patience for a man who makes excuses. period.

*lol
Can't say I met a lot of complete gentlemen here, even when they are sober ;)

I'd point out that a complete gentleman wouldn't BE drunk in public, but I think I'd be wasting my time in certain quarters...

I can imagine feminist communists must be GF's worst nightmare.

i used to have a really nice picture of spanish women womanning the barricades up on a website of mine. but it seems that my old university finally got around to clearing it off.

*SLAP!*

*is jealous*

It's okay to be an asshole if you use alcohol as an excuse?

Maybe it's just the light, but you are becoming more desirable with every passing word...

I know! It's no wonder all the ladies at the bus stop want him (even if they say they don't). Who could resist charms like those?

I have no patience for a man who makes excuses. period.

Damn straight. I'm sickened by those scenarios where people do stupid (or dangerous) stuff, and then say "I couldn't help it, I was drunk".

Seriously - if you act like an utter arse when you are drunk..... don't drink. Not too illogical, surely?

(Which, incidentally, is the reason I think drunk-drivers fatality cases should be tried as pre-meditated murder).

Remember that Gorias is a troll.
Trolls deliberately bait people. Gorias is probably just an idiot.

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.
Ahhh, lumberjacks. Reminds me of a song and how appropriate to this discussion:

Lumberjack Song (http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/lumberjack_song.html)

I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
I sleep all night. I work all day.

Mounties : He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

I cut down trees. I eat my lunch.
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shoppin'
And have buttered scones for tea.


Mounties: He cuts down trees. He eats his lunch.
He goes to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays he goes shopping
And has buttered scones for tea.

Chorus : I'm (He's) a lumberjack, and I'm (he's) okay.
I (He) sleep(s) all night and I (he) work(s) all day.

I cut down trees. I skip and jump.
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars.

Mounties : He cuts down trees. He skips and jumps.
He likes to press wild flowers.
He puts on women's clothing
And hangs around in bars?!

Chorus : I'm (He's) a lumberjack, and I'm (he's) okay.
I (He) sleep(s) all night and I (he) work(s) all day.

I cut down trees. I wear high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra.
I wish I'd been a girlie,
Just like my dear Mama (or Papa in later versions)


Mounties : He cuts down trees. He wears high heels,
Suspendies, and a bra?!

Chorus : I'm (He's) a lumberjack, and I'm (he's) okay.
I (He) sleep(s) all night and I (he) work(s) all day.

Yes, I'm (He's) a lumberjack, and I'm (he's) ok-a-y.
I (He) sleep(s) all night and I (he) work(s) all day


:D :) :eek:

ya know, for a stupid trolling thread, this has been the most enjoyable tread ive read and participated in in a long time.

when the trolls are stupid, they are easy to mock without flaming. when someone makes a serious post, they tend to be polite about it. when someone needs putting in their place, it happens with a loud THUNK!

why cant they all be this fun?

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
42! You win!! :)

*is jealous*
Don't be. :fluffle:













(Note to self: Ye gods, harems are a lot of work.)

spf 45 whenever I leave the house for that very reason....

today when I went to get my manicure done, I recieved the standard greeting from all the people at the nail salon

"IT'S SNOW WHITE!!!!!!!"

apparently that's the only english they speak, but hey, I get to be a princess LOLSnow White? hey, I guess I can be Bashful then... :D

People cannot believe how pale I am. I don't tan, I burn.

ya know, for a stupid trolling thread, this has been the most enjoyable tread ive read and participated in in a long time.

when the trolls are stupid, they are easy to mock without flaming. when someone makes a serious post, they tend to be polite about it. when someone needs putting in their place, it happens with a loud THUNK!

why cant they all be this fun?
If they all were this fun, then Trolls would be treated with more... err

less... contempt actually...

Trolls deliberately bait people. Gorias is probably just an idiot.
I've been of two minds about that. Sometimes, I'm certain that only a complete moron would be posting such things and I feel bad about making fun of a moron who doesn't have the brains to know better. But then, every so often, he comes up with something like he wouldn't mind being in a relationship with a feminist, as long as she didn't try to speak her mind, and I think, no way, this troll is having us on, and then I want to beat him up. While laughing.

Damn straight. I'm sickened by those scenarios where people do stupid (or dangerous) stuff, and then say "I couldn't help it, I was drunk".

Seriously - if you act like an utter arse when you are drunk..... don't drink. Not too illogical, surely?

(Which, incidentally, is the reason I think drunk-drivers fatality cases should be tried as pre-meditated murder).

If you act like an utter arse when you are drunk, all evidence suggests that you are an utter arse who hides it better when he's sober.

If you act like an utter arse when you are drunk, all evidence suggests that you are an utter arse who hides it better when he's sober.
too true.

what type of skin problems specifically does my pale skin cause? how am I unhealthy with the skin shade that genetics provided me?

I'm pale, too. It doesn't cause me any problems, except when people make fun of me and call me a ghost.

I think feminism absolutely is related to increased divorce rates. And I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

Is anybody really shocked to realize that if women have more autonomy and freedom they will tend to exercise it? That if women aren't financially dependent on men, then they will be more inclined to leave a man who they don't want to be with? Gee, imagine that: women who have means of their own are more likely to pack up and leave when their marriage sucks!

If dependency is what it takes to keep a marriage together, then that's a marriage that's not worth keeping.

I also think feminism helps by reminding women (and men!) that marriage isn't for everybody, and doesn't have to be. A lot of people simply don't want to get married, or they realize that marriage isn't for them after they've tried it. Anti-feminist myths say that women all want to marry, all want to make babies, and all want to follow one path in life. Feminism calls BS on that. Will this result in a reduction in the number of married women? Possibly. Is that automatically a bad thing? Nope.

Um, yeah, actually, not being married, not having kids, etc, is bad.

See, there is this thing called "critical biomass", and it's basically the lowest amount of population a species is possible to have, and still have enough genetics to perpetuate itself. And, let's say, for, oh, I don't, know, for like, 20 years we adopt the "having kids is evil!" many feminists, such as you, seem to scream. The birthrate drops to virtually zero. Death rates stay the same, maybe go down a little bit, but let's say they stay the same. I'd say, about 1/5 of our population would die, let's say 2/5 of our population moves into the stage where they can't have children, and another 1/5 stays on the feminist path. That leaves 1/5 of the population, roughly 1.2 billion, to repopulate. That is enough, but let's say there is a HUGE war, maybe between China and America, or Feminists and Equalists. Let's say everyone wantd to join in and save the day! There goes another half of our population. Then, rage at the losers, whoever they may be, will decimate 1/5 of that, if not more. So that leaves 480 million people, but nobody wants to bring children into this world, full of death, and disease. So the birth rate flatlines. Now, I'm NOT counting major diseases, meteor hits, global warming effects, etc. So, our race dies. Not likely, I know.

Why, do you ask? I'll tell you why.

Equalists. Many people mistakes Equalists for Feminists. Equalists, support equality. Feminists, like, well, you, on the otherhand, vote for FEMININE superiority. Notice FEMININE is the root word of FEMINIST, just like chauvanists support male superiority.

Many of the people here are Equalists rather than feminists, as they claim, because they have been brainwashed by feminists like you into believing that FEMINISM is great, while everything is horrible, bigoted women suppresers. Modern feminists, like you, believe that women are superior to men in every way, shape, and form. Men and women can NEVER be equal. There will always be differences. Men are stronger, women are faster, ummmmm, what else is there. Women have bigger breasts, uhhhh, etc, etc.

Many of the people here are Equalists rather than feminists, as they claim, because they have been brainwashed by feminists like you into believing that FEMINISM is great, while everything is horrible, bigoted women suppresers. Modern feminists, like you, believe that women are superior to men in every way, shape, and form. Men and women can NEVER be equal. There will always be differences. Men are stronger, women are faster, ummmmm, what else is there. Women have bigger breasts, uhhhh, etc, etc.
Feminists are equalists (did you make up that term?). Female supremacists are not feminists.

I can imagine feminist communists must be GF's worst nightmare.


ooh i got one of those for a girlfriend :)
;) (and i love her.... yay white text!!)

Um, yeah, actually, not being married, not having kids, etc, is bad.
Why?

See, there is this thing called "critical biomass", <snip>
Oh, that's why. *falls about laughing helplessly.*

Why, do you ask? I'll tell you why.

Equalists. Many people mistakes Equalists for Feminists. <snip>
Which is stupid of them because there's no such thing as an "equalist." That's not a word in English.

[snip]

that is a good point. and somthing I've found confusing on this thread.

WHAT IS FEMINISM TO YOU.

apparently, to some, it's not marrying, not having kids and, from some posts I read, Lesbianism. Others consider Feminism the right for the woman to choose her life... Even if that choice is one that disagrees with other women.

to me, Feminism is equality, not superiority. If a woman chooses to marry and have kids, who's to tell her it's wrong, just like if a woman wants to don a hard hat and help build a skyscraper, who's to tell her it's wrong.

Feminism is the woman's right to choose her life, if she wants to marry, have kids, be President of the USA... etc... then go for it. it's her life, she can do what ever she wants. As long as she also accepts the consiquences of her choices.

If I were to be in a serious relationship, I would want the woman in question to believe in sexual equality. I need say nothing more.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos?

I think the real question is what kind of woman would marry you?

Which is stupid of them because there's no such thing as an "equalist." That's not a word in English.
while i may not exactly agree, i do get what G&E is saying... feminists proper are for equality of the sexes. what is often portrayed in the media, intentionally or otherwise, is a female-supremist attitude.
two examples from my own experiences: firstly my mum being sent emails from coworkers and reading them out to my dad and i, containing what could only be sexist material against men. i have a sense of humour, but i was irritated by these - not because of the content as much as had i said these same things about women i'd have been labelled instantly as 'sexist' or something, and would have been told off (this was a few years back... she stopped reading them out after i got annoyed). when i rasied my concerns they were little more than 'silly jokes', however. this seems to be a common attitude to "reverse-sexism"

and then there was the Tesco magazine i happened to be leafing through one day, in which there was an article entitled "Change Your Man!!" which alluded modern man to little more than a shaved gorilla in a suit, who loved barbeques and grilled meats because they remind him of tribal days of hunting and cooking animals (i kid ye not). it also incinuated a lot of other very derogitory things (i wish i'd kept the article now!) which, had they been in a men's magazine said about women would be labelled as sexist. however this was just a normal article.

it is this hypocracy that irritates me about modern feminism. i support the goal and equality, of course - why wouldn't i? yes men and women are different in general traits and abilities, but there should be nothing stopping a woman from doing a job a man does/can do if she is able to do it as well as he. and the same goes in reverse. but this approach the media has to either be hypocritical and sexist-in-reverse or simply sensationalist is annoying. i won't lose any sleep over it lol, but its just hypocritical in that for the same things to be said about women would in no uncertain terms be offensive and sexist. for those things to be said about men are "just a bit of fun"

perhaps i've had it bad as my mum is a big believer in feminism, burning bra marches, etc... but still, if this hypocracy is in the standard widely-read media, then it makes me a little uncomfortable.


[/rant]

Ignoring the first 800+ replies, I will simply say "no" for me.

to me, Feminism is equality, not superiority.
I tried to point that out at the beginning of this thread and I got gang banged ever since. :eek:

I tried to point that out at the beginning of this thread and I got gang banged ever since. :eek:

I got that gist from what I read. however, it seems that most people didn't catch that.

So I'm offering myself as a target to give you some rest. ;)

Um, yeah, actually, not being married, not having kids, etc, is bad.

See, there is this thing called "critical biomass", and it's basically the lowest amount of population a species is possible to have, and still have enough genetics to perpetuate itself. And, let's say, for, oh, I don't, know, for like, 20 years we adopt the "having kids is evil!" many feminists, such as you, seem to scream. The birthrate drops to virtually zero. Death rates stay the same, maybe go down a little bit, but let's say they stay the same. I'd say, about 1/5 of our population would die, let's say 2/5 of our population moves into the stage where they can't have children, and another 1/5 stays on the feminist path. That leaves 1/5 of the population, roughly 1.2 billion, to repopulate. That is enough, but let's say there is a HUGE war, maybe between China and America, or Feminists and Equalists. Let's say everyone wantd to join in and save the day! There goes another half of our population. Then, rage at the losers, whoever they may be, will decimate 1/5 of that, if not more. So that leaves 480 million people, but nobody wants to bring children into this world, full of death, and disease. So the birth rate flatlines. Now, I'm NOT counting major diseases, meteor hits, global warming effects, etc. So, our race dies. Not likely, I know.

Why, do you ask? I'll tell you why.

Equalists. Many people mistakes Equalists for Feminists. Equalists, support equality. Feminists, like, well, you, on the otherhand, vote for FEMININE superiority. Notice FEMININE is the root word of FEMINIST, just like chauvanists support male superiority.

Many of the people here are Equalists rather than feminists, as they claim, because they have been brainwashed by feminists like you into believing that FEMINISM is great, while everything is horrible, bigoted women suppresers. Modern feminists, like you, believe that women are superior to men in every way, shape, and form. Men and women can NEVER be equal. There will always be differences. Men are stronger, women are faster, ummmmm, what else is there. Women have bigger breasts, uhhhh, etc, etc.


this is a magic thread! just when you think its done, another troll shows up with a new and extremely amusing theory

now not only do feminists hate children but we are endangering the species.

oh no, evil feminists!!

all those poooooooooor men who are so grievously oppressed by bottle! i weep for them.

I tried to point that out at the beginning of this thread and I got gang banged ever since. :eek:

That is EXACTLY what Bottle said it was and you protested her definition of it, simply because she is of the opinion that people who do not believe in equality are not good people. You're persecution complex aside, you got gang-banged because your claim was nonsensical. Equality relates in the way we're using it to immutable qualities, sex, race, sexuality, etc. You suggested that she's a hypocrite because she doesn't treat beliefs like she does the sex of a person. Suggesting that you cannot be a believe in equality unless you accept all beliefs as equal is simply absurd.

while i may not exactly agree, i do get what G&E is saying... feminists proper are for equality of the sexes. what is often portrayed in the media, intentionally or otherwise, is a female-supremist attitude.
two examples from my own experiences: firstly my mum being sent emails from coworkers and reading them out to my dad and i, containing what could only be sexist material against men. i have a sense of humour, but i was irritated by these - not because of the content as much as had i said these same things about women i'd have been labelled instantly as 'sexist' or something, and would have been told off (this was a few years back... she stopped reading them out after i got annoyed). when i rasied my concerns they were little more than 'silly jokes', however. this seems to be a common attitude to "reverse-sexism"

and then there was the Tesco magazine i happened to be leafing through one day, in which there was an article entitled "Change Your Man!!" which alluded modern man to little more than a shaved gorilla in a suit, who loved barbeques and grilled meats because they remind him of tribal days of hunting and cooking animals (i kid ye not). it also incinuated a lot of other very derogitory things (i wish i'd kept the article now!) which, had they been in a men's magazine said about women would be labelled as sexist. however this was just a normal article.

it is this hypocracy that irritates me about modern feminism. i support the goal and equality, of course - why wouldn't i? yes men and women are different in general traits and abilities, but there should be nothing stopping a woman from doing a job a man does/can do if she is able to do it as well as he. and the same goes in reverse. but this approach the media has to either be hypocritical and sexist-in-reverse or simply sensationalist is annoying. i won't lose any sleep over it lol, but its just hypocritical in that for the same things to be said about women would in no uncertain terms be offensive and sexist. for those things to be said about men are "just a bit of fun"

perhaps i've had it bad as my mum is a big believer in feminism, burning bra marches, etc... but still, if this hypocracy is in the standard widely-read media, then it makes me a little uncomfortable.


[/rant]


i dont have a problem with your being pissed at that kind of thing. i only have a problem with your labelling it FEMINIST. unless tesco happens to be a feminist publication in which case its an incredibly lame one. the general media is not going to ever be a force for anything but generating cash for themselves. if portraying men as helpless cave men sells magazines, theyll go for it.

did your mother disagree with your analysis of the jokes? does she get pissed at sexist joke that have women as the butt? it is rather hypocritical to not GET IT that its as wrong to pass sexist jokes about men as it is to pass sexist jokes about women.

i dont have a problem with your being pissed at that kind of thing. i only have a problem with your labelling it FEMINIST. unless tesco happens to be a feminist publication in which case its an incredibly lame one. the general media is not going to ever be a force for anything but generating cash for themselves. if portraying men as helpless cave men sells magazines, theyll go for it.
Tesco isn't a feminist magazine, they are a giant corporation that mainly run food supermarkets and apparently have an accompanying "lifestyle" magazine which I am certain is pure crap.

The general media don't usually make outright sexist comments about women because of the organised feminist resistance that will retaliate against them. There are no significant organised *masculist* resistance groups who would call a publication on sexism against men.

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.
Absolutely. In some ways, both boys and girls suffer as a result of nurture -- boys are taught to bottle up their feelings, girls to over-express them and to be timid. In part this is due to genetics, but not nearly as much as certain other biological aspects of a person.

It's a lesson taught so thouroughly by society that people mistake it for biology.
Thanks for the insight. I would like to say I am surprised by it, but I'm not really. Most girls have been taught to totally abdicate any will-to-power; those that haven't tend to be a rarity (I see this contrast between two of my female cousins actually - one is a power-driven executive, the other is so timid she barely speaks, living in her mother's shadow). However, in societies were women and men are at least formally equal, and which mandate that both participate in the economy (nowadays, even traditionalists will find it hard to argue that a man alone can support a family), I think mothers (parents more generally) are going to have to start teaching their daughters to compete, due both to any sentiments of egalitarianism they may foster, as well as to economic exigencies.

That's what I'm talking about. As long as these images keep being enforced by society, people will go on following the stereotypes.
I study sculpture at art college. Naturally this entail the whole class making things that involve using tools, including power tools. Most female students in the class depend on the technicians to do most of the tool-work for them because they won't bother learning how to use the tools. Can you understand why this is?

When me and others point this out to the girls, they fail to see anything wrong with their laziness, and inability to do things for themselves. As a woman, can you explain this mentality because I can't understand it. As Europa Maxima said, they give up before they even try.

Feminists are equalists (did you make up that term?). Female supremacists are not feminists.

But, Feminists are often more and more likely to be "Feminazis".
I despise Rush Limbaugh but in one isolated moment of clarity the guy actually knew what he was talking about for once...

I study sculpture at art college. Naturally this entail the whole class making things that involve using tools, including power tools. Most female students in the class depend on the technicians to do most of the tool-work for them because they won't bother learning how to use the tools. Can you understand why this is?

When me and others point this out to the girls, they fail to see anything wrong with their laziness, and inability to do things for themselves. As a woman, can you explain this mentality because I can't understand it. As Europa Maxima said, they give up before they even try.

I like using my hands and I always enjoy getting involved with things like that. I find it hard to imagine people refusing to use power tools, it sounds like fun to me. :)

I'll try to explain why I think some women don't seem to be able to do things for themselves. If a woman is carrying something heavy, a guy will usually take it off them. Men are taught that they should help out women, because this is the polite thing to do. Which leads to some women not being used to putting effort into things and expecting this kind of help.

Tesco isn't a feminist magazine, they are a giant corporation that mainly run food supermarkets and apparently have an accompanying "lifestyle" magazine which I am certain is pure crap.

The general media don't usually make outright sexist comments about women because of the organised feminist resistance that will retaliate against them. There are no significant organised *masculist* resistance groups who would call a publication on sexism against men.

even female stereotypes arent as fought against as they used to be.

with the rise of cheesecake magazines like maxim and fhm there is a new sexier sexism in the air (not that i have a problem with those magazines, they amuse the hell out of me) that doesnt seem to get much comment. (outside of those nutcases who classify cheesecake pics as porn). it seems like the media is getting more of a pass all the way around than they deserve.

I study sculpture at art college. Naturally this entail the whole class making things that involve using tools, including power tools. Most female students in the class depend on the technicians to do most of the tool-work for them because they won't bother learning how to use the tools. Can you understand why this is?

When me and others point this out to the girls, they fail to see anything wrong with their laziness, and inability to do things for themselves. As a woman, can you explain this mentality because I can't understand it. As Europa Maxima said, they give up before they even try.

whoa

okok

so these women are taking sculpture because its a requirement but they have no interest in sculpture, RIGHT? they let others do the powertool stuff because they are delicate flowers of feminity who only desire to paint watercolors in the south of france on fine spring mornings. RIGHT?

so in their minds its OK to cheat because they just need to get through this class without breaking too many fingernails, RIGHT?

i cant imagine not wanting to learn to use powertools in a sculpting class. whats the point of the class if not to learn the techniques necessary to get your vision across?

no one can be so stupid as to think that they can BE a professional sculptor without knowing how to sculpt can they?

Cthulhu-Mythos;11870732']But, Feminists are often more and more likely to be "Feminazis".
Than feminists in the past? I disagree. There were probably more of them in the 70s and 80s.

I'll try to explain why I think some women don't seem to be able to do things for themselves. If a woman is carrying something heavy, a guy will usually take it off them. Men are taught that they should help out women, because this is the polite thing to do. Which leads to some women not being used to putting effort into things and expecting this kind of help.
I'm not talking about lifting weights I'm talking about using tools.

If they want the right to do things like attend a university and get a job then they should learn to use tools.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11870732']But, Feminists are often more and more likely to be "Feminazis".
I despise Rush Limbaugh but in one isolated moment of clarity the guy actually knew what he was talking about for once...

more and more eh?

do you have some evidence of this trend that hasnt been pulled out of rush's ass?

I got that gist from what I read. however, it seems that most people didn't catch that.

So I'm offering myself as a target to give you some rest. ;)
Thanks for the relief!! :)

I study sculpture at art college. Naturally this entail the whole class making things that involve using tools, including power tools. Most female students in the class depend on the technicians to do most of the tool-work for them because they won't bother learning how to use the tools. Can you understand why this is?

When me and others point this out to the girls, they fail to see anything wrong with their laziness, and inability to do things for themselves. As a woman, can you explain this mentality because I can't understand it. As Europa Maxima said, they give up before they even try.

I've tried to explain that to myself for ages.
It's been 20 years now since we bought our first VCR. To this day, my mom doesn't know how to record a program. I, on the other hand, could do that after simply reading the manual.
When pushed, my mom will declare that she doesn't need to know it because her kids know. Finally, when there's no other option for her, she'll pick up the manual and delibertaly mess up the descriptions and explanations, making a huge fuss and turn into quite a drama queen.

My guess is, being in any way "technical" is simply not compatible with the image she wants others to have of her. It is very much on the same level as men who refuse to sew a botton back onto their pants, or buy tampons for their wifes... it's not much of a job, but it collides with the image you have of "male" behaviour. If people see you doing it, it might change the image they have of you.

Personally, I hate those images and roles. I've got no problems with power tools, I can handle my VCR, and I love technical challenges. *shrugs*

I can't imagine being afraid to express anger. In my group therapy, so many of the women mentioned being unable to express anger or be assertive. I was raised in the same society as they were, and don't seem to have a problem.

Than feminists in the past? I disagree. There were probably more of them in the 70s and 80s.


I'm not talking about lifting weights I'm talking about using tools.

If they want the right to do things like attend a university and get a job then they should learn to use tools.

I'm not talking about weights. My best mate will see me carrying a few books, and take them off me. Some guys automatically help out girls, for no other reason than because they're female. Personally, I think that it's a bit silly. Women (or anyone for that matter) should be expected to do things for themselves, unless they are actually incapable of doing it.

I can't imagine being afraid to express anger. In my group therapy, so many of the women mentioned being unable to express anger or be assertive. I was raised in the same society as they were, and don't seem to have a problem.

Nobody claims it's impossible to learn to express anger or be assertive as a woman. It's just that this is actively discouraged in girls.
So, either you grew up in a family that had already broken with the tradition, or else you are a few steps further in your charcter developement then many women will ever get. ;)

I'm not talking about weights. My best mate will see me carrying a few books, and take them off me. Some guys automatically help out girls, for no other reason than because they're female. Personally, I think that it's a bit silly. Women (or anyone for that matter) should be expected to do things for themselves, unless they are actually incapable of doing it.

I agree. I usually tell people that when I need help, I don't have a problem asking for it. If I don't ask, I don't need help.

That doesn't mean that common courtesy like holding doors should be dropped... after all, I hold doors for males and females alike.

I agree. I usually tell people that when I need help, I don't have a problem asking for it. If I don't ask, I don't need help.

That doesn't mean that common courtesy like holding doors should be dropped... after all, I hold doors for males and females alike.
I live in England - you're practically expected to hold the door open for someone, be they male or female. :p

On that same token, equal means equal. Men and women are equal. Not one above the other. Equal.
Equal but different, surely?

I live in England - you're practically expected to hold the door open for someone, be they male or female. :p

Same in Ireland. That's one of the reasons I feel so at home here.
Holding a door open in Germany is a very rare occurence, people only do it for frends or acquaintances, I think...

Equal but different, surely?

No more than men are different from other men, and women from other women ;)
Unless you're refering to sexual organs.

Equal but different, surely?

Here's the difference between men and women.

Men have penises.
Girls have coochies. Also PMS. And boobies.

No more than men are different from other men, and women from other women ;)
Unless you're refering to sexual organs.

surely testosterone and estrogen play some role into the differences between men and women (someone familiar with biology say something)? and who the hell wants them to be the same? Women wouldn't be as hot if they were like men in every aspect. although that doesn't apply to legal equality, it's just something to remember...

Nobody claims it's impossible to learn to express anger or be assertive as a woman. It's just that this is actively discouraged in girls.
So, either you grew up in a family that had already broken with the tradition, or else you are a few steps further in your charcter developement then many women will ever get. ;)
My father, who boxed golden gloves, taught me how to box. So it must be the upbringing. Though where he got the idea from, who knows.

Same in Ireland. That's one of the reasons I feel so at home here.
Holding a door open in Germany is a very rare occurence, people only do it for frends or acquaintances, I think...
Haha yeah it's one of those many quirky things we do in South Africa too - we overdo it with the politeness there.

[/off topic]

Haha yeah it's one of those many quirky things we do in South Africa too - we overdo it with the politeness there.

[/off topic]

You can't overdo politeness... "Politness is a cushion filled with air. There's nothing in it, but it does absorb the blows of life quite a bit" ;)

No more than men are different from other men, and women from other women ;)
Unless you're refering to sexual organs.

Do you really think so? I think we are both equal, surley, but to say we are not different is sorta pushing it, in my opinion. Generally, you dont think girls behave, think, and act differently than boys?

so these women are taking sculpture because its a requirement but they have no interest in sculpture, RIGHT? they let others do the powertool stuff because they are delicate flowers of feminity who only desire to paint watercolors in the south of france on fine spring mornings. RIGHT?

so in their minds its OK to cheat because they just need to get through this class without breaking too many fingernails, RIGHT?

i cant imagine not wanting to learn to use powertools in a sculpting class. whats the point of the class if not to learn the techniques necessary to get your vision across?

no one can be so stupid as to think that they can BE a professional sculptor without knowing how to sculpt can they?
You sound outraged and you should be. But it's true I'm talking about girls who have chosen to study for a degree in sculpture, but still want to put off learning this stuff until the last minute. Mind you, this isn't all or a even a solid majority of the female sculpture students, but still a number high enough to be of concern.

The ones I'm talking about as I said use the technicians to do the work for them. It's ultimately self-defeating because after they leave college they will have to pay people (who am I fooling, I mean MEN) to help them if they don't learn soon (though I am confident that almost all of them will learn, even if reluctantly).

I live in England - you're practically expected to hold the door open for someone, be they male or female. :p
I don't think I've ever seen anyone who would only open the door for one sexm but I would probably assume that they're only after some ass.

Same in Ireland. That's one of the reasons I feel so at home here.
I live in Ireland but I don't like the habit, I can open my own doors thank you very much.

Haha yeah it's one of those many quirky things we do in South Africa too - we overdo it with the politeness there.
[/off topic]
Really? In the same country where incinerating carjackers is regarded as civilised necessity?

You can't overdo politeness
Believe me you can... some people I know insist on standards of politeness so high that I feel my freedom of speech is being crushed.

Do you really think so? I think we are both equal, surley, but to say we are not different is sorta pushing it, in my opinion. Generally, you dont think girls behave, think, and act differently than boys?

Have you noticed that these differences in behaviour are nonexistent in infants and toddlers, but get more and more pronounced as their education and social integration progresses?

Ok, I'm not saying that there are no statistical biological differences, but I do think they are by far less pronouced than we think. Most of the differences are not natural but learned.

Really? In the same country where incinerating carjackers is regarded as civilised necessity?
Ever been to ZA and specifically white-dominated communities? You'll see what I mean then.

Have you noticed that these differences in behaviour are nonexistent in infants and toddlers, but get more and more pronounced as their education and social integration progresses?

Ok, I'm not saying that there are no statistical biological differences, but I do think they are by far less pronouced than we think. Most of the differences are not natural but learned.

Sure, they grow into it more by our social norms, but I still think there is a genetic/psych element to it.

For instance, I am the older brother of a younger sister, and younger brother.

My sister and brother had the same kind of toys available, yet she enjoyed playing with the girly stuff, and having the tea parties and all that, while my brother enjoyed the legos, and the action figures, and the action shows, and the cool video games.

I think its already there, our soceity just enchances it.

Therefore, I say equal (before the law and all that, no superior or enferior), but different.:)

Sure, they grow into it more by our social norms, but I still think there is a genetic/psych element to it.

For instance, I am the older brother of a younger sister, and younger brother.

My sister and brother had the same kind of toys available, yet she enjoyed playing with the girly stuff, and having the tea parties and all that, while my brother enjoyed the legos, and the action figures, and the action shows, and the cool video games.

I think its already there, our soceity just enchances it.

Therefore, I say equal (before the law and all that, no superior or enferior), but different.:)

Well, that's still just one person out of many. I've had many female friends who prefer action figures, legos, and video games over the "girly" things.

And most of these girls also happen to prefer Rock 'n' Roll to Pop. Imagine that!

Society encourages women not to think for themselves.

Ever been to ZA and specifically white-dominated communities? You'll see what I mean then.
No I've never been to South Africa and I don't really want to go there.

I'm not talking about weights. My best mate will see me carrying a few books, and take them off me. Some guys automatically help out girls, for no other reason than because they're female. Personally, I think that it's a bit silly. Women (or anyone for that matter) should be expected to do things for themselves, unless they are actually incapable of doing it.

There is a way around that. Next time you see them carrying something they're perfectly capable of carrying, take it (or some of it) from them and carry it. Don't ask if they need help. If they ask you why you're doing it, say "Well, you help me all the time, so I thought I'd help you today." :D

No I've never been to South Africa and I don't really want to go there.
All I can say is tant pis pour toi. I am not going to engage in some ethnicist self-parody.

You sound outraged and you should be. But it's true I'm talking about girls who have chosen to study for a degree in sculpture, but still want to put off learning this stuff until the last minute. Mind you, this isn't all or a even a solid majority of the female sculpture students, but still a number high enough to be of concern.

The ones I'm talking about as I said use the technicians to do the work for them. It's ultimately self-defeating because after they leave college they will have to pay people (who am I fooling, I mean MEN) to help them if they don't learn soon (though I am confident that almost all of them will learn, even if reluctantly).


im shocked that anyone thinks they can be a reluctant sculptor.

i have a reason though

power tools arent feminine.

a woman brought up with strict notions of what is and isnt feminine has a very hard time doing masculine things

see? you are laughing at the very notion that power sculpting tools can be masculine. these poor girls are handicapping themselves by adhering to standards that have gone by. no one would think them less feminine if they could grab a tool and bring a piece of art from nothing with it.

a woman brought up with strict notions of what is and isnt feminine has a very hard time doing masculine things

see? you are laughing at the very notion that power sculpting tools can be masculine. these poor girls are handicapping themselves by adhering to standards that have gone by. no one would think them less feminine if they could grab a tool and bring a piece of art from nothing with it.
And no surprise these are usually the same girls that express more negative opinions about feminists than most male students would. (Despite the fact that they should thank feminists for being allowed to attend university.)

All I can say is tant pis pour toi. I am not going to engage in some ethnicist self-parody.
Maybe I'll go when the crime situation improves.

Well, that's still just one person out of many. I've had many female friends who prefer action figures, legos, and video games over the "girly" things.

And most of these girls also happen to prefer Rock 'n' Roll to Pop. Imagine that!

Yeah, I remember asking for a robot for Christmas when I was two or three. I grew up with video games; where's the fun in dolls? Unless they came with books, like the American Girl dolls, I never really saw the point.

Sure, they grow into it more by our social norms, but I still think there is a genetic/psych element to it.

For instance, I am the older brother of a younger sister, and younger brother.

My sister and brother had the same kind of toys available, yet she enjoyed playing with the girly stuff, and having the tea parties and all that, while my brother enjoyed the legos, and the action figures, and the action shows, and the cool video games.

I think its already there, our soceity just enchances it.

Therefore, I say equal (before the law and all that, no superior or enferior), but different.:)

Well, I'm the oldest girl, with two younger brothers. I played with Lego for most of my childhood, dolls always bored me. But my youngest brother used to enjoy knitting a lot for a while.

The question is not what toys are available, but what toys will your parents approve of? When my youngest brother started to like knitting, my mother would do her utmost to discourage him. I think he only stuck to it because his older sister (who I have to admit he admires) kept telling him it was great that he liked it.

Society encourages the differences between the sexes so much that it is nearly impossible to tell how much is actually genetic difference. 100 years ago, people would have told you that women are psychologically unable to follow politics and should therefore not be allowed to vote. 50 years ago people would have told you that women are naturally happier to stay at home with their family than to go out and work, therefore it would be unfair to them to force them through the same education as boys. Both of these assumptions are based on observations made at the time.

My guess is that it the natural psychological difference far, far smaller than we assume today.

Maybe I'll go when the crime situation improves.
The crime scene is exaggerated -- sure, it exists, but it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be in the South Coast areas, which are primarily a tourist resort. You just need to be aware which places to avoid - just like I would say to any tourist planning on visiting England.

My guess is that it the natural psychological difference far, far smaller than we assume today.
Meh, then I suppose thats what it boils down to; guesswork, both on your side of the debate and mine.

I dont know, men and women have always had roles in soceity, and almost always have roles in nature, and are different, I see no reason to go against nature. I have no problem with women in the workforce, but I do beleive the womens first place (if she has kids) is as a mother, as I think, like almost always in nature, a mother is needed for a good childs growth. Obviously a father is needed also, but I dont think to the same extent as the mother.

Meh, then I suppose thats what it boils down to; guesswork, both on your side of the debate and mine.

I dont know, men and women have always had roles in soceity, and almost always have roles in nature, and are different, I see no reason to go against nature. I have no problem with women in the workforce, but I do beleive the womens first place (if she has kids) is as a mother, as I think, like almost always in nature, a mother is needed for a good childs growth. Obviously a father is needed also, but I dont think to the same extent as the mother.

I agree insofar as I think that if a couple decide to have children, their first obligation will be to those children from then on.
I don't think that mothers are more important then fathers, though. To me, the most important people in my first 4 years were my grandparents. It's not important is a focal point for the child, it is important that there is a focal point.
The more people there are for the child, the better.

That is EXACTLY what Bottle said it was and you protested her definition of it, simply because she is of the opinion that people who do not believe in equality are not good people.
That is NOT exactly what Bottle stated (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859951&postcount=199). She didn't say anything about good people or bad people. She talked about about inferior people, or the word she used "sub-par". It was her response that illicted my reply. Do try to keep up. :p

You're persecution complex aside, you got gang-banged because your claim was nonsensical.
I really don't have a persecution complex, but you appear to enjoy throwing out the bait? Perhaps you feel that my claim is "nonsensical" because you don't understand it. That would be your problem not mine.

Equality relates in the way we're using it to immutable qualities, sex, race, sexuality, etc.
Hold the fort there pilgrim. We are discussing "feminism". You want to keep polluting the discussion with other issues totally unrelated.

You suggested that she's a hypocrite because she doesn't treat beliefs like she does the sex of a person. Suggesting that you cannot be a believe in equality unless you accept all beliefs as equal is simply absurd.
What is "absurd" is that you are reading far too much into this and misinterpreting what I have said.

How does one promote "equality" if they make statements like these:

non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place

Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes, anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment, but they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.

I 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 found that most non-idiots are feminists these days

so you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you want to try to date an anti-feminist.
Helluva sales job?

*snip*


Seriously, I'm sorry that embarrassing yourself is this important to you.

A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes.

It is exactly what Bottle said.

In my opinion,

She then proceeded to give her personal opinion on people who don't believe in equality and your replies were to keep suggesting that it makes her a hypocrite because she is not tolerant of behaviors and beliefs that are against equality. One, of course, has nothing to do with the other because believing in equality has nothing to do with accepting all beliefs as equal or refusing to condemn the choices of individuals, like individuals who act or believe counter to equality of people.

Was it something that I would say? Nope. I don't agree with her. However, rather than disagree or show why you think they aren't lowlifes you took the unfathomable position that believing that people who act or believe counter to equality are lowlifes makes her not a believer in equality.

Face it, there is no logic behind your position, so instead of defending it logically, you've continued to suggest that Bottle having this belief cannot be a supportor of equality.

Equality has NOTHING, NOTHING to do with accepting all beliefs as equal. Nothing. Even you admit that you detest bigotry. She specifically defined a feminist and thus a non-feminist (which you defined as just meaning "not a feminist"). Non-feminists by her definition are people who do not believe in the equality of the sexes and she specifically compares them to other intolerant beliefs. The idea that tolerance requires people to like or think highly of the intolerant is simply absurd.

Let's look at your replies -
So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?
Again, as if equality has anything to do with accepting the individual actions and beliefs of people who don't believe in equality.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11860034&postcount=210
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11860024&postcount=208
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11860083&postcount=222
Several people tried to explain to you that she simply doesn't like their ethics and that they agree with her. You're eventual response was -
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11862991&postcount=471
I detest bigotry. That is why I questioned Bottle's post.

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

You straight out try to claim that non-feminists are not bigots. However, she clearly defines her terms, and thus if you are not a feminist under her term then you don't believe in the equality of the sexes. It doesn't matter what people call themselves, she was talking about their actual beliefs and made it absolutely clear she was talking about bigots even mentioning other bigots. You tried to make this about people who don't self-identify or people who don't make certian choices, but she was talking about what they believe and condemned bigots, something you admit you do. It's really that simply.

She detests bigotry too. She was talking about bigotry and bigots. No reading of her post that doesn't make up what it said can come to the conclusion that bigotry wasn't the point.

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


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


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

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11865489&postcount=638
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.

Let's be clear. You openly stated that you were looking at a different definition of feminist. She defined her term and thus people who are 'non-feminists' are people who don't believe in the equality of the sexes. You changed the definition of the term she used and defined before she used and then condemned her for it. THAT is illogical.

For forty pages you've been whining about the fact that people prefer to read what she said instead of what you wanted her to mean. You're still trying to make is say something it doesn't.


http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11864581&postcount=511
She even showed up and further clarified her point, but you still continue to claim she wasn't explicitly referring to bigots. She was. You said you also detest bigots. Hypocrite.

Of course, you never replied to her here. Instead just continued on with your ridiculous claims. Admit it, you responded to her posts reading in what you believed feminism and thus non-feminism to mean and thinking she was attacking housewives or people who don't self-identify as feminists. That's not what she said, no matter how many times you repeat that she did.

No more than men are different from other men, and women from other women ;)
Unless you're refering to sexual organs.

Well, that's still just one person out of many. I've had many female friends who prefer action figures, legos, and video games over the "girly" things.

And most of these girls also happen to prefer Rock 'n' Roll to Pop. Imagine that!

yes, but do they look like hot girls or tomboys?

Why?Read on, ya bastard.


Oh, that's why. *falls about laughing helplessly.*I will be the first to admit, it is a very precarious theory, and will only happen if female supremecists like Bottle take control.


Which is stupid of them because there's no such thing as an "equalist." That's not a word in English.Neither was Feminist until it was introduced in the 1920's. The only reason I use it is because I could think of nothing better. Libertarian might work, but it just didn't seem right at the moment.

this is a magic thread! just when you think its done, another troll shows up with a new and extremely amusing theory Funny. And I'M the troll.

now not only do feminists hate children but we are endangering the species. I never said they hate children. Don't read crap into my posts. I merely said that if Bottle was the typical feminist, then feminists must not like women having kids.

oh no, evil feminists!!
*Glares around and cocks shotgun* Where are they?

all those poooooooooor men who are so grievously oppressed by bottle! i weep for them.
You do to? Join the club. Not a very happy. Hey, but it means you might finally have some friends. Not me, of course. But somebody. Maybe.

Until Bottle comes back, I have nothing to do. Good-bye.

Until Bottle comes back, I have nothing to do. Good-bye.

oh darlin' if bottle comes back and decides to respond, youre going to wish you had spent your time sharpening your wits.

good luck.

yes, but do they look like hot girls or tomboys?

....since when are these two things mutually exclusive? :p

Read on, ya bastard.


I will be the first to admit, it is a very precarious theory, and will only happen if female supremecists like Bottle take control.


.
Since when does sticking up for women's rights make one a female supremecist?
Strong, smart women tend to scare some men. A man who's secure in his masculinity has no need to tremble at the sight of an independent woman.

Me. I would love to marry or be in a serious relationship with a modern feminist. Sometimes you get tired of subservient, quiet women and want a hardcore bitch.

Me. I would love to marry or be in a serious relationship with a modern feminist. Sometimes you get tired of subservient, quiet women and want a hardcore bitch.\

your better off just renting one .

\

your better off just renting one .

Whatever. My balls are big enough that I'm not threatened by an assertive woman. Seems like a lot of guys around here have a problem with that.

Hmm... my girlfriend could perhaps be described as a feminist, but she's not snooty or bitchy about it, and doesn't parrot the old rhetoric about blah blah blah patriarchal society blah blah blah.... I guess she's not at all the sort of feminist you're talking about. Oh well. Never mind.

Whatever. My balls are big enough that I'm not threatened by an assertive woman. Seems like a lot of guys around here have a problem with that.


After a while assertive bitchy women can get to be like a nagging puss filled abbsessed tooth and you will need to remove it.


your balls have nothing to do with ...unless you consider how much they will be broken.

Lets put two A types toghether and give one PMS and a sense of entitlement.... sounds like a plan ...:D

yes, but do they look like hot girls or tomboys?

You mean you've never seen one that looks like both? Poor sod...

i dont have a problem with your being pissed at that kind of thing. i only have a problem with your labelling it FEMINIST. unless tesco happens to be a feminist publication in which case its an incredibly lame one. the general media is not going to ever be a force for anything but generating cash for themselves. if portraying men as helpless cave men sells magazines, theyll go for it.

fair point, and Tesco isn't a feminist magazine (as has been said). however this still doesn't negate the hypocracy that was my point in the first place, labels aside. for those things (or equivalent) to be said about women in a magazine would most likely lead to outrage in the media, or at the very least detractions by the magazine in question. i'm aware that this is not "feminism", however the hypocracy in the media promotes the non-feminist female-supremist attitude in a "just a bit of fun" guise... as i said, i'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, nor do i particularly care, its just my observation on the matter.

if portraying men as helpless cave men sells magazines, then surely that proves my point? or maybe it shows this attitude is more widespread than some may give it credit for.

as i said, i'm a supporter of equality, and if feminism as a movement means that, then i support feminism. however the attitude i see portrayed all too much in the media is a non-equalitist (if thats a word) attitude wrapped up in a guise of fun, and for the same 'fun' to be had at women's expense would be instantly labelled as sexist and wrong. that's my problem

The problem I'd have living with most women who call themselves feminists is the hypocrisy.
It seems to be all about give me the good stuff, but non of the bad stuff. I shall present a hypotheticals to put across my point.

A husband and wife both work the same hours, and have no kids. Each night the husband makes dinner, cleans up, etc, and on the weekend he vacuums, mops, mows the lawn, the whole lot. Now all the women are saying "Where do I get myself one of those?" If it was the other way round, they would be yelling "Sexist, why doesn't the man do his share, lazy prick, etc".

When a man and women live together, when has a woman ever said, "Don't worry, you stay asleep, I'll deal with it?" when she thought she heard a noise in the house, saw a snake, spider, burnt out fuse, etc. Not often. Equality means equality. You get to be bashed by the burglar, you get to be bitten by the snake. Equality! You want him to do half the dishes, you mow the lawn every second time. You put the rubbish out. Equality.

Lets move on to work. A women can't not use that time of the month as an excuse, and expect to be treated the same as other employees. If you don't work aswell as other employees 25% of the time, the boss has a right to fire you. If a man is depressed because of erectile dysfunction, will his boss accept a poorer quality of work? No.
In regards to pregnancy, I think it is the duty of the government, through the taxpayer, to cover maternal leave, not the employer.

The "Glass ceiling". Hmm. Nearly every CEO, Supreme Court Judge, etc has over 20 years experience. Considering how long equality in work opportunities has been happening, there are very few adequate female applicants for the positions, so of course there's more men.

A lack of consideration or concern if things go too far the other way. For years there have been "Women in Science" scholarships, programs, etc to help more women to get in to science, which is the right thing to do. Now though, the number of men going to Uni is falling behind women to a significant degree, and often this is portrayed as a good thing.

There's more hypocrisy. I could write a novel on this, but I'll stop now with the standard disclaimer. I'm sure you know, or are, an internally consistent, non - hypocritical feminist, and how could I say such things, etc. This thread is all about sweeping generalisations (when it's not ad hominem personal attacks) and thus I am talking about what I perceive as a majority.

The problem I'd have living with most women who call themselves feminists is the hypocrisy.
It seems to be all about give me the good stuff, but non of the bad stuff. I shall present a hypotheticals to put across my point.

A husband and wife both work the same hours, and have no kids. Each night the husband makes dinner, cleans up, etc, and on the weekend he vacuums, mops, mows the lawn, the whole lot. Now all the women are saying "Where do I get myself one of those?" If it was the other way round, they would be yelling "Sexist, why doesn't the man do his share, lazy prick, etc".

Ok, kid, let a feminist answer that :
When I make dinner, he cleans the dishes. When he makes dinner, I clean them. I mow the lawn, he does the ironing (I hate ironing), etc.
We share the household. I would not ever want that any other way.


When a man and women live together, when has a woman ever said, "Don't worry, you stay asleep, I'll deal with it?" when she thought she heard a noise in the house, saw a snake, spider, burnt out fuse, etc. Not often. Equality means equality. You get to be bashed by the burglar, you get to be bitten by the snake. Equality! You want him to do half the dishes, you mow the lawn every second time. You put the rubbish out. Equality.

No snakes here. And I've got to take care of spiders, he's scared of them (ok, so am I, but less so than he is). Yes, equality.

I've got no idea where you got those stereotypical image of women, it sounds like you've been reading cartoons to get to those conclusions.


Lets move on to work. A women can't not use that time of the month as an excuse, and expect to be treated the same as other employees. If you don't work aswell as other employees 25% of the time, the boss has a right to fire you. If a man is depressed because of erectile dysfunction, will his boss accept a poorer quality of work? No.

Not sure what you're saying.... are you actually implying I work less efficient when I have my period? That must be the reason then why I got named as the most reliable person on my team, not one of my male coworkers, right? :rolleyes:


In regards to pregnancy, I think it is the duty of the government, through the taxpayer, to cover maternal leave, not the employer.

I don't know what dream world you're living in, but maternity leave is unpaid.


The "Glass ceiling". Hmm. Nearly every CEO, Supreme Court Judge, etc has over 20 years experience. Considering how long equality in work opportunities has been happening, there are very few adequate female applicants for the positions, so of course there's more men.

Or maybe there are just a large number of uninformed men around who think that women always unproductive during their period?
See, that's what we need feminism for, to do away with such nonsense and present the hard facts.


A lack of consideration or concern if things go too far the other way. For years there have been "Women in Science" scholarships, programs, etc to help more women to get in to science, which is the right thing to do. Now though, the number of men going to Uni is falling behind women to a significant degree, and often this is portrayed as a good thing.

Again, I don't know where you live, but here there are still less women at university than men, although the numbers are slowly getting equal. Which is a good thing indeed.

Ok, kid, let a feminist answer that :
When I make dinner, he cleans the dishes. When he makes dinner, I clean them. I mow the lawn, he does the ironing (I hate ironing), etc.
We share the household. I would not ever want that any other way.
similar set up here, I cook, he does the laundry, I fix the car, he takes care of the lawn, everybody cleans.



No snakes here. And I've got to take care of spiders, he's scared of them (ok, so am I, but less so than he is). Yes, equality.

LOL I have spider duty here too, he is deathly afraid of them, I used to be afraid but the more I kill the more apathetic I am about them. He still takes care of other things I am afraid of (snakes, crickets, weird dogs) and we both get up in the middle of the night for the weird sound, you think I am going to sleep and leave my husband out there all alone in the unknown? besides, 2 kids to protect it just makes sense to have 2 adults checking stuff out.




I don't know what dream world you're living in, but maternity leave is unpaid.
I think it depends on the company, but, hubby's co. at the time I had my kids had maternity and paternity leave, he took 3 weeks off for both kids (even though 6 was available)

The problem I'd have living with most women who call themselves feminists is the hypocrisy.
It seems to be all about give me the good stuff, but non of the bad stuff. I shall present a hypotheticals to put across my point.


What about war? You say all of the good stuff, and none of the bad, but... there are women out there that have been campaigning to have the same access to putting their lives on the line for their country.

As far as I know, the female gender is no MORE bullet-proof than the male... so these women are almost definitively asking for the most 'bad stuff' they can get, in the name of equality.


A husband and wife both work the same hours, and have no kids. Each night the husband makes dinner, cleans up, etc, and on the weekend he vacuums, mops, mows the lawn, the whole lot. Now all the women are saying "Where do I get myself one of those?" If it was the other way round, they would be yelling "Sexist, why doesn't the man do his share, lazy prick, etc".


I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

If this was reversed... if the woman was doing all the chores as well as working the same hours, some guys would be asking "where do I get myself one of these?"... and some would be saying the man should be acting like less of a handicap to the family, in the home.

The same is true of women - some will answer one way, some the other.

The thing is, though: I am defined by YOUR decision. I am not hypocritical, just because I want equality, but you want a slave.


When a man and women live together, when has a woman ever said, "Don't worry, you stay asleep, I'll deal with it?" when she thought she heard a noise in the house, saw a snake, spider, burnt out fuse, etc. Not often. Equality means equality. You get to be bashed by the burglar, you get to be bitten by the snake. Equality! You want him to do half the dishes, you mow the lawn every second time. You put the rubbish out. Equality.


You've created an entirely imaginery scenario... what do you think that 'proves'? Perhaps, you believe your example is grounded in reality... but of ALL the couples in the world, how many have YOU actually been IN?

A pretty small fraction, if any, right?


Lets move on to work. A women can't not use that time of the month as an excuse, and expect to be treated the same as other employees. If you don't work aswell as other employees 25% of the time, the boss has a right to fire you. If a man is depressed because of erectile dysfunction, will his boss accept a poorer quality of work? No.
In regards to pregnancy, I think it is the duty of the government, through the taxpayer, to cover maternal leave, not the employer.


As a point - a good boss will work to maximise his staffs strength AND minimise their weakness. So - if he can, a good boss will put Bob back in the office when he has a cold, and let Tiffany cover the phones. By the same token... if Tiffany isn't sociable three days out of every thirty... maybe the good boss wouldn't be putting her where that was an issue?

All of which is about management.... the ACTUAL point is - you create (yet another) strawman argument. The real life application of your scenario is pretty weak - it's not something I've ever seen in reality.

Indeed, I've worked on a lot of process centre, call centre, type jobs - fairly equal divisions of gender - and, when you have 400 people in one big room, you can't single out the one who is menstruating, based on her work performance.

Oh - I'll admit that some women may have period issues that are beyond the normal... we had one girl who really DID get a noticable amount of pain... it DID affect her work. But we also had a girl with Irritable Bowel that caused her a lot of pain, and a guy with a smashed kneecap. Pain can affect work, but that kind of scenraio is the EXCEPTION, not the rule... and exceptional circumstances SHOULD be treated as such.


The "Glass ceiling". Hmm. Nearly every CEO, Supreme Court Judge, etc has over 20 years experience. Considering how long equality in work opportunities has been happening, there are very few adequate female applicants for the positions, so of course there's more men.


There is more men for another reason... a far more important one: men have historically held such positions in the majority of cases, and many of them resist 'letting a woman in'.


A lack of consideration or concern if things go too far the other way. For years there have been "Women in Science" scholarships, programs, etc to help more women to get in to science, which is the right thing to do. Now though, the number of men going to Uni is falling behind women to a significant degree, and often this is portrayed as a good thing.


By your own example above, it would be - since it would result in more women with the 'experience'... and enable the balance to work it's way through.

It would fix the problem you suggested exists - a lack of qualified FEMALE applicant for the highest paid jobs.

Do you have any statistics to back your claims?


There's more hypocrisy. I could write a novel on this...


And it would still be hollow. I'm sure you feel very passionate about this, but your entire argument is based on bias, not fact.


...but I'll stop now with the standard disclaimer. I'm sure you know, or are, an internally consistent, non - hypocritical feminist, and how could I say such things, etc. This thread is all about sweeping generalisations (when it's not ad hominem personal attacks) and thus I am talking about what I perceive as a majority.

Which doesn't really matter - since I'd say, in my experience, your 'perception' is a very poor reflection of reality.

I think it depends on the company, but, hubby's co. at the time I had my kids had maternity and paternity leave, he took 3 weeks off for both kids (even though 6 was available)

I think it is fairly general... if my wife had been working where I work, she would have ben allowed what I was allowed - as much paid time off, as I could cover with sick-leave and holiday. Anything after that, is unpaid.

I think it depends on the company, but, hubby's co. at the time I had my kids had maternity and paternity leave, he took 3 weeks off for both kids (even though 6 was available)

I wasn't refering to a few weeks, there, sorry bout the misunderstanding. Maternity leave in Germany is unpaid and can be up to 3 years.

I wasn't refering to a few weeks, there, sorry bout the misunderstanding. Maternity leave in Germany is unpaid and can be up to 3 years.

wow. that's interesting. the materity leave here is mostly just for postpartum care and they don't really pay all that often.

wow. that's interesting. the materity leave here is mostly just for postpartum care and they don't really pay all that often.

Not quite sure how the financial part is regulated. You do get "Kindergeld", meaning the government will pay you a monthly sum for each child. But if they actually pay you for staying at home for the first few months and years, I really don't know.

There's more hypocrisy. I could write a novel on this, but I'll stop now with the standard disclaimer. I'm sure you know, or are, an internally consistent, non - hypocritical feminist, and how could I say such things, etc. This thread is all about sweeping generalisations (when it's not ad hominem personal attacks) and thus I am talking about what I perceive as a majority.

The whole point of this paragraph was to stop the "I mow the lawn" response, but yet they still come.Goody for you, by the way.:headbang:

I don't know what dream world you're living in, but maternity leave is unpaid.

This shows you didn't actually read what I wrote. I said I think the government should cover Maternity Leave. i didn't say it did. :headbang:
And multiple countries have paid mat leave. All the Scandanavian countries, many jobs in the European Union and the United Kingdom.

In regards to work, I work an office job. Every time furniture is to be moved, a customer is aggressive, the Men deal with it. But yet when the staff kitchen is to be claned, we need to help out. We keep the bad stuff. That isn't equality.

That is the primary point. We keep the bad stuff about being a man, but take the bad stuff that the women traditionally had. Men are expected to be the big protector, fix the car, do the heavy lifting, etc. We keep that, but we are also expected to do half the nurturing role within our abilities (we can't breastfeed), the washing, cleaning, etc. We are expected to go see Ballet with our partner, but they aren't expected to go see WWE Battle in the Cage. We have to watch 50 First Dates, but they wont watch Terminator III.
Myself, I would watch ballet or opera before my partner would, and I'd headbutt a wall before watching Terminator III but (hopefully) you get my point. :headbang:

Before responding, remember that if you are nerdy enough to play Nation States and be on this forum, you are probably not a typical representation of the general populace. Keep this in mind, before you say, but I do this, so since I do it, it shows your post is wrong. Obviously I must consider myself a nerd and not representtive of the general populace, before anyone gets huffy at me for Insulting them.

Or maybe there are just a large number of uninformed men around who think that women always unproductive during their period?
See, that's what we need feminism for, to do away with such nonsense and present the hard facts.
I'm with you on most of this, but he did actually have a point - there will of course be a lag between equality in employmees before you get equality in management/CEOs, as you need to have people with the experience. This and other factors such as carer breaks for children play a significant part in the reasos for fewer female executives - it is not just because of sexist dinosaurs in the boardroom.

Such as recently in the UK there was an issue about why are there no female bishops, and it was pointed out that there had only been female priests for a cople of years, and normally a priest is a priest for many years before making bishop.


Again, I don't know where you live, but here there are still less women at university than men, although the numbers are slowly getting equal. Which is a good thing indeed.
The report also showed women were 18% more likely than men to enter higher education in 2000 - up from 6% in 1994 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4185697.stm).

Higher education rates in the UK are pretty good for women compared to men (in the general case blah blah). However this does not mean equality as many of the women are in courses that are stereotypically female and that tend to go on to lower paying careers than some of the more male dominated courses - such as Nursing compared to Accounting. The main exception is Medicine - which now has larger numbers of women entering than men and pays damn well.

Also - many typical 'male' carers that do not require universitty pay much better than many typical 'female' careers that don't require university. Which plays a part in more women wanting to go into higher education.

Fleeing Oppressed; I think it's clear you haven't yet realised that feminism is specifically about addressing all of those stereotypical gender roles and behaviours that you're fuming over.

T

This shows you didn't actually read what I wrote. I said I think the government should cover Maternity Leave. i didn't say it did. :headbang:

Incorrect. You said employers shouldn't pay for it, and I pointed out that they don't.


In regards to work, I work an office job. Every time furniture is to be moved, a customer is aggressive, the Men deal with it. But yet when the staff kitchen is to be claned, we need to help out. We keep the bad stuff. That isn't equality.


Maybe you should bring that up with your employer, then. I've dealt with aggressive customers and moving furniture in my job.


That is the primary point. We keep the bad stuff about being a man, but take the bad stuff that the women traditionally had. Men are expected to be the big protector, fix the car, do the heavy lifting, etc. We keep that, but we are also expected to do half the nurturing role within our abilities (we can't breastfeed), the washing, cleaning, etc.

If that shoe fits you, that might be your problem. I don't expect men to protect me, nor do the dirty or heavy work for me. I think you might be better of with more feminists around you, instead of lazy traditional women.


We are expected to go see Ballet with our partner, but they aren't expected to go see WWE Battle in the Cage. We have to watch 50 First Dates, but they wont watch Terminator III.
Myself, I would watch ballet or opera before my partner would, and I'd headbutt a wall before watching Terminator III but (hopefully) you get my point. :headbang:

Not quite... so your partner doesn't like opera and ballett, and you don't like action movies, but you complain about having to see both?
My partner hates cinema, so if I want to go, I go alone or with friends, but I don't drag him along. It's called respect.


Before responding, remember that if you are nerdy enough to play Nation States and be on this forum, you are probably not a typical representation of the general populace. Keep this in mind, before you say, but I do this, so since I do it, it shows your post is wrong. Obviously I must consider myself a nerd and not representtive of the general populace, before anyone gets huffy at me for Insulting them.

You're complaining about female behaviour. I'm a female.
Telling me I'm not a typical female because I post here would be like stating that all normal men are rapists, but if you aren't it's probably because you post here.

The report also showed women were 18% more likely than men to enter higher education in 2000 - up from 6% in 1994 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4185697.stm).

Higher education rates in the UK are pretty good for women compared to men (in the general case blah blah). However this does not mean equality as many of the women are in courses that are stereotypically female and that tend to go on to lower paying careers than some of the more male dominated courses - such as Nursing compared to Accounting. The main exception is Medicine - which now has larger numbers of women entering than men and pays damn well.

Also - many typical 'male' carers that do not require universitty pay much better than many typical 'female' careers that don't require university. Which plays a part in more women wanting to go into higher education.

Very good example. While I was at universtity, one of our profs for Librarianship showed us an interesting statistic concerning salaries. Apparently, the profession was male-dominated before WW I in Germany. During the war, more and more female employees entered the field, and wages dropped significantly. And they stayed there until today.

Very good example. While I was at universtity, one of our profs for Librarianship showed us an interesting statistic concerning salaries. Apparently, the profession was male-dominated before WW I in Germany. During the war, more and more female employees entered the field, and wages dropped significantly. And they stayed there until today.
There are similar concerns for medicine - last year I saw an article by a senior female surgeon who was concerned that rising numbers of women in the profession would damage the respect for doctors and the pay they command.

Like it did with teaching and librarians.

No amount of leglislation will protect against this which is why dispite equal oppertunities laws feminism has a LOT of work left to do - changing societys views of women and work.

There are similar concerns for medicine - last year I saw an article by a senior female surgeon who was concerned that rising numbers of women in the profession would damage the respect for doctors and the pay they command.

Like it did with teaching and librarians.

No amount of leglislation will protect against this which is why dispite equal oppertunities laws feminism has a LOT of work left to do - changing societys views of women and work.

The Western world has the legislation now, there's very little left to do appart from making sure that it's enforced.
But society still has a long way to go before women are recognised as equal. A very long way.

Let's try again.


We are expected to go see Ballet with our partner, but they aren't expected to go see WWE Battle in the Cage. We have to watch 50 First Dates, but they wont watch Terminator III.
Myself, I would watch ballet or opera before my partner would, and I'd headbutt a wall before watching Terminator III but (hopefully) you get my point.

Not quite... so your partner doesn't like opera and ballett, and you don't like action movies, but you complain about having to see both?

No. I do not complain about how this affects me personally at all. I am trying to elucidate a point about the average situation, for the average male and female (thus the use of the word "we", to represent males, not "I", to represent me) in a 1st World Country.

You are hung up on arguing your personal situation and your perception of my personal situation. The comments on my personal preferences, was designed to show that I am debating about my perception of the average person, not about me, as one example is nearly pointless when trying to comment on society as a whole.

Your response to the following shows this
Before responding, remember that if you are nerdy enough to play Nation States and be on this forum, you are probably not a typical representation of the general populace. Keep this in mind, before you say, but I do this, so since I do it, it shows your post is wrong.

You're complaining about female behaviour. I'm a female.
Telling me I'm not a typical female because I post here would be like stating that all normal men are rapists, but if you aren't it's probably because you post here.
That last paragraph is such a straw man, and so designed to get a bite, that I question trying to be logical with you. It also shows your desire to twist what someone says to try to show that you are right.

I did not say you weren't a typical female, I said "you are probably not a typical representative of the general populace". I stand by this. Considering how feminism seems to be such a core part of who you are, if you were a typical representative of the general populace, no male could have a partner if he didn't support feminism as the typical female wouldn't accept him, and thus all the goals of feminism would be achieved, and you would no longer need feminism, as most women and men would support it.

I'm not talking about weights. My best mate will see me carrying a few books, and take them off me.
A pile of books is a weight. I didn't specifically mean dumbell weights.

No. I do not complain about how this affects me personally at all. I am trying to elucidate a point about the average situation, for the average male and female (thus the use of the word "we", to represent males, not "I", to represent me) in a 1st World Country.

You are hung up on arguing your personal situation and your perception of my personal situation. The comments on my personal preferences, was designed to show that I am debating about my perception of the average person, not about me, as one example is nearly pointless when trying to comment on society as a whole.

Not quite correct. You are presenting stereotypes and personal experiences (as in the example of your job), and so am I.
I've never encountered any of the stereotypes you describe, and therefore question their existance.


That last paragraph is such a straw man, and so designed to get a bite, that I question trying to be logical with you. It also shows your desire to twist what someone says to try to show that you are right.

If there was a straw man it was you arguing that I couldn't quote my personal experiences as I might not be a typical female.


I did not say you weren't a typical female, I said "you are probably not a typical representative of the general populace". I stand by this. Considering how feminism seems to be such a core part of who you are, if you were a typical representative of the general populace, no male could have a partner if he didn't support feminism as the typical female wouldn't accept him, and thus all the goals of feminism would be achieved, and you would no longer need feminism, as most women and men would support it.

I'd say you're right about me not being a typical representative of the general populace. The average is not particular feminist.
However, I thought we were discussing feminists here, and for those I daresay I am a typical representative.

In regards to work, I work an office job. Every time furniture is to be moved, a customer is aggressive, the Men deal with it. But yet when the staff kitchen is to be claned, we need to help out. We keep the bad stuff. That isn't equality.

That is the primary point. We keep the bad stuff about being a man, but take the bad stuff that the women traditionally had. Men are expected to be the big protector, fix the car, do the heavy lifting, etc. We keep that, but we are also expected to do half the nurturing role within our abilities (we can't breastfeed), the washing, cleaning, etc. We are expected to go see Ballet with our partner, but they aren't expected to go see WWE Battle in the Cage. We have to watch 50 First Dates, but they wont watch Terminator III.
Myself, I would watch ballet or opera before my partner would, and I'd headbutt a wall before watching Terminator III but (hopefully) you get my point. :headbang:


if that stuff is really bothering you, you need to find yourself a nice hardcore feminist woman.

the average woman today takes feminisim for granted, all the improvements in women's lot over the past 50 years. but she doesnt do much deep thinking on it. so if furniture needs to be moved, or a spider killed, and she doesnt want to do that, she will fall back on female stereotypes of helplessness in order to avoid the unpleasant realities of life. just as an average man might say almost anything to avoid being the person who has to clean the bathroom.

its human.

a hardcore feminist woman, however, thinks about this stuff. she would NEVER play helpless in order to avoid heavy lifting. she would NEVER avoid killing spiders unless she was phobic about them. if she didnt know how to fix the car or do common household handiman tasks, she would learn them rather than force you to do certain chores just because you are the man. if there came a time where you were doing far more than your fair share of household tasks, all you would have to do is point it out to her and she would work with you to make it more equal.

you dont need a less feminist woman, you need a MORE feminist woman.

Again, I don't know where you live, but here there are still less women at university than men, although the numbers are slowly getting equal. Which is a good thing indeed.
That's not true. For example, Trinity is 60% female, UCD is about 52% female and NCAD is 75% female.

That's not true. For example, Trinity is 60% female, UCD is about 52% female and NCAD is 75% female.

Source on that?

There are similar concerns for medicine - last year I saw an article by a senior female surgeon who was concerned that rising numbers of women in the profession would damage the respect for doctors and the pay they command.

Like it did with teaching and librarians.

No amount of leglislation will protect against this which is why dispite equal oppertunities laws feminism has a LOT of work left to do - changing societys views of women and work.

while this is TRUE, i dont have a problem with doctors earning less money. the profession artificially restricted the number of people entering the field for a long time. it kept doctors "wages" higher than it should have been. more doctors at lower fees would be a good thing for everyone but the doctors.

Source on that?
http://www.tcd.ie/Vice_Provost/Womens_Centenary/news.php Trinity

http://www.ucd.ie/icrm2003/page4.htm UCD

http://www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/701 for the other universities

So were you going on a dodgy source or just making assumptions about evil old patriarchal Ireland? In fact you see, almost every third level institution in this country has a female student majority.

fair point, and Tesco isn't a feminist magazine (as has been said). however this still doesn't negate the hypocracy that was my point in the first place, labels aside. for those things (or equivalent) to be said about women in a magazine would most likely lead to outrage in the media, or at the very least detractions by the magazine in question. i'm aware that this is not "feminism", however the hypocracy in the media promotes the non-feminist female-supremist attitude in a "just a bit of fun" guise... as i said, i'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, nor do i particularly care, its just my observation on the matter.

if portraying men as helpless cave men sells magazines, then surely that proves my point? or maybe it shows this attitude is more widespread than some may give it credit for.

as i said, i'm a supporter of equality, and if feminism as a movement means that, then i support feminism. however the attitude i see portrayed all too much in the media is a non-equalitist (if thats a word) attitude wrapped up in a guise of fun, and for the same 'fun' to be had at women's expense would be instantly labelled as sexist and wrong. that's my problem

is it too out of line for me to suggest that if men have a problem with the way they are portrayed in the media that THEY should be out there protesting it? if men arent going to be out there pushing women's equality at home and around the world cant they at least take the lead in dealing with the crap that its specifically thrown at THEM? (which is not to suggest that there are no men working on gender equality at home and around the world.)

i think we could all benefit from men protesting their image in current media. the suggestion that men are brutes with subnormal intelligence, unable to do the simplest of household chores, addicted to football and beer, is as bad for women as it is for men. i dehumanizes men and suggests that they are not responsible for their own bad behavior.

that ad you mentioned from tesco that said that women need to change their men, puts a whole nother level of work onto women. the need to not be a partner to their husband and boyfriend but to be his MOTHER too. who needs or wants THAT?

it amuses us to see men portrayed that way and sometimes women DO buy into the "man as urban renewal project" mindset but its not GOOD for us.

so what im saying is that while yes, women should be vocally rejecting these sexist images of men in the media, when they DONT, men shouldnt whine about it but protest it themselves. if women dont agree that they have a point then we really know where everyone stands. then we know if its "equality for me only".

Time to try a different angle.

With feminism, women started with all the urgent problems first. Same pay for the same job, equal education opportunity, my body, my choice, etc. By now, most, if not all, the legislation needed has been put in place in the 1st world.

The biggest problem is that feminism has not changed much of the societal perception of gender roles. What Ashmoria said is mostly true.you dont need a less feminist society, you need a MORE feminist society. Except, as I've been trying to say, I am trying to discuss society, not me, thus my editing of the quote in italics. I'm very happy with the division of labour between me and my fiance, and no, she doesn't do all the housework.

This failure to change societal perception of gender roles has caused the problems of "Men keep the bad stuff", and also has really screwed women who are lower class. In regard tot "Men keep the bad stuff", none of it has been refuted by anything more than, "well none of my friends are like that". I shall point at a few examples within society to show that the men is protector, women is to be protected, or even worse, women is property,is sadly true amongst large parts of society. Look at any music video, especially gangster rap. Any men or women's magazine. This means men get all the crap associated with protecting something that needs protecting.i.e. the bad stuff.

To the next point. In the lower classes of most 1st world countries, the female and male role is similar to what it was 30 years ago, except that now the woman is expected to work as well as look after the kids. As she's lower class, her job will most likely be repetitive, demeaning and mindless. Atleast before, she could stay at home and cook and clean when her husband was at work. Unfortunately, there are very few advocates for the poor. They are all more interested in trying to get a female Supreme Court Judge.

As I'm now talking about lower class women, can it be understood I am talking about society, not me, and I would appreciate meaningful debate on points raised.

In summary. Feminism did many good things, but...
In failing to change enough of societies perceptions, middle class and upper class men are getting ripped off, as they are expected to be the big protector, but are also expected to clean up. Lower class women are screwed as they are expected to do all the women stuff and work.
In failing to acknowledge that raising children is very valid, and how important having a career is, some women wait too long to have children and miss out. With feminism, women tried to hard to become men without thinking of the consequences. Why do you think men have a much higher suicide rate? Spending all their time at work, and never seeing the kids. Realising too late that society lied to them about how fulfilling a career is. This is a hypothesis with nothing to back it up. Complete Pop Psych.

Time to try a different angle.

With feminism, women started with all the urgent problems first. Same pay for the same job, equal education opportunity, my body, my choice, etc. By now, most, if not all, the legislation needed has been put in place in the 1st world.

The biggest problem is that feminism has not changed much of the societal perception of gender roles. What Ashmoria said is mostly true. Except, as I've been trying to say, I am trying to discuss society, not me, thus my editing of the quote in italics. I'm very happy with the division of labour between me and my fiance, and no, she doesn't do all the housework.

This failure to change societal perception of gender roles has caused the problems of "Men keep the bad stuff", and also has really screwed women who are lower class. In regard tot "Men keep the bad stuff", none of it has been refuted by anything more than, "well none of my friends are like that". I shall point at a few examples within society to show that the men is protector, women is to be protected, or even worse, women is property,is sadly true amongst large parts of society. Look at any music video, especially gangster rap. Any men or women's magazine. This means men get all the crap associated with protecting something that needs protecting.i.e. the bad stuff.

To the next point. In the lower classes of most 1st world countries, the female and male role is similar to what it was 30 years ago, except that now the woman is expected to work as well as look after the kids. As she's lower class, her job will most likely be repetitive, demeaning and mindless. Atleast before, she could stay at home and cook and clean when her husband was at work. Unfortunately, there are very few advocates for the poor. They are all more interested in trying to get a female Supreme Court Judge.

As I'm now talking about lower class women, can it be understood I am talking about society, not me, and I would appreciate meaningful debate on points raised.

In summary. Feminism did many good things, but...
In failing to change enough of societies perceptions, middle class and upper class men are getting ripped off, as they are expected to be the big protector, but are also expected to clean up. Lower class women are screwed as they are expected to do all the women stuff and work.
In failing to acknowledge that raising children is very valid, and how important having a career is, some women wait too long to have children and miss out. With feminism, women tried to hard to become men without thinking of the consequences. Why do you think men have a much higher suicide rate? Spending all their time at work, and never seeing the kids. Realising too late that society lied to them about how fulfilling a career is. This is a hypothesis with nothing to back it up. Complete Pop Psych.

yes.

we are stalled at ...75% of the goal of gender equality. there are still lots of things to be done and some people really are stuck focusing on the wrong things. we're trying to figure out person by person just what we DO want and what is possible. sometimes we hang on to outmoded stereotypes because of a perceived advantage--a good example is the women in your office who wont move furniture. sometimes we make "liberated" choices that leave us wondering if we would have been happier if we had been more "traditional". sometimes we choose traditional roles and feel like we are sitting with our noses pressed up against the window watching our sisters acheive glory in the greater world.

we have legal equality in the 1st world but that doesnt guarantee us anything but the struggle to figure out what equality means in our own lives.

yes.

we are stalled at ...75% of the goal of gender equality. there are still lots of things to be done and some people really are stuck focusing on the wrong things. we're trying to figure out person by person just what we DO want and what is possible. sometimes we hang on to outmoded stereotypes because of a perceived advantage--a good example is the women in your office who wont move furniture. sometimes we make "liberated" choices that leave us wondering if we would have been happier if we had been more "traditional". sometimes we choose traditional roles and feel like we are sitting with our noses pressed up against the window watching our sisters acheive glory in the greater world.

we have legal equality in the 1st world but that doesnt guarantee us anything but the struggle to figure out what equality means in our own lives.

This poster is pointing out the flawed gender roles that still exist, something feminism directly fights against, and complains that because of the flawed gender roles feminism is a bad thing. We won't be where we need to be until we pick the person, not the sex, best suited to move the furniture or kill that snake. Amusingly, our friend seems to speaking of wild stereotypes rather than real experiences or studies.

is it too out of line for me to suggest that if men have a problem with the way they are portrayed in the media that THEY should be out there protesting it? if men arent going to be out there pushing women's equality at home and around the world cant they at least take the lead in dealing with the crap that its specifically thrown at THEM? (which is not to suggest that there are no men working on gender equality at home and around the world.)

there is no masculinist movement, as has been pointed out many times on this thread. probably a good thing, too, as for the most part (apart from silly minor things like this) that movement is not required.
however if feminists want equality, as is so often trumpeted, then surely these gender equalitists should be making a fuss about this, and not necessarily a ficticious masculinist movement.



i think we could all benefit from men protesting their image in current media. the suggestion that men are brutes with subnormal intelligence, unable to do the simplest of household chores, addicted to football and beer, is as bad for women as it is for men. i dehumanizes men and suggests that they are not responsible for their own bad behavior.

that ad you mentioned from tesco that said that women need to change their men, puts a whole nother level of work onto women. the need to not be a partner to their husband and boyfriend but to be his MOTHER too. who needs or wants THAT?

the suggestion here is that my gender is not good enough for yours. the media portrays women as "godesses" and men as bumbling neanderthal idiots.


so what im saying is that while yes, women should be vocally rejecting these sexist images of men in the media, when they DONT, men shouldnt whine about it but protest it themselves. if women dont agree that they have a point then we really know where everyone stands. then we know if its "equality for me only".


that's sorta my point, too. the "equality for me only" attitude.... too often it seems the media glorifies women, possibly in a feminist adgenda, but to the detriment of men.
yes men should get off our asses and do something, but its really not a real issue - yet. if this attitude were to come into the workplace and we started seeing the same kind of treatment women suffered (and still do to a lesser extent) as a result of sexim, then it would indeed be a time for such a masculinist movement. for now, i'm happy just having this as a little irritation, just over the hypocracy in the media. i'm certainly not all feminists behave this way, or that 'the media' is feminist either. i just see this hypocracy a little too often for the issue to go away, if you know what i mean

From Refused-Party-Program
Fleeing Oppressed; I think it's clear you haven't yet realised that feminism is specifically about addressing all of those stereotypical gender roles and behaviours that you're fuming over.

Feminism Is Not about that. In your opinion, that's what it is about. In my opinion feminism has mostly been about the upper and middle class women getting access to more choices in life, and it still is. Lower class women especially have been left behind, because of the failure to address the flawed gender role that is embedded in societal perceptions, as my previous post addressed. The class war is a lot more uneven than the gender war.

and from Jocabia
This poster is pointing out the flawed gender roles that still exist, something feminism directly fights against, and complains that because of the flawed gender roles feminism is a bad thing. We won't be where we need to be until we pick the person, not the sex, best suited to move the furniture or kill that snake. Amusingly, our friend seems to speaking of wild stereotypes rather than real experiences or studies.
In answering the 1st quote, I answered the 1st part of yours.
I accept I have no studies to work from. That's because vert few exist. Nearly all study done on feminism and gender, focus on the good feminism has done and how men are evil tools of the patriarchy (tongue in cheek there, if you missed it). Feminism has done good.
But just look around. How many young women want to be like Paris, and how many want to be like Condaleeza Rice. Notice how Condaleeza needs a surname, Paris doesn't. I don't need studies to show that lots of women expect men to do the traditional "I'm a strong man" role and many comply. How many women read Womens Day, People, Who Weekly, and how many read Time? The gender roles are firmly ingrained. Look around.
I don't think it only the role of feminists to change this, but as my very 1st post said, it is hypocritical if they buy into the "protect me" mentality, while saying "I should be able to be president".

From Refused-Party-Program


Feminism Is Not about that. In your opinion, that's what it is about. In my opinion feminism has mostly been about the upper and middle class women getting access to more choices in life, and it still is. Lower class women especially have been left behind, because of the failure to address the flawed gender role that is embedded in societal perceptions, as my previous post addressed. The class war is a lot more uneven than the gender war.

and from Jocabia

In answering the 1st quote, I answered the 1st part of yours.
I accept I have no studies to work from. That's because vert few exist. Nearly all study done on feminism and gender, focus on the good feminism has done and how men are evil tools of the patriarchy (tongue in cheek there, if you missed it). Feminism has done good.
But just look around. How many young women want to be like Paris, and how many want to be like Condaleeza Rice. Notice how Condaleeza needs a surname, Paris doesn't. I don't need studies to show that lots of women expect men to do the traditional "I'm a strong man" role and many comply. How many women read Womens Day, People, Who Weekly, and how many read Time? The gender roles are firmly ingrained. Look around.
I don't think it only the role of feminists to change this, but as my very 1st post said, it is hypocritical if they buy into the "protect me" mentality, while saying "I should be able to be president".

Here's what you don't get. Removing the roles you're talking about is the expressed intent of feminism. The roles you discuss existed before feminism. They are very old gender role stereotypes that you're bitching about. You complaining because feminism isn't done yet, while other complain that feminism has gone too far. You're proving exactly what we are seeking to prove, that feminism is good and necessary and that it's not done yet.

You're right it's hypocritical and feminism agrees with you. You are complaining about people who are not actually seeking equality and those people are not feminists.

there is no masculinist movement, as has been pointed out many times on this thread. probably a good thing, too, as for the most part (apart from silly minor things like this) that movement is not required.
however if feminists want equality, as is so often trumpeted, then surely these gender equalitists should be making a fuss about this, and not necessarily a ficticious masculinist movement.




the suggestion here is that my gender is not good enough for yours. the media portrays women as "godesses" and men as bumbling neanderthal idiots.




that's sorta my point, too. the "equality for me only" attitude.... too often it seems the media glorifies women, possibly in a feminist adgenda, but to the detriment of men.
yes men should get off our asses and do something, but its really not a real issue - yet. if this attitude were to come into the workplace and we started seeing the same kind of treatment women suffered (and still do to a lesser extent) as a result of sexim, then it would indeed be a time for such a masculinist movement. for now, i'm happy just having this as a little irritation, just over the hypocracy in the media. i'm certainly not all feminists behave this way, or that 'the media' is feminist either. i just see this hypocracy a little too often for the issue to go away, if you know what i mean

i do know what you mean. and it is frustrating when women ignore men's issues when they are brought to their attention. what should be a no-brainer--"man as mindless brute" articles are wrong--become jokes at men's expense.

in a related thought..

when confronted with degrading picture of women in men's magazines, instead of fighting to counter that image of women as sex object, some media decided that making men into sex objects made everything equal. so if playboy magazine is wrong, you make a playGIRL magazine and women have nothing to bitch about. pretty soon you see women collecting up sexy pictures of naked men and STILL bitching about the existence of porn. (im a bit hampered in this argument because i dont find sexy pictures of naked women or men to be degrading in any way.) in the mind of MEDIA, as long as we are all put down equally, its OK.

we should probably all be holding media more accountable for the crap they are shoving down our throats all day every day.

You and I actually agree Jocabia, I think, but you just don't realise it.

Here's what you don't get. Removing the roles you're talking about is the expressed intent of feminism. The roles you discuss existed before feminism. They are very old gender role stereotypes that you're bitching about. You complaining because feminism isn't done yet, while other complain that feminism has gone too far. You're proving exactly what we are seeking to prove, that feminism is good and necessary and that it's not done yet.

Atleast I think we agree. If the quote in italics meant "my other complaint", I never complained feminism went too far. I complained about men having to do all the old crap we had to due due to the old roles, but getting all this new crap too. As I said earlier, if anything it hasn't gone far enough.
Disclaimer. I am not attacking your English, as that is incredibly petty. I am just making sure I understand you. I'm guessing you know multiple languages, which means your language skills are far superior to mine. /Disclaimer

You're right it's hypocritical and feminism agrees with you. You are complaining about people who are not actually seeking equality and those people are not feminists.
This last bit is just a definition issue. The hypocritical people I speak of, do class themselves as feminists. If we change the definition enough, we'll agree for sure. :D

This things (e.g. social change through protest) are liked scrambled egg. You need to be gentle and take them off the heat when they're about 2/3 done, or you end up with a rubbery mess.

For example, in the great decade of social protest, the 1960s, American public opinion began to shift to the right. This was almost certainly a reaction to the well-publicised and militant protests of the left. In other words, the protests, while undoubtedly justified in their aims in my view, overcooked the whole thing and laid that groundwork for the fierce divisions that you see in the US today.

The lesson is not to keep pushing ever further for what you want to happen. I think we're still in a time of rapid change as far as gender roles are concerned. Give it time and see what happens, and it will probably be something good.

You and I actually agree Jocabia, I think, but you just don't realise it.



Atleast I think we agree. If the quote in italics meant "my other complaint", I never complained feminism went too far. I complained about men having to do all the old crap we had to due due to the old roles, but getting all this new crap too. As I said earlier, if anything it hasn't gone far enough.
Disclaimer. I am not attacking your English, as that is incredibly petty. I am just making sure I understand you. I'm guessing you know multiple languages, which means your language skills are far superior to mine. /Disclaimer


This last bit is just a definition issue. The hypocritical people I speak of, do class themselves as feminists. If we change the definition enough, we'll agree for sure. :D

Not change the definition. Feminism is a social and political movement striving for equal treatment for the sexes. You have claimed several times that this is not what it is, but that's just blatantly untrue. We do not agree because you wish to fight against a phantom made-up feminism instead of what it really is.

Feminism - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/feminism - 1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/feminism?view=uk - the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of sexual equality.

You entered this thread complaining about feminism. No aspect of feminism seeks to protect gender roles. None. The gender roles that still exist are simply ones we haven't destroyed YET. So claiming to agree while you blame feminism for concentrating on things like the lack of opportunity for women professionally and socially, for concentrating on rape, domestic abuse, sexual harrassment, the lack of opportunity for women, the lack of pay for women, etc., because these problems are among the most grievious is absurd. You're complaining about problems that A) feminism is actively working to address and B) are getting better, and rather than complaining about those standing in the way of feminists, you're complaining about feminists. Logic tells us that you need to shift your focus. A lack of equality subjugates the rights of everyone, striving for equality for women strives for equality for everyone.

(By the way, that's wasn't an English problem. It was a typing problem.)

Not change the definition. Feminism is a social and political movement striving for equal treatment for the sexes. You have claimed several times that this is not what it is, but that's just blatantly untrue. We do not agree because you wish to fight against a phantom made-up feminism instead of what it really is.

We were doing so well, then we hit a brick wall. It is a definition issue. The dictionary provides that definition you gave. It also provides a 2nd
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

On a purely selfish basis, it would be in women's interests to keep men as the protectors, fix the car, etc, but be able to get the good jobs, good wages, etc. So technically you're following quote is countered by your dictionary definition.
No aspect of feminism seeks to protect gender roles.
As maintaining certain gender roles could be in women's interests.

I am doing this to show arguing about definition is pointless. You want your feminism to be this high and lofty completely pure ideal. And from the sounds of your posts, for you, in your acts and deeds, it is. But a significant amount of women, and I think for most it is something they do without knowing or thinking about it, play the "I'm a helpless female" card at the same time as doing the feminist thing of expecting to be able to get a good education and get a good job. To want both is hypocritical. My original proposition.

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 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.

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.
Okay, let's go back to your intial response (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18)to the OP. In that reply, it was obvious to me that the OP affected your sensibilities and rather than debate the merits of feminism, you chose to attack his masculinity and mock him by calling him "an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him".

Right of the bat, you reinforce his stereotypical view of feminists.

You then proceed to make matters worse by suggesting that you are superior to non-feminists/anti-feminists:

non-feminists are inherently sub-par individualswho aren't worth dating in the first place
Because someone doesn't share your "feminist" views they are sub-par? They aren't worth dating?

You then go on and try to equate a non-feminist to a racist or an anti-Semite, as well as being a lowlife:

Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes, anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment
A guess that is the superiority complex talking again?

Then you take another run at the sexuality of the non-feminist:

they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.
How would you know if they are "almost always lousy in bed" if you have never had the personal experience?

I've had other lovers in the past, both male and female, and not a single one has ever been an anti-feminist
So the only way that you would know that non-feminists are "almost always lousy in bed" is by hearsay?

Are you finished chastizing the non-feminist? Apparently not:

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.
So non-feminists are "snivveling weaklings" and cowards?

They are also "idiots"?

I've found that most non-idiots are feminists

The final shot:

so you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you want to try to date an anti-feminist


I don't believe I said they were inferior to me.
No, you didn't use the word inferior, but you used all the appropriate words to make it appear that non-feminists are indeed inferior to you.

You had an opportunity to promote feminism and attract people to the cause. I believe that your rant did more harm for your cause then good. But, that is just my humble opinion.

The class war is a lot more uneven than the gender war.

On the contrary, the class war and the feminist movement are parts of the same struggle.

The class war is a lot more uneven than the gender war.

On the contrary, the class war and the feminist movement are parts of the same struggle.

In the 1st world women have achieved many gains in the last 50 years. In the last 50 years, even in the 1st world, the class divide has increased. For the class war, the oppressed are getting even more oppressed than before.
In the 3rd world the link between feminism and the class war is very close.

Because someone doesn't share your views they are sub-par? They aren't worth dating?


Amusing. So you don't detest bigots? Do you normally date people you detest?

The non-feminist based on her definition is equivalent to the anti-semite and the racist. She specifically defines the non-feminist to be a person who doesn't believe in the equality of the sexes. That is a bigot and absolutely comparable to racist and anti-semites, people you admit you detest.

On a purely selfish basis, it would be in women's interests to keep men as the protectors, fix the car, etc, but be able to get the good jobs, good wages, etc.

Who says?


So technically you're following quote is countered by your dictionary definition.


Not at all - you extended the second definition to include a whole load of stuff that is not in the text, and then claim it somehow 'counters' the first argument... which - of course - it doesn't. And wouldn't, ebven if you hadn't invented your interpretation.

We were doing so well, then we hit a brick wall. It is a definition issue. The dictionary provides that definition you gave. It also provides a 2nd
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

On a purely selfish basis, it would be in women's interests to keep men as the protectors, fix the car, etc, but be able to get the good jobs, good wages, etc. So technically you're following quote is countered by your dictionary definition.

No, it isn't, and feminism is actively trying to get women into combat. And, no, technically it isn't. You speculate and as if it makes my claims contradictory. Women have an interest in destroying gender roles and feminism has been actively doing for decades.

And no, we weren't doing well. The brick wall was always there, you're claims that we agree were as weak as your arguments. It was attempt to ride on my back because I'm making a better argument than you.


As maintaining certain gender roles could be in women's interests.

No, they wouldn't. You speculate and then pretend as if your speculation is a given. Show me any major femist group that argues FOR women being kept out of combat, mechanics, etc. I'll wait.


I am doing this to show arguing about definition is pointless. You want your feminism to be this high and lofty completely pure ideal. And from the sounds of your posts, for you, in your acts and deeds, it is. But a significant amount of women, and I think for most it is something they do without knowing or thinking about it, play the "I'm a helpless female" card at the same time as doing the feminist thing of expecting to be able to get a good education and get a good job. To want both is hypocritical. My original proposition.

Again, we just have your speculation to evidence your claims. See, feminism is no more defined by people who bastardize it's ideals than Christianity is defined by a guy who kills a homosexual in the name of God. It absolutely doesn't work that way. All major activities of feminism fight against gender roles, not for them. Prove otherwise, my friend or are we supposed to accept that your wild stereotypes are the fault of feminism simply because you say so.

Okay, let's go back to your intial response (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18)to the OP. In that reply, it was obvious to me that the OP affected your sensibilities and rather than debate the merits of feminism, you chose to attack his masculinity and mock him by calling him "an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him".

Right of the bat, you reinforce his stereotypical view of feminists.

You then proceed to make matters worse by suggesting that you are superior to non-feminists/anti-feminists:


Because someone doesn't share your views they are sub-par? They aren't worth dating?

You then go on and try to equate a non-feminist to a racist or an anti-Semite, as well as being a lowlife:


A guess that is the superiority complex talking again?

Then you take another run at the sexuality of the non-feminist:


How would you know if they are "almost always lousy in bed" if you have never had the personal experience?


So the only way that you would know that non-feminists are "almost always lousy in bed" is by hearsay?

Are you finished chastizing the non-feminist? Apparently not:


So non-feminists are "snivveling weaklings" and cowards?

They are also "idiots"?



The final shot:





No, you didn't use the word inferior, but you used all the appropriate words to make it appear that non-feminists are indeed inferior to you.

You had an opportunity to promote feminism and attract people to the cause. I believe that your rant did more harm for your cause then good. But, that is just my humble opinion.

First of all, you're nitpicking again.
Second, most people on this board would agree Bottle is right that anti-feminism is a stupid postion to hold and most people who hold it are about as dateable as Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson.

Amusing. So you don't detest bigots? Do you normally date people you detest?

The non-feminist based on her definition is equivalent to the anti-semite and the racist. She specifically defines the non-feminist to be a person who doesn't believe in the equality of the sexes. That is a bigot and absolutely comparable to racist and anti-semites, people you admit you detest.
Methinks you missed the whole point once again. :eek:

First of all, you're nitpicking again.
Second, most people on this board would agree Bottle is right that anti-feminism is a stupid postion to hold and most people who hold it are about as dateable as Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson.
You call it nitpicking, I call it debate. :p

Because most people on this board agree that "anti-feminism is a stupid postion", doesn't mean that the way she presented her argument was correct, unless of course her only goal was to "bait" the OP for "entertainment" purposes?

Because someone doesn't share your views they are sub-par? They aren't worth dating?
Well, people can choose who they want to be with based on any criteria, it's thier right.

How would you know if they are "almost always lousy in bed" if you have never had the personal experience?
Looks like Bottle's logic slipped there.

The problem I'd have living with most women who call themselves feminists is the hypocrisy.
It seems to be all about give me the good stuff, but non of the bad stuff. I shall present a hypotheticals to put across my point.

A husband and wife both work the same hours, and have no kids. Each night the husband makes dinner, cleans up, etc, and on the weekend he vacuums, mops, mows the lawn, the whole lot. Now all the women are saying "Where do I get myself one of those?" If it was the other way round, they would be yelling "Sexist, why doesn't the man do his share, lazy prick, etc".

When a man and women live together, when has a woman ever said, "Don't worry, you stay asleep, I'll deal with it?" when she thought she heard a noise in the house, saw a snake, spider, burnt out fuse, etc. Not often. Equality means equality. You get to be bashed by the burglar, you get to be bitten by the snake. Equality! You want him to do half the dishes, you mow the lawn every second time. You put the rubbish out. Equality.

Lets move on to work. A women can't not use that time of the month as an excuse, and expect to be treated the same as other employees. If you don't work aswell as other employees 25% of the time, the boss has a right to fire you. If a man is depressed because of erectile dysfunction, will his boss accept a poorer quality of work? No.
In regards to pregnancy, I think it is the duty of the government, through the taxpayer, to cover maternal leave, not the employer.

The "Glass ceiling". Hmm. Nearly every CEO, Supreme Court Judge, etc has over 20 years experience. Considering how long equality in work opportunities has been happening, there are very few adequate female applicants for the positions, so of course there's more men.

A lack of consideration or concern if things go too far the other way. For years there have been "Women in Science" scholarships, programs, etc to help more women to get in to science, which is the right thing to do. Now though, the number of men going to Uni is falling behind women to a significant degree, and often this is portrayed as a good thing.

There's more hypocrisy. I could write a novel on this, but I'll stop now with the standard disclaimer. I'm sure you know, or are, an internally consistent, non - hypocritical feminist, and how could I say such things, etc. This thread is all about sweeping generalisations (when it's not ad hominem personal attacks) and thus I am talking about what I perceive as a majority.

Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of women flipping you off.

1. Yes, you're right. IF such a situation occured, that woman would be a hypocrit. But no more so than every man who has ever wished his wife would do the housework for him. If you took a random poll on that, I think you'd find a forest of hands. Furthermore, studies show that situations where men do ALL the housework are definitely the exception rather than the rule, although these days 70% of (Canadian) men now pitch in. (Thanks guys! :) )Still, on average (Canadian) women do one hour more of unpaid domestic labour per day than the average (Canadian) male spouse. The more money the women make, the more likely her male spouse will pitch in. Women who make over $100,000 are the most likely to split domestic duties 50-50 with their male spouse. (Not to mention most likely to hire someone to help!) http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060719/d060719b.htm

2. The nighttime noise fallacy. In my household, my spouse has been known to sleep through burglary attempts. It is I, rising in my naked splendor, who has scared the holy shit out of the would-be thieves and sent them packing. (Jokes about men afraid of hairy feminists not permitted.) As for spiders, neither of us are scared of them, thankyouverymuch. I'll think you'll find that a feminist is much more likely to be independent and not expect a man to protect her at every moment.

3. Special treatment for menstruating women fallacy: No woman in any workplace I've ever worked in (and I've been in the workplace) has ever gotten special treatment for menstruation. Perhaps if we worked for an escort agency that would matter. Some women have perhaps had to call in sick on those days; but I think you'll find that men call in sick on occasion as well. In fact, here's a study that shows that men are twice as likely to call in sick when they aren't actually sick. http://time.blogs.com/daily_rx/2005/09/men_women_and_f.html

3a) Speaking of erectile dysfunction, why is it that some doctors and pharmacists will refuse to provide birth control to women for religious beliefs, but we've never heard of them refusing to provide Viagra (or its like) to men due to religious beliefs? Don't everyone answer at once.

4. In Canada, most companies offer paid <i>parental</i> leave (taken by fathers and mothers). The government also covers the cost of maternity leave for employees through Employment Insurance. Note that parental and maternity leave are different; although parental leave can be taken for maternity reasons, it can also be taken if your child is sick etc. If this option doesn't exist where you live, perhaps that should be taken up with your employer or your government.

5. Glass ceiling. It's everywhere, cowboy. Take a look at the gender makeup of the politicians in your country. There are more women than men in the world, and yet more men have positions of power. Tell me, would YOU vote for a woman to be president? Sure you say, if she were qualified. Now explain to me how Bush became president despite his clear lack of qualifications. No, never mind, I'll explain. Connections. All those good ol'boy connections that aren't available to women because they aren't part of the network. Same thing happens with CEOs and other jobs. You get those positions not just because you are eminently qualified; you also get them because you know somebody or they owe you a favour. Face it. If you have two excellently qualified candidates, but one of them you've known and played golf with for 8 years, which of them is going to get the job? (and yes, you do appear to be a Brit from your use of the word Uni, but just becaue the UK actually elected Maggie doesn't mean that invalidates this point. She just happened to be a woman who hooked into an ol'boy network. In fact, she may have been chosen as candidate partly because the political handlers thought it would give their party an edge with women voters in the elections. That's been tried in Canada too, when a party is falling in the polls.)

6. Yes, women are going to university in unprecendented numbers. Yes, that is a good thing. Is it a good thing that male enrollment is dropping off? No. Show me a study or quote me a respected academic who claims that this is a good thing in respect to men. Note that the places where there are specific grants or programs for women (women in science, for example) are still dominated by men. Perhaps a solution for this would be to have grants or scholarships for either gender if gender enrollment inequity is greater than 20%. Or would you prefer 10%?

7. Women are fighting for equity in all arenas. As previously mentioned, women are also requesting the right to serve in military combat roles. In fact, in Canada and other countries, they already do. We want to work as police officers and as firewomen. I've personally worked as a security guard. We play contact sports, often in co-ed teams. I've knocked plenty of men down while playing hockey and broomball, and even gotten into an actual fight with a man on the ice. (For some reason he was pissed off when I bodychecked him. He thought I needed to act more like a girl and not do that. When I said "Treat me like a opposing player, not like a china doll", he dropped the gloves. Neither of us won, the refs broke it up.)

Please find me an occupation that doesn't have women wanting to do the job and have the same risks, rewards, and responsibilities as men.

Also, if you think feminism is done and there is no need for it, please explain why the vast majority of murder victims by people they know are women? Why is it that more women are killed by people they know than strangers?
(Note, I would of course prefer no one be murdered.) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm
(Note that after the institution of no-fault divorce in every state, the number of women killed by intimates in the US dropped drastically.)

This Dec. 6th, I'll be the proud husband of a feminist.

Methinks you missed the whole point once again. :eek:

No, I didn't. I recognize your point. You think she was talking about anyone who doesn't call themselves a feminist. She was talking about bigots. She made it clear in that post. She made it clear in later posts. She's told you explicitly she was talking about bigots. You suggest she was too harsh on people who don't call themselves feminists and then when you get called out, you change your position to make it seem like you understood her original point.

You openly said you detest bigots, the people she is talking about. Are you actually going to pretend you would date a bigot? Or can you simply admit that you're full of crap and just can't admit that you misread her post. But, hey, keep pretending I missed the point because I don't agree with you and I think your point is dumb. That'll make you look more reasonable.

CH, let's keep it really simple. Yes or no question, would you date a bigot?

This Dec. 6th, I'll be the proud husband of a feminist.
congrats! :D

congrats! :D

Thank-you! :) We're getting married in a bookstore...



Cool, right?

Thank-you! :) We're getting married in a bookstore...



Cool, right?

Sounds pretty cool to me! :)

I would sooner stick my unit in a Cuisinart than date a feminazi. At the first indication that she had feminist tendencies, I'd drop her like a bad habit.

Men, don't let feminism happen to you: http://www.nomarriage.com

No, I didn't. I recognize your point.
You might undertand it, but you don't want to debate it?

You think she was talking about anyone who doesn't call themselves a feminist.
That is exactly what she was talking about......non-feminists and anti-feminists.

She was talking about bigots. She made it clear in that post. She made it clear in later posts. She's told you explicitly she was talking about bigots.
She never once used the word bigot.

You suggest she was too harsh on people who don't call themselves feminists and then when you get called out, you change your position to make it seem like you understood her original point.
I understood her original post, although her use of non-feminist and anti-feminist was a tad unclear as to the difference between the two, which I later tried to clarify.

I called her out on her over the top comments, which I believe weakens her cause, and reinforces a stereotypical view that some have towards hardcore feminists.

You openly said you detest bigots, the people she is talking about.
She wasn't talking about bigots and as far as using the word detest, perhaps that was too strong. I dislike bigots. Detest can mean either dislike or hate, and I think hate is too strong for me.

Are you actually going to pretend you would date a bigot?
My wife wouldn't like that too much. :p

Or can you simply admit that you're full of crap and just can't admit that you misread her post.
I did not misread her post. IMHO, the OP was over the top and she was equally over the top.

But, hey, keep pretending I missed the point because I don't agree with you and I think your point is dumb.
You continually miss the point and want to take it in another direction. She suggests that non-feminists/anti-feminists are "insecure", "inherently sub-par", "lowlifes", "fun to bait when you want entertainment", "usually dull", "almost always lousy in bed", "snivveling weaklings", "cowards", "idiots", and "bottom of the barrel".

That is one helluva way to promote "equality of the genders". :rolleyes:

And at the end of the road, there is only one truth, and that is:

We are all created equal in the eyes of the Lord.

I would sooner stick my unit in a Cuisinart than date a feminazi. At the first indication that she had feminist tendencies, I'd drop her like a bad habit.

Men, don't let feminism happen to you: http://www.nomarriage.com

I'd rather you stick it a cuisinart too.
I don't date men who aren't feminists.

That is exactly what she was talking about......non-feminists and anti-feminists.

You're distorting the facts, and I can't believe you don't know it. Bottle very specifically defined a "non-feminist" as someone who does not believe in the equality of the genders (as did I, in my responses to you), and very specifically stated that how one self-identifies is irrelevant (as did I, again, in my responses to you). To keep insisting that she was attacking people who do not self-identify as feminists but nonetheless believe in the equality of the genders is absurd, given that she explicitly stated otherwise.

I would sooner stick my unit in a Cuisinart than date a feminazi. At the first indication that she had feminist tendencies, I'd drop her like a bad habit.

Men, don't let feminism happen to you: http://www.nomarriage.com

Oh this is GOOD!!!

"NoMarriage.com


80% of American women develop Postpartum Depression after giving birth. * more on statistics


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Postpartum depression is a common, but frequently unrecognized, devastating mood disorder," says Kathryn Leopold, M.D., assistant professor of obstetrics at Albany Medical Center in New York.
Postpartum depression (developed within six weeks of delivery) is severe and long-lasting, with symptoms including:


Anxiety, sadness or despair (constant mental basketcase and bitchy attitude)
Feelings of worthlessness or guilt, especially failure at motherhood (you will be blamed for everything she does wrong)
Loss of interest in usually pleasurable activities (sex stops, constant nagging starts)
Difficulty concentrating or making decisions (similar to mentally retarded child)
Fatigue (did nothing the whole day, yet always tired)
Changes in appetite or sleep (becomes fat, then obese)
Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide (completely mentally insane)
The point here is that you don't want women's problems to become your problems."
http://www.nomarriage.com/postpartum_depression.html

Amazing.

You might undertand it, but you don't want to debate it?

I have debated. I've been nailing you on your failure since you first put it out there. Your posit rests on her referencing non-bigots, but unfortunately she made it clear that she was referring to people who don't believe in equality. You were very happy to admit that you detest bigots. She may have been extreme, but nothing you say will every change her post to be about anyone other than bigots. To do that, we'd all have to forget what the post says. I've noticed that EVERY time you've quoted her post, you've left out explaining how her definition of her terms could mean what you say she was intending. It's because your premise if flawed. You know it. I know it. So stop defending it. You've been proven wrong.

That is exactly what she was talking about......non-feminists and anti-feminists.

No, she wasn't. That's the point. YOU are arguing a strawman. She defined her term. Feminists, in her post, are people who BELIEVE in the equality of the sexes. What they call themselves has NOTHING to do with what they believe. You want her to be talking about what they call themselves, but not only did she make no such reference in her post, but she explicitly showed that she was talking about beliefs, not the title.

A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes.

Non = not.
So to clarify her point, she explained what she means by feminist (a definition you've constantly and consistently claimed does not apply to the rest of her post). According to your own post, a non-feminist must be, since she defined feminist as she used it, a person who does NOT believe in social and political equality of the sexes.

No amount of wriggling on your part will change the FACT that she defined her terms in the post so it would not be confusing and you are trying to ignore how she defined the terms in order to express outrage. It's pathetic.


She never once used the word bigot.

No, she didn't. She also never used the word inferior. She never said anything about whether people CALL themselves a feminists or not.

She did, however, point out that non-feminists are equivelant to racists. She also pointed out that her use of non-feminist related to beliefs about equality. If you don't believe in equality, it certainly could be argued that you are a bigot. Are you really denying that people who don't believe the sexes are equal are comparable to racists? Really?


I understood her original post, although her use of non-feminist and anti-feminist was a tad unclear as to the difference between the two, which I later tried to clarify.

She used them interchangably actually. However, no matter how you slice both are about belief since she defined feminist in her post. You try to pretend that she was talking about what people call themselves which can be found in her post exactly nowhere. Nothing was unclear about her use of non-feminist. Feminist, and thus non-feminist, is EXPLICITLY defined in her post. To pretend her use was unclear is to simply ignore this (something you're desperately and inexplicably trying to do).


I called her out on her over the top comments, which I believe weakens her cause, and reinforces a stereotypical view that some have towards hardcore feminists.

You called her on something you read into her post. And when it is pointed out to you that you're reading it into her post, you pretend as if that's okay to read things into her post while crying about how she never explicitly used the term bigot. Hypocrite.


She wasn't talking about bigots and as far as using the word detest, perhaps that was too strong. I dislike bigots. Detest can mean either dislike or hate, and I think hate is too strong for me.

Well, you hurt the cause. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And she was absolutely talking about bigots. I told you that. She told you that. Several others told you that. She made it clear that she was referring to people who do not BELIEVE in equality. You made it clear that you know what "non-" means, and she explicitly defined her use of "feminist". Saying it said anything else is provably false.


My wife wouldn't like that too much. :p

Nice job avoiding the point. The point is you wouldn't date a bigot if you were single. You know it. I know it.

I did not misread her post. IMHO, the OP was over the top and she was equally over the top.

Ok. You didn't misread her post, let's say. I'll accept that if you can show me where she defined feminism as something other than the BELIEF in equality of the sexes. Show anywhere that she claims that she is talking about what people CALL themselves.

Of course, that's going to be difficult with this -
A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes.


You continually miss the point and want to take it in another direction. She suggests that non-feminists/anti-feminists are "insecure", "inherently sub-par", "lowlifes", "fun to bait when you want entertainment", "usually dull", "almost always lousy in bed", "snivveling weaklings", "cowards", "idiots", and "bottom of the barrel".

That is one helluva way to promote "equality of the genders". :rolleyes:

And at the end of the road, there is only one truth, and that is:

We are all created equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Amusing. Yes, we are all CREATED equal. However, non-feminists are bigots according to her use of the word. Bigotry has nothing to do with how you were born. It is something you become. Meanwhile, she didn't say a damn thing about equality of the bigotted views. If she had, then your point about her hurting the cause would make sense.

I didn't miss the point. I've several times said that I would not have used the language she used. However, you are trying to make her langauge apply to a group she DID NOT aim that language at. You may not have intended for anyone to address that point in your post, but unless your post is addressing what she thinks of bigots, you are not replying to her post. (If you ask Bottle, you'll find that I've several times disagreed with some of her rather harsh comments, but the point is that never once did she correct me on who she was talking about. You are pointing her comments at a much larger group of people than she intended them for and then you're bitching because people won't accept this extension.)

You believe that she was talking about what people CALL themselves and that her statements about them were over-the-top. Fortunately for anyone who actually wants to analyze whether your claim is true, they can simply read her post and see that she was talking about what people BELIEVE, not what they call themselves. Your sad little rant falls apart on it's very base.

Meanwhile, you keep claiming I'm missing the point, but, magically, you go back and change one of your posts because it exposes you as a hypocrite. Amusingly, this particular change evidences that I nailed the point and that I actually did catch you in hypocrisy.

Thank-you! :) We're getting married in a bookstore...



Cool, right?

awesome!

awesome!

:)

Oh this is GOOD!!!

"NoMarriage.com


80% of American women develop Postpartum Depression after giving birth. * more on statistics


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Postpartum depression is a common, but frequently unrecognized, devastating mood disorder," says Kathryn Leopold, M.D., assistant professor of obstetrics at Albany Medical Center in New York.
Postpartum depression (developed within six weeks of delivery) is severe and long-lasting, with symptoms including:


Anxiety, sadness or despair (constant mental basketcase and bitchy attitude)
Feelings of worthlessness or guilt, especially failure at motherhood (you will be blamed for everything she does wrong)
Loss of interest in usually pleasurable activities (sex stops, constant nagging starts)
Difficulty concentrating or making decisions (similar to mentally retarded child)
Fatigue (did nothing the whole day, yet always tired)
Changes in appetite or sleep (becomes fat, then obese)
Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide (completely mentally insane)
The point here is that you don't want women's problems to become your problems."
http://www.nomarriage.com/postpartum_depression.html

Amazing.

oh.dear.god.

I poked around that website for a while, men whine too much, and I use the term "men" loosely there.....maybe their wives are bitchy and uninterested in sex because they are married to jerks.

Anxiety, sadness or despair (constant mental basketcase and bitchy attitude)
Feelings of worthlessness or guilt, especially failure at motherhood (you will be blamed for everything she does wrong)
Loss of interest in usually pleasurable activities (sex stops, constant nagging starts)
Difficulty concentrating or making decisions (similar to mentally retarded child)
Fatigue (did nothing the whole day, yet always tired)
Changes in appetite or sleep (becomes fat, then obese)
Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide (completely mentally insane)
The point here is that you don't want women's problems to become your problems.


Damn. Just...damn. I knew some people could be amazingly selfish but...damn.

You're distorting the facts, and I can't believe you don't know it. Bottle very specifically defined a "non-feminist" as someone who does not believe in the equality of the genders (as did I, in my responses to you), and very specifically stated that how one self-identifies is irrelevant (as did I, again, in my responses to you). To keep insisting that she was attacking people who do not self-identify as feminists but nonetheless believe in the equality of the genders is absurd, given that she explicitly stated otherwise.

And yet, he continues to do so and bitching that we won't accept it. We're some evil SOBs for not letting him change her points in order to chastise her. Long live King Strawman.

I would sooner stick my unit in a Cuisinart than date a feminazi. At the first indication that she had feminist tendencies, I'd drop her like a bad habit.

Men, don't let feminism happen to you: http://www.nomarriage.com

Hilarious. Thank you. For the first three words of your post I actually took you seriously. This was good stuff. Thanks, again.

No, she wasn't. That's the point. YOU are arguing a strawman. She defined her term. Feminists, in her post, are people who BELIEVE in the equality of the sexes. What they call themselves has NOTHING to do with what they believe. You want her to be talking about what they call themselves, but not only did she make no such reference in her post, but she explicitly showed that she was talking about beliefs, not the title.


So to clarify her point, she explained what she means by feminist (a definition you've constantly and consistently claimed does not apply to the rest of her post). According to your own post, a non-feminist must be, since she defined feminist as she used it, a person who does NOT believe in social and political equality of the sexes.

Your argument is equivalent to saying, "She defined "cat" to be "dog", but you keep talking about that thing that is today generally known as a "cat"."

The fact is that "feminism" long since ceased being about "equality between men and women." That's not what's being taught in so-called "women's studies" departments, nor is it what's being spread by the likes of NOW, the hideous Andrea Dworkin, the insane Catherine MacKinnon, and the hairy-armpit wing of the Feminazi Party, who presume to define the term and control the debate today.

If she intends the discussion to focus on, "Would you date someone who believes in equality between men and women," then she should say so. If she chooses to use the term "feminist," and more specifically "modern feminist", then she must recognize that the term has a commonly understood meaning and is today associated with definite beliefs that are unrelated to the "equality" issue. She is not free to redefine the term to suit her, nor are we bound to accept her redefinition.

Hilarious. Thank you. For the first three words of your post I actually took you seriously. This was good stuff. Thanks, again.

Serious as a heart attack ;)

Your argument is equivalent to saying, "She defined "cat" to be "dog", but you keep talking about that thing that is today generally known as a "cat"."

The fact is that "feminism" long since ceased being about "equality between men and women." That's not what's being taught in so-called "women's studies" departments, nor is it what's being spread by the likes of NOW, the hideous Andrea Dworkin, the insane Catherine MacKinnon, and the hairy-armpit wing of the Feminazi Party, who presume to define the term and control the debate today.

If she intends the discussion to focus on, "Would you date someone who believes in equality between men and women," then she should say so. If she chooses to use the term "feminist," and more specifically "modern feminist", then she must recognize that the term has a commonly understood meaning and is today associated with definite beliefs that are unrelated to the "equality" issue. She is not free to redefine the term to suit her, nor are we bound to accept her redefinition.

It's not a redefinition. Feminist does generally mean someone who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes.
It's even in the dictionary, look it up.
You can even look up 3 different definitions on this very topic that agree on that.
Just because you hear the word "feminist" as "feminazi" doesn't mean that that's the general meaning of the term.
And to reuse your analogy, your argument is like saying "Well, I think cat means dog, so when she uses cat to mean cat, it's wrong".

Meanwhile, you keep claiming I'm missing the point, but, magically, you go back and change one of your posts because it exposes you as a hypocrite. Amusingly, this particular change evidences that I nailed the point and that I actually did catch you in hypocrisy.
I didn't "magically" go back and change one word, I did it on purpose, because it doesn't reflect the true me. I don't hate anyone or anything so I didn't want to present the wrong image.

The fact that I told you I changed it and the fact that I wrote the reason for the edit doesn't "expose" me as a hypocrite. I was not trying to hide anything and for you to suggest otherwise is disengenuous.

You have been trying to turn this into a sidebar issue, while I try to remain focused on Bottle's response. You keep throwing out the bait but I am not buying. Sorry to disappoint you.

To recap, the OP tossed out the bait, and I believe that Bottle's reply reinforced the stereotypical view that MCP's have of "feminists". It certainly did nothing to support the cause.

It's not a redefinition. Feminist does generally mean someone who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes.
It's even in the dictionary, look it up.
You can even look up 3 different definitions on this very topic that agree on that.
Just because you hear the word "feminist" as "feminazi" doesn't mean that that's the general meaning of the term.
And to reuse your analogy, your argument is like saying "Well, I think cat means dog, so when she uses cat to mean cat, it's wrong".

Well done. Good luck with getting New Mitanni to recognize that.

Society encourages women not to think for themselves.
<snip>

Right, and you seem to think that's the women's fault. You keep using words like "laziness" and other pejoratives to describe them, even though you are acknowledging that these women (in your sculpture class) are just doing what society has taught them to do.

I would point out, first of all, that this is exactly what feminism is arguing against, by encouraging women to recognize this society pressure and the damage it does to women and to quit cooperating with it.

I would also bring up the implication in your sculpture class posts that these "lazy" women don't want to be studying sculpture in the first place, but it's required. Are you sure you're being completely honest with us? Are there NO women in that class who WANT to be sculptors and don't hesitate to learn how to use the tools?

I'm a woman. Not only do I know how to use hand and power tools, I also know how to use precision sharp blades, how to paint and varnish, how to cook my own glues and pastels, and how to hand-forge models of the human skeleton in steel in an open-flame forge at 1000-1500 degrees Fahrenheit using hammers and tongs. I also know how to draw, sew, knit and do origami and paper marbling. And I also know how to design graphics and typography, lay out books, prep mechanicals for press, and so on. I learned all these things because I wanted to, and I wanted to because I am a professional artist.

I assure you that a woman is capable of learning anything she WANTS to learn, just the same as a man.

Meh, then I suppose thats what it boils down to; guesswork, both on your side of the debate and mine.

I dont know, men and women have always had roles in soceity, and almost always have roles in nature, and are different, I see no reason to go against nature. I have no problem with women in the workforce, but I do beleive the womens first place (if she has kids) is as a mother, as I think, like almost always in nature, a mother is needed for a good childs growth. Obviously a father is needed also, but I dont think to the same extent as the mother.
Well, since you acknowledge that your opinion is based on nothing but guesswork, why should we pay any more attention to what you think a woman's proper role is than you would pay to a feminst's idea of the same?

But in fact, we can compare your opinion to fact, and when we do, we find problems with it. For instance, your idea that a mother is more necessary to the raising of children than a father is not true. A mother is only necessary to the birthing of children. After that, anyone can care them, male or female. Look about you. You will see millions of examples of children being raised by men, children being raised by elderly people, even a few cases, in a few cultures, of children being raised communally by groups. The first role of anyone who has a child should be the role of parent, whether that person is male or female.

Second, your assertion that there are both societal roles for women and natural roles for women. Kindly point out to us any example of a woman, or a man, fulfilling a role OUTSIDE of the context of society. There is no such context. Humans create society the way ants create anthills. You will never find a group of humans, even just a family group living in any context other than a social one. In addition, the idea of "roles" automatically implies the existence of society, because if there is no society of humans, then for whom are these "roles" to be performed? Thus, there are no human roles which are not social roles, and social roles vary from culture to culture and time to time. What you are portraying as "natural" is just the norm of the culture that raised you.

I didn't "magically" go back and change one word, I did it on purpose, because it doesn't reflect the true me. I don't hate anyone or anything so I didn't want to present the wrong image.

The fact that I told you I changed it and the fact that I wrote the reason for the edit doesn't "expose" me as a hypocrite. I was not trying to hide anything and for you to suggest otherwise is disengenuous.

You have been trying to turn this into a sidebar issue, while I try to remain focused on Bottle's response. You keep throwing out the bait but I am not buying. Sorry to disappoint you.

To recap, the OP tossed out the bait, and I believe that Bottle's reply reinforced the stereotypical view that MCP's have of "feminists". It certainly did nothing to support the cause.

Yes, it's me who distracting the issue. You are redefining Bottle's words and then claiming it as a reason for outrage. It's absurd. So keep pretending your own words don't betray you, but they do. She expressed her opinion of bigots. If you don't like her opinion of bigots, fine, but stop pretending like she was talking about housewives because she doesn't approve of their choices. She was talking about bigots. She made it clear she was. She told she was. We told she was. She defined her terms. And you've spent 40 pages trying to change her meaning. That may not be your point, but there is no getting around the FACT that your argument rests on your redefinition of the words of her post.

Read on, ya bastard.
That's "bitch" to you. You would have known that if you had bothered to read the thread.

I will be the first to admit, it is a very precarious theory, and will only happen if female supremecists like Bottle take control.
Oh, don't sell it short. Call it what it is -- pure bullshit.

Neither was Feminist until it was introduced in the 1920's. The only reason I use it is because I could think of nothing better. Libertarian might work, but it just didn't seem right at the moment.
So now you're coining new words for the language? Save yourself the trouble and buy a dictionary. It will be less embarrassing for you. The perfectly good, well-known and commonly used word you wanted is "egalitarian." Look it up.

Your argument is equivalent to saying, "She defined "cat" to be "dog", but you keep talking about that thing that is today generally known as a "cat"."

The fact is that "feminism" long since ceased being about "equality between men and women." That's not what's being taught in so-called "women's studies" departments, nor is it what's being spread by the likes of NOW, the hideous Andrea Dworkin, the insane Catherine MacKinnon, and the hairy-armpit wing of the Feminazi Party, who presume to define the term and control the debate today.

If she intends the discussion to focus on, "Would you date someone who believes in equality between men and women," then she should say so. If she chooses to use the term "feminist," and more specifically "modern feminist", then she must recognize that the term has a commonly understood meaning and is today associated with definite beliefs that are unrelated to the "equality" issue. She is not free to redefine the term to suit her, nor are we bound to accept her redefinition.

Ha. Amusing. Puppets are funny.

Meanwhile, you make this claim, then you should be able to find me proof that doesn't reference a site that is clearly the kind of hatred you pretend to be complaining about.

Whatever. My balls are big enough that I'm not threatened by an assertive woman. Seems like a lot of guys around here have a problem with that.
Years ago, PBS ran a miniseries of the historical novel "I, Claudius." My favorite line from it came from the Roman Empress Livia, wife of Augustus, when her son, Tiberius, complained that she was too political and too murderous.

Tiberius: "Why can't you act like a normal woman?"

Livia: "Maybe I could, if I was surrounded by normal men."

After a while assertive bitchy women can get to be like a nagging puss filled abbsessed tooth and you will need to remove it.


your balls have nothing to do with ...unless you consider how much they will be broken.

Lets put two A types toghether and give one PMS and a sense of entitlement.... sounds like a plan ...:D
And a whiny, spineless man who pisses all over himself and starts crying "wah wah wah feminazis waaah" any time a woman tells him to quit bothering her and find his own goddamned socks can quickly get to be like a cockroach in the kitchen, and you'll need to remove him, too. Sometimes in the same way.

Let's put two A types together, give one PMS and make the other an overgrown, poorly brought up, baby-critter, and you know what you get? Lorena Bobbit. She's like the girl OJ -- she shouldn't have done it, but I do understand.

yes.

we are stalled at ...75% of the goal of gender equality. there are still lots of things to be done and some people really are stuck focusing on the wrong things. we're trying to figure out person by person just what we DO want and what is possible. sometimes we hang on to outmoded stereotypes because of a perceived advantage--a good example is the women in your office who wont move furniture. sometimes we make "liberated" choices that leave us wondering if we would have been happier if we had been more "traditional". sometimes we choose traditional roles and feel like we are sitting with our noses pressed up against the window watching our sisters acheive glory in the greater world.

we have legal equality in the 1st world but that doesnt guarantee us anything but the struggle to figure out what equality means in our own lives.
I would also like to remind everyone here that the 1st world isn't the only one that counts. There's a certain "I've got mine"-ism to all this debate over whether feminism is obsolete just because women in rich countries have achieved 75% of the goal of equality. Not only do we still have that last 25% to account for here, there are also hundreds of millions of women in other parts of the world who haven't even gotten the first 10% of basic civil rights. Feminism will be a legitimate political movement as long as women are still disenfranchised, traded as property, denied the protection of law, and barred from participating in their societies solely because of their sex, anywhere in the world.

Thank-you! :) We're getting married in a bookstore...



Cool, right?
Most excellently cool! Congratulations.

I would sooner stick my unit in a Cuisinart than date a feminazi. At the first indication that she had feminist tendencies, I'd drop her like a bad habit.

Men, don't let feminism happen to you: http://www.nomarriage.com
Trust me, NM, this is something you will NEVER have to worry about.

But if it would make you feel safer, then don't wait -- go ahead with the Cuisinart.

Heh, this thread has certainly been interesting. As much of it as I read, anyway. There are only so many hours in a day and all that.

No idea where I fit in here. I'm a happily married, pregnant feminist who loves cooking and who is planning to stay at home for a year to look after the baby. Shiny! (The poverty will be fun, since I earn twice as much as my husband, but oh well, that's what savings are for.)

Sorry to hark back to the OP, but honestly, the 'psychobabble' dies down a bit when the reality of what's for dinner and who's going to pay the phone bill sets in. Plus, oh you know, actually *loving* someone and being able to actually converse with them. Odd concept, no?

I once tried 'surrendering' to my husband as a bit of a prank (as I have no sense of humour, you see ;) ). He followed me round like a kicked puppy wanting to know what he'd done wrong. My prank lasted a good eight minutes before I didn't have the heart to do it any more. Girls, marry a feminist.

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.

got a thing for a lesbian do you...lol...sucks for you.

as for feminists...let the door hit em where it hurts...(i wont hold it)we are all people after all...and i dont deride people for what they like..but dont deride me for being a man,and it seems many HATE MEN for no other reason then we are men...so bugger off.

got a thing for a lesbian do you...lol...sucks for you.

as for feminists...let the door hit em where it hurts...(i wont hold it)we are all people after all...and i dont deride people for what they like..but dont deride me for being a man,and it seems many HATE MEN for no other reason then we are men...so bugger off.
Okay, so we'll abandon the whole idea of feminism and leave all those women in the third world who have no rights at all to just lie and rot in their unequal hells, just because you personally don't like to be criticized here in the snug, cushy USA.

And because you think some women hate men, all the rest of us will give up trying to achieve equal pay for equal work, and we'll give up protecting reproductive freedom, and we'll stop trying to educate young people about relations between the sexes and domestic violence and all the rest of that stuff that still happens here in the snug, cushy USA.

You denouncing all feminists as man-haters is no different than a few women denouncing all men as woman-oppressors. Stop thinking about yourself for a minute and look at the bigger picture. Feminism is not about a few shrill hags with a lust for the spotlight. It's about the very serious issue of gender equality and it still has a lot of work to do in the world.

Yes, it's me who distracting the issue. You are redefining Bottle's words and then claiming it as a reason for outrage. It's absurd. So keep pretending your own words don't betray you, but they do. She expressed her opinion of bigots. If you don't like her opinion of bigots, fine, but stop pretending like she was talking about housewives because she doesn't approve of their choices. She was talking about bigots. She made it clear she was. She told she was. We told she was. She defined her terms. And you've spent 40 pages trying to change her meaning. That may not be your point, but there is no getting around the FACT that your argument rests on your redefinition of the words of her post.
She was talking about non-feminists and anti-feminists. After non/anti-feminists, what else is left? She did not use the word bigot. The OP set the trap and Bottle jumped right in. I commented on her denigration of these people. As I read through the many pages of this thread, I came across another example where she re-states the generalization that anti-feminists are "bad lovers (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859366&postcount=58)". She cannot support that claim, and it does nothing but make her look bad.

Again she re-states "that all anti-feminist people are sub-par prospects for relationships." What is with that crap? This only perpetuates the stereotypical image that some men and women have in regards to "feminism".

Others’Perceptions of Feminists as a Barrier to Self-Identification (http://www.spssi.org/Alyssa_n_zucker.pdf)

•Large numbers of egalitarians and non-feminists indicated they did not identify as feminists because feminists are too extreme. Significantly more egalitarians than non-feminists indicated they did not identify because feminists are male-bashers.

•Perhaps non-feminists mostly do not care about feminism one way or another, particularly because they do not endorse many liberal feminist beliefs.

•Egalitarians, on the other hand, have the beliefs but may find the group unattractive because of perceived negativity toward men, or be worried about other people’s perceptions of them and their heterosexuality if they identify.

Bottle wants to cultivate this negative perception?

BTW, in addition to your sidebar issues (you also had a long drawn out one with Ebri), and your obvious baiting, I notice that you love hyperbole when you are tossing out words.

BTW2, I always thought you were a guy (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859429&postcount=78), but I guess not?

She was talking about non-feminists and anti-feminists. After non/anti-feminists, what else is left?

Nothing. She defined feminist as anyone who believes in the equality of the sexes. Non-feminists, by your own admission, is anyone who doesn't. And anti-feminists are directly opposed a political movement for feminism (instead of just believing they're wrong). It's very simple until someone decides that's not good enough for them and tries to change her definitions and thus change the meaning of what she said.

She did not use the word bigot.

She also did not use the word inferior or talk about what people call themselves, but you're very happy to read that into her post. Apparently, you're allowed to say her post says something in contradiction with what she explicitly says, but I'm not allowed to say it says something directly in line with what she implied and what she later says she intended to imply.

The OP set the trap and Bottle jumped right in. I commented on her denigration of these people.

I denigrate racists all the time. I'm happy to do it. They're racists. They don't deserve my respect. I'll be the first to admit it. You do the same when you're not playing holier than thou.

Her definitions require that she was talking about the equivelant of racists, sexists, and she makes this clear in defining her terms and pointing out that she is talking about bigots by talking about similar types of bigots.

As I read through the many pages of this thread, I came across another example where she re-states the generalization that anti-feminists are "bad lovers (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859366&postcount=58)". She cannot support that claim, and it does nothing but make her look bad.

Yes, so argue about that. However, when you claim she said something she didn't it simply makes you look silly and petty.


Again she re-states "that all anti-feminist people are sub-par prospects for relationships." What is with that crap? This only perpetuates the stereotypical image that some men and women have in regards to "feminism".

I don't date racists. I guess I'm hurting the cause of racial equality by saying I won't date racists. Here's a clue, my friend, racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc. are ideologies. They aren't immutable qualities. They are choices. And Bottle is simply being an honest person when she says she won't date people who have certain ideologies or who make certain choices. And considering her promotion of equality, it's almost a requirement that she think that people who don't believe men and women are equal are not good people.


Others’Perceptions of Feminists as a Barrier to Self-Identification (http://www.spssi.org/Alyssa_n_zucker.pdf)

•Large numbers of egalitarians and non-feminists indicated they did not identify as feminists because feminists are too extreme. Significantly more egalitarians than non-feminists indicated they did not identify because feminists are male-bashers.

She didn't bash males. Not once. She bashed people with a sexist ideology.

•Perhaps non-feminists mostly do not care about feminism one way or another, particularly because they do not endorse many liberal feminist beliefs.

By Bottle's definition, a non-feminist is someone who does not believe the sexes are equal. This has nothing to do with how people self-identify. If people believe in equality, why should feminists care what they call themselves. Bottle made it clear that she doesn't. You've made it clear that you believe it's all about superficial qualities like how you identify yourself rather than what you believe.

•Egalitarians, on the other hand, have the beliefs but may find the group unattractive because of perceived negativity toward men, or be worried about other people’s perceptions of them and their heterosexuality if they identify.

Again, Bottle was not male-bashing. This has nothing to do with what Bottle said. Bottle was talking about sexists, bigots.

Bottle wants to cultivate this negative perception?

No, apparently, you do. You've talked about it a lot more than Bottle, and you've made every effort to make her comments be about male-bashing (so much so that you quoted several statements about male-bashing) or about bashing people who don't self-identify. For you, her comments weren't damaging enough so you had to alter them to make them more damaging. How sad for you.

Now, let's see if you follow you're own advice -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11737586&postcount=23
So racists are very sick people. Good thing you'd never suggest there's anything wrong with them or that they're inferior. Or mention your dislike for racist movements, because hey, all God's people are equal, as you said, so you would never have anything against racists. Wouldn't want to be like Bottle.

Should I mention your past relationship with Eut or Drunk Commies? According to you, if you're not tolerant of everyone no matter how detestable their views, then you're a hypocrite.

BTW, in addition to your sidebar issues (you also had a long drawn out one with Ebri), and your obvious baiting, I notice that you love hyperbole when you are tossing out words.

BTW2, I always thought you were a guy (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859429&postcount=78), but I guess not?


In case anyone is wondering, this is what CH does when he knows he's lost an argument. Smoke and mirrors.

In reply: You'll notice, that my reply was basically laughing at the fact that her statement called feminists dykes, which since I'm a feminist...

That's not hyperbole. Perhaps you should look the word up.

there is no masculinist movement, as has been pointed out many times on this thread. probably a good thing, too, as for the most part (apart from silly minor things like this) that movement is not required.


God forbid people nip a problem in the bud before it turns into something bigger.

While I can't stand men who whine about missing out on university places, jobs or being denied entry to clubs - come on guys... There are some social changes of late that are harmful (or have potential to be harmful) to all involved.

In the UK teaching is increasingly becoming a female dominated career. Some of the reasons for this however are very disturbing - many men are afraid to go into it for fear of allegations of sexual abuse. Reading a few weeks ago a newspape report about difficulties of men getting into teaching one comment was particulary disturbing - a female trainee teacher commenting on a male trainee teacher comforting a small child who had hurt his knee falling:
"I;m not saying there was anything suspicious with it, but I saw it and though 'Oh god... that looks so innappropriate" (as close to the wording as I remember.) The idea that all men are sex offenders and should not be trusted with children is a very dangerous one - for both genders.

Another problem was also due to increased difficulties for men to get jobs teaching and being ostracised in the workplace by a majority female staff (I know this has happened to women for a long long time - and the reason we campaign against it is because it is wrong.

However men prostesting against this sort of thing are often viewed with suspicion or greeted with unhelpful responses of "well women had to deal with it for years too". Which I think is particulary unhelpful in a job that in the west plays an increasing part in raising children - and an all female staff gives no male role models or perspective to the male students (and female - but males tend to be affected more by lack of male role models) - if a boy comes from a single (normally female) parent family, and has an all female staff at school he could easily grow up with NO real-life male rolemodels. Think how many single parent families there are. Think is the trend rising. If you think that is an issue that will only affect men then you have your head well and truely up your own ass.

Also a similar view that men are violent and sexual rpedators plays no small part in custody of children, where in many cases unless the mother is in jail the father stands little chance of gaining custody - but any protests against this are dismissed as a bunch of loonies (does not help that the main group wear kids haloween costumes...). The policy of awarding custody to the mother no matter what is a very harmful one when in many cases the mother can be the wrong choice to make. AND the trend also reinforces the view that a womans place is with the children. The trend is groosly offensive to both genders.

There are other cases too, but these are just a couple of examples where men should be protesting, but either dont for fear of being viewed as pedophiles or do and are ridiculed. (or don't due to apathy)

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.

I find sideways sex to be rather difficult, though...

I thought you had mostly good points, but...

and an all female staff gives no male role models or perspective to the male students (and female - but males tend to be affected more by lack of male role models) - if a boy comes from a single (normally female) parent family, and has an all female staff at school he could easily grow up with NO real-life male rolemodels. If the sexes are equal then why does it matter which sex a child's role model is?

.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.[/QUOTE]

My question is who marries these feministy wackos?

I have to point out the one advantage - you do get to leave the toilet seat up.

I thought you had mostly good points, but...

If the sexes are equal then why does it matter which sex a child's role model is?

Equality does not mean there are not differences between the genders - it means neither gender is inferior and that a person should only be limited in their life by their own abilities rather than restricted opportunities or rights based on their gender. (to simplify).

Equality does not mean there are not differences between the genders - it means neither gender is inferior and that a person should only be limited in their life by their own abilities rather than restricted opportunities or rights based on their gender. (to simplify).

The difference that are will become evident no matter what role models a child has. Anything else is a continually perpetuated social construct that might be outdated etc. Yes, men make for better hunters/protectors in a stoneage environment due to muscle and bone structure. Nowadays we can lay aside the notion of man as the provider and woman as caretaker. My ex-flatemate is now doing the housework and his wife brings in the money. Oh the horror, the children will have wrong role models. ;)

I would sooner stick my unit in a Cuisinart than date a feminazi. At the first indication that she had feminist tendencies, I'd drop her like a bad habit.
Feminist =/= feminazi.

Feminists believe in 50/50 equality, feminazis want female supremacy.

studies" departments, nor is it what's being spread by the likes of NOW, the hideous Andrea Dworkin, the insane Catherine MacKinnon, and the hairy-armpit wing of the Feminazi Party, who presume to define the term and control the debate today.
I don't agree with Dworkin or MacKinnon but I don't see why their idea of feminism has to be mine or everyone else's idea of it.

Right, and you seem to think that's the women's fault. You keep using words like "laziness" and other pejoratives to describe them, even though you are acknowledging that these women (in your sculpture class) are just doing what society has taught them to do.
It is laziness to give up before you even try. I learned sewing despite its social stigma, I expect nothing less than forgirls to learn power tools, especially since they have had a feminist movement behind them.

I would point out, first of all, that this is exactly what feminism is arguing against, by encouraging women to recognize this society pressure and the damage it does to women and to quit cooperating with it.
Are you under the delusion that I'm one of the self-proclaimed anti-feminists? I'm not giving out about feminists, I'm giving out about women.

I would also bring up the implication in your sculpture class posts that these "lazy" women don't want to be studying sculpture in the first place, but it's required.
Read my posts:
I'm talking about girls who have chosen to study for a degree in sculpture, but still want to put off learning this stuff until the last minute.

Are you sure you're being completely honest with us? Are there NO women in that class who WANT to be sculptors and don't hesitate to learn how to use the tools?
Read my posts:
Mind you, this isn't all or a even a solid majority of the female sculpture students, but still a number high enough to be of concern.


I assure you that a woman is capable of learning anything she WANTS to learn, just the same as a man.
Show me where I denied it.

Marrying a feminist ? Heaven forbid ! The mere thought of socializing with them nauseates me...

Feminist or not, I´m still expecting to hear anything interesting coming from a woman.
We have to be " nice " to them, we have to be " sensitive ", we have to use our " emotional intelligence ", you have to remember what she wore 15 years ago when you met her...
Must I go on ?

The difference that are will become evident no matter what role models a child has. Anything else is a continually perpetuated social construct that might be outdated etc. Yes, men make for better hunters/protectors in a stoneage environment due to muscle and bone structure. Nowadays we can lay aside the notion of man as the provider and woman as caretaker. My ex-flatemate is now doing the housework and his wife brings in the money. Oh the horror, the children will have wrong role models. ;)

I think you are reading slightly the wrong thing into 'role model' in the sense that I use it. I am not using the 'role model' in a "lets brainwash girls to look after kids and men to earn money" or vice versa. But more in the sense that boys who come from a family environment without a vaguely positive male rolemodel are far more likely to end up in a career of crime and are far more likely to be abusive to women. (although no small % of boys from abusive households end up doing the same to their partners later in life - I am NOT saying couples should stay together to provide a role model to the kids if that model is the dad beating the mum - or vice-versa... it happens)

blah blah general case, more likely etc etc. for the record I'm a guy from a single parent (mother) household (after I finished being a kid from a two parent abusive household.) and have a solid degree, no criminal record, healthy relationship with my fiance and a decent job. I know there are exceptions and that a child brought up without a male role model (or a shitty one) can make a perfectly fine future for themselves. But the odds are not on their side.

Boys/Men and Girls/Women know they are different. They DO view each other differently - if they did not we'd all be bisexual and play mixed sports and have mixed changing rooms in school. Boys respond differenty to male teachers than they do to female teachers, ditto girls. Ditto with parents. And colleges and friends. The genders are different - which is VERY different to saying one is better than the other.
(all this is refering in tendancies and I am fully aware that the differences in responses of biys to girls is also equalled by the difference in responses of boys to other boys, however the differences are in different ways/areas.)

Do you really want a 15 old boy to base the all of his his perceptions of how a male should behave in society and how he should treat women based on a group of other 15 year old boys in the same situation?

I thought you had mostly good points, but...

If the sexes are equal then why does it matter which sex a child's role model is?

if the sexes are equal its necessary to show that to children so they dont grow up thinking that only women can be teachers.

if a child is growing up in a bad neighborhood surrounded by horrible role models both male and female-- drug abusers, criminals, gang members, prostitutes, whatever--then school might be the best place for them to see a better way. if that better way is all female, what do the boys learn about men?

Marrying a feminist ? Heaven forbid ! The mere thought of socializing with them nauseates me...

Feminist or not, I´m still expecting to hear anything interesting coming from a woman.
We have to be " nice " to them, we have to be " sensitive ", we have to use our " emotional intelligence ", you have to remember what she wore 15 years ago when you met her...
Must I go on ?

No, it's quite clear that you regard it as completely unreasonable to be asked to behave like a polite person.
Oh, and that you fell hook, line and sinker for the stereotypes promoted in caricatures.

No, it's quite clear that you regard it as completely unreasonable to be asked to behave like a polite person.
Oh, and that you fell hook, line and sinker for the stereotypes promoted in caricatures.
What should we do about the blatant discrimination against male students in Irish universities?

What should we do about the blatant discrimination against male students in Irish universities?

Suggest something.

Marrying a feminist ? Heaven forbid ! The mere thought of socializing with them nauseates me...

Feminist or not, I´m still expecting to hear anything interesting coming from a woman.
We have to be " nice " to them, we have to be " sensitive ", we have to use our " emotional intelligence ", you have to remember what she wore 15 years ago when you met her...
Must I go on ?

nooooo darlin' you can do anything you want, its a free country. you arent required to take anyones feelings into consideration if you dont want to.

if youre not gay (and nicer to men) youre never getting laid though.

nooooo darlin' you can do anything you want, its a free country. you arent required to take anyones feelings into consideration if you dont want to.

if youre not gay (and nicer to men) youre never getting laid though.

I can't help wondering if that was such a bad thing. At least it would stop him from procreating...

Suggest something.
The problem is that the Leaving Cert is more suitable for the female mind, and also there is a teenage boy culture that is insufficiently pro-education.

Where did you get the idea that females were underrepresented in Irish universities?

The problem is that the Leaving Cert is more suitable for the female mind, and also there is a teenage boy culture that is insufficiently pro-education.

Then I'd suggest to start with the culture. It probably has the most influence on boys.

What should we do about the blatant discrimination against male students in Irish universities?

Many 'male' trades actually pay a pretty decent wage, often they pay more than most professions. Many 'female' trades pay very badly in comparison (excluding prostitution and porno).

Going into the workforce from school is a sound choice for many young men as they will earn a good living.

Going into the workforce is not so attractive to many women due to generally poor pay in 'female' careers so they have much more motivation to go to university.

So - to improve the 'discrimination' by Irish universities you ahve to get rid of discrimination in 'male' trades against women and improve the pay in 'female' trades.

Also - look at the university courses. Look at the ones that will lead to the highest graduate salaries. Look at which ones have more men than women. You will see LOTS of overlap.

What should we do about the blatant discrimination against male students in Irish universities?

an inequality in numbers doesnt require a blatant discrimination on the university level.

you have to analyse WHY there are fewer men in university. is it because the cabal of female admissions officers is secretly working to deny men admission? are the professors exerting unfair pressure on male students with the aim of getting them to drop out?

probably not. although you should still check to make sure

is it because fewer men apply? is it because while equal numbers of men apply, the female candidates are better qualified to the extent reflected in the imbalance? these are the more likely reasons and the solution you choose needs to reflect the actual reasons or you wont solve your problem. are men starting to think of college as a woman's thing? there are solutions for that. are boys slacking off in school (or is school no longer using teaching methods most appropriate for the average boy)? that required a different solution.

what the solution shouldnt be is an artificial discouragment of girls in education. if you make it harder for girls to go to university, the gender imbalance can be fixed. not a great plan.

I think you are reading slightly the wrong thing into 'role model' in the sense that I use it. I am not using the 'role model' in a "lets brainwash girls to look after kids and men to earn money" or vice versa. But more in the sense that boys who come from a family environment without a vaguely positive male rolemodel are far more likely to end up in a career of crime and are far more likely to be abusive to women. (although no small % of boys from abusive households end up doing the same to their partners later in life - I am NOT saying couples should stay together to provide a role model to the kids if that model is the dad beating the mum - or vice-versa... it happens)

So you are basically saying that a woman alone is not able to fully confer the morality needed to be a good citizen and loving partner? Can you back this up and show me the correlation? Or might this be more about children from any single-parent household gets less attention and education?
How would a boy without a female role model fare? And why is the gender of a good role model important if it isnt about any sexist concepts? Crime is nothing that is male/femal exclusive and staying away from it isnt as well.

What should we do about the blatant discrimination against male students in Irish universities?

How about we start by actually looking further into the problem than simply comparing the number of men to the number of women?

So you are basically saying that a woman alone is not able to fully confer the morality needed to be a good citizen and loving partner? Can you back this up and show me the correlation? Or might this be more about children from any single-parent household gets less attention and education?
How would a boy without a female role model fare? And why is the gender of a good role model important if it isnt about any sexist concepts? Crime is nothing that is male/femal exclusive and staying away from it isnt as well.

ohforgodssake do you know ANYTHING about children?

So you are basically saying that a woman alone is not able to fully confer the morality needed to be a good citizen and loving partner? Can you back this up and show me the correlation? Or might this be more about children from any single-parent household gets less attention and education?
How would a boy without a female role model fare? And why is the gender of a good role model important if it isnt about any sexist concepts? Crime is nothing that is male/femal exclusive and staying away from it isnt as well.
You appear to be saying you will just assume the trend for males without decent male role models will be due to lack of general attention and education - rather than a lack of seeing how adult men and women interact with each other - regardless of what evidence I show you for boys without fathers having much higher chances of ending up commiting violent crime or being abusive to women or going on to father more fatherless children.

The gender of role models is important as children learn how to act/behave based on role models. However they are smart enough to know that they are male or female and act according to their own genders role models. If you do not provide them with a role model that they will follow, they will find one in their friends (or god forbid on TV...). I.e. 14 year old boys learning about how to act in society and how to treat women from other 14 year old boys.

Equal =/= Same
Different =/= Better

1. Yes, you're right. IF such a situation occured, that woman would be a hypocrit. But no more so than every man who has ever wished his wife would do the housework for him.
Two wrong make a right. You are right. It is hypocritical in a man. You didn't address the point though.
2. The nighttime noise fallacy. In my household, my spouse has been known to sleep through burglary attempts.
"I don't do that so it means your point is wrong". There's 6 billion people on the planet, you are statistically irrelevant. Still not a valid argument.
3a) Speaking of erectile dysfunction, why is it that some doctors and pharmacists will refuse to provide birth control to women for religious beliefs, but we've never heard of them refusing to provide Viagra (or its like) to men due to religious beliefs?
I agree on that one. Viagra's a disgrace. The amount of money spent on Viagra, could have wiped Malaria off the planet. I'm going off topic though.
Glass ceiling. It's everywhere, cowboy.....Tell me, would YOU vote for a woman to be president? Sure you say, if she were qualified. Now explain to me how Bush became president despite his clear lack of qualifications. No, never mind, I'll explain. Connections. .... just becaue the UK actually elected Maggie doesn't mean that invalidates this point. She just happened to be a woman who hooked into an ol'boy network.
Exactly. Condi and Maggie prove a point. It's about power and class, not gender. Due to the relatively small time women have had the opportunities to run oil companies, etc, it will be a while until their are enough linked in with the network. Are you telling me Oprah wouldn't win a presidential election?
Also, I think that anyone who wants to be president should be disqualified from applying.
Please find me an occupation that doesn't have women wanting to do the job and have the same risks, rewards, and responsibilities as men.
Grandl Slam Tennis Tournaments. Men play best of 5 sets, women play best of 3. To be truly equal their should be just one competition, where women and men could play against each other. Winner takes the cash.
Also, if you think feminism is done and there is no need for it, please explain why ....
Where did I say feminism is done? I have said all along, a certain subset of the female populace want all the good parts of feminism (wages, education, etc) while keeping men as the big protector, and this is hypocrisy. Feminism needs to go further, so this hypocrisy is removed. I've said feminsim needs to go further before, I'll say it again. Repetition is meant to be a good teaching tool.
It will be impossible to get stats on this as nearly all gender study is by people with a pro-feminism agenda who have a complete blindspot regarding where it has failed.I'll say it again. Feminism has done many good things. Universal Suffrage for one. But it has failed also. Feminism has failed the poor. Gender stereotyping is worse than ever due to Big media, and that is a very bad thing for poor women. That is why I have said take a look at pop culture, and you will see this All Around You.

It is laziness to give up before you even try. I learned sewing despite its social stigma, I expect nothing less than forgirls to learn power tools, especially since they have had a feminist movement behind them.
So, if you don't WANT to learn, oh, say...bricklaying, but I require you to complete just one term of it in order to get the degree you really want, even though bricklaying really has nothing to do with it, you are here to tell me that you not going to coast through that bricklaying course with the least amount of effort possible. No, you are going to apply yourself absolutely to becoming the best possible bricklayer you can get to be in a single term? Keeping in mind, of course, that one term is nowhere near enough to actually become good at bricklaying -- or sculpture.

I don't know why, but I just don't believe you. The "laziness" that seems to have your knickers in such a twist is not a female trait, it's a human one. I have seen just as many men as women coast through unwanted courses and tasks in pretty much the same weasling, shirking way. People who have clear ambitions and agendas do not like to waste their time and energy doing things that do not advance those ambitions/agendas. Especially if they are not actually going to get good at it in the time required. Why should I devote myself to some half-assed pseudo-project that has nothing to do with my life plans and isn't even going to give me a usable skill?

Are you under the delusion that I'm one of the self-proclaimed anti-feminists? I'm not giving out about feminists, I'm giving out about women.
Uh-huh. You going on and on about how women are at fault for indulging in the exact same behaviors that men do is real egalitarian of you. You going on and on about how a few of the women you know doing things you don't approve of stand as examples of how ALL women behave is real feminist.

Read my posts:



Read my posts:



Show me where I denied it.
I have read your posts. Your constant carping on the things you say women don't do which you think they should do is a clear indication of your attitude. Especially since you are citing nothing but vague personal anecdotes and trying to apply them to ALL women. Yes, yes, you toss out the occasional disclaimer that it isn't "all" women, but then you go right back to complaining about women in general.

Marrying a feminist ? Heaven forbid ! The mere thought of socializing with them nauseates me...

Feminist or not, I´m still expecting to hear anything interesting coming from a woman.
We have to be " nice " to them, we have to be " sensitive ", we have to use our " emotional intelligence ", you have to remember what she wore 15 years ago when you met her...
Must I go on ?
No, you can stop now. :p

No, it isn't, and feminism is actively trying to get women into combat. And, no, technically it isn't. You speculate and as if it makes my claims contradictory. Women have an interest in destroying gender roles and feminism has been actively doing for decades.

As maintaining certain gender roles could be in women's interests.

No, they wouldn't. You speculate and then pretend as if your speculation is a given. Show me any major femist group that argues FOR women being kept out of combat, mechanics, etc. I'll wait.
{Grouped together as they are so simiar}
So if I say something about feminism and women in society it is speculative fiction, but if you say it, it is true? You can not disregard an argument so easily. Especially as you have missed a huge part of what I am saying.

And no, we weren't doing well. The brick wall was always there, you're claims that we agree were as weak as your arguments. It was attempt to ride on my back because I'm making a better argument than you.
A classic. Claiming the high ground, as a trick to try to show your argument as strong, when it is not, as you keep not addressing my point
Again, we just have your speculation to evidence your claims. See, feminism is no more defined by people who bastardize it's ideals than Christianity is defined by a guy who kills a homosexual in the name of God. It absolutely doesn't work that way. All major activities of feminism fight against gender roles, not for them. Prove otherwise, my friend or are we supposed to accept that your wild stereotypes are the fault of feminism simply because you say so.
I don't need to prove feminist activists fight against gender roles, as that is not my point. My point is, to summarise "Many women want a Big strong male protector, but still want the gains of feminism and this is hypocritical." I accept this is a slight segue from the "would you marry a feminist" title to the thread, but you'd expect that 60 pages on.

QUOTE]
<snip>
I don't need to prove feminist activists fight against gender roles, as that is not my point. My point is, to summarise "Many women want a Big strong male protector, but still want the gains of feminism and this is hypocritical." I accept this is a slight segue from the "would you marry a feminist" title to the thread, but you'd expect that 60 pages on.
It is just as true to say that "Many men want a woman to earn her own way and contribute financially to the household through having a job, but still want the woman to do all the work of housekeeping and childrearing at the same time." Just as true, and just as irrelevant to understanding what feminism is. The unreasonable, unrealistic wishes of individuals have nothing to do with the definition of the broader political ideology.

Two wrong make a right. You are right. It is hypocritical in a man. You didn't address the point though.

It was addressed. I believe it was pointed out that it would be hypcritical IF it occurred. As you pointed out though, a single story is statistically irrelevant.

"I don't do that so it means your point is wrong". There's 6 billion people on the planet, you are statistically irrelevant. Still not a valid argument.

Which would really help your case IF you'd offered statistics. Of course, you haven't. What is statistically irrelevant is a bunch of examples that you haven't shown to actually have enough relevance to even be considered.

I agree on that one. Viagra's a disgrace. The amount of money spent on Viagra, could have wiped Malaria off the planet. I'm going off topic though.

Exactly. Condi and Maggie prove a point. It's about power and class, not gender. Due to the relatively small time women have had the opportunities to run oil companies, etc, it will be a while until their are enough linked in with the network. Are you telling me Oprah wouldn't win a presidential election?
Also, I think that anyone who wants to be president should be disqualified from applying.

No, she wouldn't. Again, you use rare examples to show what? That rare examples occur? As you pointed out, there are 6 Billion people on the planet, your two examples are statistically irrelevant.

Grandl Slam Tennis Tournaments. Men play best of 5 sets, women play best of 3. To be truly equal their should be just one competition, where women and men could play against each other. Winner takes the cash.

Seriously? Your example is professional sports, something played by, like, ten in a billion people. Fine. Show that men are getting the advantage there as well. Show that women wouldn't be willing to play against the men. Show ANYTHING that makes this example of value to the generalized point you're making.

Where did I say feminism is done? I have said all along, a certain subset of the female populace want all the good parts of feminism (wages, education, etc) while keeping men as the big protector, and this is hypocrisy. Feminism needs to go further, so this hypocrisy is removed. I've said feminsim needs to go further before, I'll say it again. Repetition is meant to be a good teaching tool.

And you've provided no evidence that this is a statistically significant problem. There is a portion of the population that think Bush is the anti-Christ, however, I would be silly to bring that up to rail against Christianity.

You keep saying this is a subset but you've been using this subset to rail against feminism as a whole (such as claiming that pro-feminism scientists are bogarting all the statistics or using this subset to say that movement, feminism, has failed.

It will be impossible to get stats on this as nearly all gender study is by people with a pro-feminism agenda who have a complete blindspot regarding where it has failed.I'll say it again. Feminism has done many good things. Universal Suffrage for one. But it has failed also. Feminism has failed the poor. Gender stereotyping is worse than ever due to Big media, and that is a very bad thing for poor women. That is why I have said take a look at pop culture, and you will see this All Around You.

Oh, how convenient. "It's true, really, but because of the vast conspiracy against me I can't prove it."

It hasn't failed. It's simply not done. As you can see, we have a thread full of people saying it's not done and a select few men who are claiming it is and YOU crying about how it's feminism's fault they haven't finished yet. I guess a few millenia of gender roles and subjugation should be corrected in a couple of decades. Yes, THAT's realistic.

So do you all think the civil rights movement failed simply because it's not done or is your vitriol reserved for feminists?

I don't need to prove feminist activists fight against gender roles, as that is not my point. My point is, to summarise "Many women want a Big strong male protector, but still want the gains of feminism and this is hypocritical." I accept this is a slight segue from the "would you marry a feminist" title to the thread, but you'd expect that 60 pages on.

yes, women are human. they sometimes take what they can get even if its not in women's long term best interest to do so. *shrug*

its the same reason why my father never changed a single diaper on any of his 7 children, not because he was a lazy cold hearted bastard, but because he could get away with it.

women are people too. go figure.

...mysogynist rant that shows how separated the OP is from reality...So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. ...mysogynist rant that shows how separated the OP is from reality...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.

My spouse and I are both feminists. We chose to spend the rest of our lives together partly because of that. Feminism is about treating every person, regardless of gender or sex, with the trust and respect they deserve as individuals. When my spouse treats me with trust and respect, I know it is because of who I am, not because my genitals provide some service for my spouse.

Sholud we have married people who feel subservient or dominant based on their genitals instead?

What an odd person you are.

yes, women are human. they sometimes take what they can get even if its not in women's long term best interest to do so. *shrug*

its the same reason why my father never changed a single diaper on any of his 7 children, not because he was a lazy cold hearted bastard, but because he could get away with it.

women are people too. go figure.

Yes, but when men do expedient things based on their sex it's allright. When women do it, they are 'accused' of 'feminism'.

{Grouped together as they are so simiar}
So if I say something about feminism and women in society it is speculative fiction, but if you say it, it is true? You can not disregard an argument so easily. Especially as you have missed a huge part of what I am saying.

I'm not speculating. I'm asking you to prove it.

Meanwhile, it's a FACT that feminists have been fighting to get women included in military academies and combat, and it completely anihilates your point.

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/combat.html
http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/women_in_combat/index.html

So much for your claim that feminists aren't fighting for women to have the bad things as well. So much for your claim that women want to sit back and have the man as the protector.

My girlfriend, a feminist, would likely stand behind me if there was a physical confrontation. Does that make her a hypocrite? Nope. Because making individual decision based on individual charactistics is the mark of equality. I'm 75 pounds heavier than my girlfriend, trained in self-defense and a former Marine. Were her boyfriend smaller than her or less capable than her (her last boyfriend was probably just about a tie), she would reasonably expect to play an equal role.

Feminism tells us to do what makes sense, and in this case what one might consider a stereotype makes sense (in this INDIVIDUAL case). My girlfriend also drives up to her father's once a month to mow the lawn while he recovers from a surgery. In the middle weekend of the month she doesn't go up, her sister does it. Her two brother's are too busy to help. She and I split the cooking. She does much of the cleaning. Yesterday, she moved the furniture by herself, because I was busy.

Show me why my girlfriend is less representative than your examples. Show me why your examples lead us to any conclusions of value while you dismiss every example to the contrary.

A classic. Claiming the high ground, as a trick to try to show your argument as strong, when it is not, as you keep not addressing my point

I've addressed your point several times. You've admitted that you cannot evidence your claims because apparently the subset of feminists you are talking about invalidate the work of the entirety of the feminist movement AND conveniently control all of science.

I don't need to prove feminist activists fight against gender roles, as that is not my point. My point is, to summarise "Many women want a Big strong male protector, but still want the gains of feminism and this is hypocritical." I accept this is a slight segue from the "would you marry a feminist" title to the thread, but you'd expect that 60 pages on.

Again, there are 6 Billion people on the planet. Unless you can show that these women A) represent feminism and B) are statistically significant then you point is nothing more than an absurd rant.

This is a debate forum. You need to prove things or you can expect to be dismissed.