NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
Dont put words in my mouth or interpret me in a wrong way, dont pretend you know my thoughts. Just read the fucking words straight. I asked for information that backs your point up and shows clearly that it is the non-existence of a male rolemodel. Not just some statistic of the pirate/climate type. Afaik as i remember is this a point that is still hotly discussed as it is part of the gay/lesbian marriage/family issue. And the most recent studies about the children of homosexual partners were undecided due to small sample size and legal homosexual marriage being rather new, but did not show any conspicious behaviour pattern. Thus a child growing up among two mothers might just as well be fine.

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.
Well, seeing that i grew up without my alcoholic father but a loving mother first and at a boarding school later (oh, my God, i learned from peers), i shouldnt know how to treat women, right? How come in the 20 years i am having romantic relationships now i never heard a single complaint about how i treated a woman? About a lot of things, but never about that.
Because me mother taught me about the importance of partnership instead of my father who had more old-fashioned ideas. Because you can get the concept of equality from teenagers as well, seeing that balanced friendships work out better than slopsided ones.

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

You haven't shown ANY evidence, and you are claiming that correllation is causation. You have a burden of proof that you have not met. He is offering other causes because if other causes are possible it means that your linking of the two doesn't meet your burden.

Well, seeing that i grew up without my alcoholic father but a loving mother first and at a boarding school later (oh, my God, i learned from peers), i shouldnt know how to treat women, right? How come in the 20 years i am having romantic relationships now i never heard a single complaint about how i treated a woman? About a lot of things, but never about that.
Because me mother taught me about the importance of partnership instead of my father who had more old-fashioned ideas. Because you can get the concept of equality from teenagers as well, seeing that balanced friendships work out better than slopsided ones.

Congrats - we have a lot in common. And we are in a minority for people brought up in that environment.

I am not talking about EVERY case. But a boy with no positive male role models is much more likely to end up commiting violent crime and being abusive to women. Not all of course - as evidenced by you and me, but the odds are not good.

<snip>
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.
<snip>
You should try to be aware of the facts of an example before you cite it in your arguments.

A) The restriction against 5-set matches in the women's Grand Slam tour is a relic of the sexist past. Many female players have been trying to change this for over 30 years.

B) Competitive female tennis players routinely play 5-set matches against men as part of their training, so clearly they are physically capable of doing so.

B) Men also play best-of-3-sets tournaments.

C) The separation of men's and women's tours in tennis, as well as other sports in which both sexes compete, is and has long been a topic of hot debate. There are many women and men who firmly believe that women would not be able to match the physical performance of men, but many other women and men who think they might and who would like to give it a try.

You cite tennis as if it is proof of something about women, but in fact, it only proves something about society.

Not just some statistic of the pirate/climate type.

I wonder if he even got the reference.

Congrats - we have a lot in common. And we are in a minority for people brought up in that environment.

I am not talking about EVERY case. But a boy with no positive male role models is much more likely to end up commiting violent crime and being abusive to women. Not all of course - as evidenced by you and me, but the odds are not good.

Which again is correllation. It does not provide evidence of causation which is what you are claiming.

Yes, but when men do expedient things based on their sex it's allright. When women do it, they are 'accused' of 'feminism'.

*shudder*

which is why i NEVER do that!

my sister and i sometimes whine about our lack of men who will do things like go up on the roof or take out the trash. (we usually have this discussion on trash day.) her husband has serious health issues, her son in law has a bad back from a car accident and on some days cant carry his briefcase in from the car, and my husband travels on business so is seldom home to do those kinds of chores. its a kind of "forced feminism" but there are days when you see all the other husbands taking the trash to the curb and have a moment of envy.

ohforgodssake do you know ANYTHING about children?
They tend to look a bit like small adults, four extremities, same basic facial features. On average lesser mental capabilities, different interest, inabilty to grasp several concepts that seem obvious to fullgrowns. See, i know a bit.

And now kindly argue instead of making derisive remarks. Or, to be precise ask questions in an inflammatory way.

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.

If he acts like a real man and not the pussified wimp that "modern feminists" think men should be, he'll have more women than he can handle.

On average lesser mental capabilities


I wish I had a childs lesser mental abilities in learning languages.

Children also have quite different facial structures to adults - like men and women have differnt facial structures.

If he acts like a real man and not the pussified wimp that "modern feminists" think men should be, he'll have more women than he can handle.

How would you know?

They tend to look a bit like small adults, four extremities, same basic facial features. On average lesser mental capabilities, different interest, inabilty to grasp several concepts that seem obvious to fullgrowns. See, i know a bit.

And now kindly argue instead of making derisive remarks. Or, to be precise ask questions in an inflammatory way.

well NO

you either no nothing about children in which case "debating" with you is an exercise in futility

or you are using the example of children needing role models to try to make a point in some other area. something like "if there needs to be male as well as female teachers then men and women arent equal and feminism is crap". its a point not worth making and a debate not worth having.

so are you ignorant of how children learn about the world or are you trying to make an entirely different point?

Wow... childrens ability to pick up languages faster and more comprehensively than almost any adults sure sounds like they have lower capabilities to me.

What part of "on average" was too hard to comprehend? Children are better learners but a lot worse at raw thinking. Kids are not especially good at logic thinking and mathematical or philosophical concepts that adults grasp pretty well are out of reach of for them.

What part of "on average" was too hard to comprehend? Children are better learners but a lot worse at raw thinking. Kids are not especially good at logic thinking and mathematical or philosophical concepts that adults grasp pretty well are out of reach of for them.

How are you weighting the ability to fully and comprehensively learn languages faster and better than almost any adult while simultaneously learning about the whole world around them from scratch against the ability to apply knowlege once it has been learnt in your calculation of a persons 'average' mental ability?

Are you using mean, median or modal averages here too?

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.
You bring up Maggie Thatcher as an example. I rebut your point. To do this, I use an example. All your above post shows is that you will use any technique to score points, even if you contradict yourself. Also the issue of, there aren't enough women with the experiece or established connections to "the network" to get the big name jobs,and that is the real reason behind glass ceiling, was once again Not Addressed.
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.
You asked for an example. I provided one. And if you're going to use stats, get it right. There were 256 people in the final 2 weeks of Wimbledon. That's more than 42 in a billion, and I'm not including those who tried, but didn't qualify.
Every time you get something you can't rebut, it's either "that doesn't count", or "well, you say so, prove it." We're on a web forum. I don't have a $100 000 grant to do a PhD on the Negative aspects of feminism. If you wish to hide your head in the sand, and not accept that significant parts of 1st world countries still have messed up gender roles, then do so. I'm only commenting on the 1st world as most parts of the 3rd world are such baskets case for feminist issues, that it's hard to say anything except "Women are screwed, Until the country is fixed up, women will keep getting screwed. Fix the country." Stop asking me for stats, and I still haven't seen any stats backing your points, it's all anecdotal.

The part in italics shows how blinded by ideology you are. If you honestly think that top women tennis player in the world would beat anyone in the top 20, let alone Roger Federer, you're dreaming. Please, please, respond how Mauresmo would beat 99% of men on the planet, it would make my day, and my point.
So do you all think the civil rights movement failed simply because it's not done or is your vitriol reserved for feminists?
I stated that it has failed the poor. Tell me how the expectation that lower class women should now work, but still look after the children, is not a case where feminism has failed them?
Feminism activists are mostly from well to do families, or the well educated. To be a full time activists, somone needs to pay the bills and you need to be educated enough to care. This has meant a big focus on issues for wealthy or well educated women, and an unfortunate lack of focus for poor only issues. Please do not present issues that affect all classes, Violence, etc as proof that the poor have been helped. Obviously this does help the poor, but it also helps the rich and educated, which is why it was done.

yes, but do they look like hot girls or tomboys?
This implies that tomboys cannot be hot. As somebody who has always been strongly attracted to tomboys, I find that odd.

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

good luck.
Bottle has come back, more or less, but has yet to find anything in particular that is worth responding to from that particular quarter.

I was asked for my opinion. I gave it. Some people decided to put words in my mouth and deliberately misconstrue what I said. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and clarified myself. I feel no obligation to expend further energy on the subject. If they cannot handle the fact that I both have opinions and also express them, then they're welcome to whine about it some more.

If he acts like a real man and not the pussified wimp that "modern feminists" think men should be, he'll have more women than he can handle.
This thread gets more amusing by the minute. What, pray tell, is a real man? Please, do enlighten us.

This thread gets more amusing by the minute. Pray tell, what is a real man? Please, do enlighten us.

Me Tarzan. You Jane. Me take you to cave.

Me could not possibly engage in a life long relationship with a woman without regarding them as inheriently inferior. Me is so manly Me can't cope with someone who can think for themselves or be confident and assertive with someone who can speak their mind too.

well NO

you either no nothing about children in which case "debating" with you is an exercise in futility

or you are using the example of children needing role models to try to make a point in some other area. something like "if there needs to be male as well as female teachers then men and women arent equal and feminism is crap". its a point not worth making and a debate not worth having.

so are you ignorant of how children learn about the world or are you trying to make an entirely different point?

I dont where you read about about me advocating a gender-mix of teachers or saying feminism is crap. I am arguing that the sex of role models is not important. But hey, do assume all you want, its not me who winds up looking stupid.
And since you refuse to discuss and enlighten me but sign me off as unteachable, there is no need for a further exchange of words between us. Go on and be a bit more abusive towards me, is water off a ducks back coming from you.

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".

If it were the other way around, it would be just as unfair. I don't approve of any relationship in which one partner is expected to take on more responsibility than the other. Sometimes you pick up the slack when your partner needs a hand, but things should be equal over all.

OF COURSE most people (feminist or not) would love to find a partner who just happens to love cleaning up after them. We all have our lazy inclinations. Nobody much likes having to clean the toilet, scrub greasy pots, and deal with dirty laundry. Chores aren't fun for most of us, and it would be great to have somebody else do them all for us for free.

That doesn't mean we actually would feel right about making our partner into our maid-sans-pay. A feminist wouldn't approve of men being forced to shoulder all domestic chores simply because they are male, any more than the feminist would approve of women being forced to do those chores because they are female.


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.

Glad to hear that you personally have lived with every heterosexual couple and kept tabs on their various activities. I'm sure we can all sleep better knowing you're watching over us.


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.

Darling, real equality will happen when people like you realize that women have been doing all those things for centuries. It's only in the crazed Leave It To Beaver fantasies of the extreme right wing that women shrink away from garbage, spiders, and lawn mowing. Out here in the real world, work has to get done, and women do it just as often as men.


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.

Strawwoman.


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.

Ah, I see. A man being pissed off because unable to get laid is the same as a woman experiencing her menses. Interesting.


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.

The persistent sex discrimination in countless fields has been well documented by better folks than I. Read a book.


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.

Actually, the number of men getting diplomas and higher degrees has been steadily increasing throughout the supposed Crisis of the Sexes. It's just that the rates of women apply and being accepted are increasing faster. So? Girls and women are encouraged to show better social skills, more self-restraint, less rudeness and aggression, and better behavior in class. Is it any wonder that they tend to have more success than boys and men, who are encouraged to be aggressive, rude, and uncontrolled?

I'm all for encouraging boys and men to behave like grown-ups instead of toddlers. I think that doing away with the "boys will be boys" mentality will do more for male successes than just about any other single effort. It certainly will help more than rolling back 30 years worth of progress in fighting sex discrimination.

This implies that tomboys cannot be hot. As somebody who has always been strongly attracted to tomboys, I find that odd.
Seconded.

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.


No, I´m not gay. Quite the opposite.
Believe me, I can be nice to women because I know what to tell them - because I know the way they think. It´s all very predictable, pretty much the same all the time. :p

Me Tarzan. You Jane. Me take you to cave.

Me could not possibly engage in a life long relationship with a woman without regarding them as inheriently inferior. Me is so manly Me can't cope with someone who can think for themselves or be confident and assertive with someone who can speak their mind too.
Don't you just love how a Real Man(tm) is one who can only be manly if his tender little ego is protected from the scary womenfolks? He can only be butch if he's got a femme to subjugate. He can only be tough if he's standing next to somebody weaker than he is, somebody who will fawn and praise him and never question his mighty manly judgment. He can only be accomplished and proud if he is paired with a dependent girl who is unable to support herself without his manly help.

Pity the poor Real Man(tm), who has been so cruely castrated by the evil, educated, opinionated FEMINISTS! How can such a noble breed survive, beset by such enemies?

Pity the poor Real Man(tm), who has been so cruely castrated by the evil, education, opinionate FEMINISTS! How can such a noble breed survive, beset by such enemies?


UG UGG!

Burn the witch! The Devil hath possessed her!

UG UGG!

Burn the witch! The Devil hath possessed her!
Better yet, tell her she's FAT! And UGLY! And that no man will ever want her! That'll show her!

Don't you just love how a Real Man(tm) is one who can only be manly if his tender little ego is protected from the scary womenfolks? He can only be butch if he's got a femme to subjugate.
The Real Man(tm) is apparently gay.

He can only be tough if he's standing next to somebody weaker than he is, somebody who will fawn and praise him and never question his mighty manly judgment. He can only be accomplished and proud if he is paired with a dependent girl who is unable to support herself without his manly help.
Like Batman and Robin, famous gay couple.

Pity the poor Real Man(tm), who has been so cruely castrated by the evil, education, opinionate FEMINISTS! How can such a noble breed survive, beset by such enemies?
*wipes away a single tear* sniff

Better yet, tell her she's FAT! And UGLY! And that no man will ever want her! That'll show her!

And tell her that because she wants a man to want her she is a whore and should carry the shame of her wickedness for provoking the Real Man(TM).

And tell her that because she wants a man to want her she is a whore and should carry the shame of her wickedness for provoking the Real Man(TM).
Oooh, and don't forget: she's a slut, but she also could never get a man. (I've never quite figured out how this one works, but I hear it all the time. "Feminists are all whores! Feminists are disgusting harpies who will never get a man!" *confusion reigns*)

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.
A lot of people view all relationships as hierarchical. There must always be ranks among humans in any interaction, including romantic relationships. There cannot be two equal partners; there must be a leader and a follower.

Personally, I find such thinking tedious, but some people seem to find it fun. I guess maybe it's kind of like being into BDSM, only there's no safeword and you never step out of the roles and one of you never gets to enjoy the sex.

Hmm. That's not really like BDSM after all, now that I think of it.

Oooh, and don't forget: she's a slut, but she also could never get a man. (I've never quite figured out how this one works, but I hear it all the time. "Feminists are all whores! Feminists are disgusting harpies who will never get a man!" *confusion reigns*)

Your inferior mind obviously cannot concieve of thoughts on the level of a Real Man(TM).

Proof that women are inferior and as such their opinions are nothing more that that of a twittering bird! Beautiful to behold but produce nothing more than senseless melody.

Your inferior mind obviously cannot concieve of thoughts on the level of a Real Man(TM).

Proof that women are inferior and as such their opinions are nothing more that that of a twittering bird! Beautiful to behold but produce nothing more than senseless melody.
Too true. I am but a delicate flower of womanhood, and my lovely petals cannot bear the weight of such manly thoughts.

*eyelashes a-flutter*

Oooh, and don't forget: she's a slut, but she also could never get a man. (I've never quite figured out how this one works, but I hear it all the time. "Feminists are all whores! Feminists are disgusting harpies who will never get a man!" *confusion reigns*)
And don't forget, she doesn't want to sleep with me, a Real Man (TM), so she must be a raging dyke! Down with the evil lesbian feminists!

And don't forget, she doesn't want to sleep with me, a Real Man (TM), so she must be a raging dyke! Down with the evil lesbian feminists!

Oooh, the raging dykes are back! And on the 69th page, too, how appropriate.

That's Ebil Liveral Lesvian Feministies to you.

No, I´m not gay. Quite the opposite.
Believe me, I can be nice to women because I know what to tell them - because I know the way they think. It´s all very predictable, pretty much the same all the time. :p

somebody said somehting like this before......

No, I´m not gay. Quite the opposite.
Believe me, I can be nice to women because I know what to tell them - because I know the way they think. It´s all very predictable, pretty much the same all the time. :p
You heard it here first, folks:

Being "nice" means assuming that women are stupid and that it's cool to lie to them in order to trick them into sleeping with you.

I'm not about to argue with a fellow as "nice" as this guy. I'm just going to enjoy yet another hearty chuckle at the expense of the pathetic creatures who can't get a woman to have sex with them unless they trick her into it. :D

What should we do about the blatant discrimination against male students in Irish universities?

I haven't seen any.

Just because there is not a 'one male to one female' ration, doesn't mean one is being discriminated against.

The historical problem - the reason why education has been a feminist issue - is that males were given better opportunities for education.

If each has similar access now, and females take more advantage (statistically) that is not discrimination.

You heard it here first, folks:

Being "nice" means assuming that women are stupid and that it's cool to lie to them in order to trick them into sleeping with you.

I'm not about to argue with a fellow as "nice" as this guy. I'm just going to enjoy yet another hearty chuckle at the expense of the pathetic creatures who can't get a woman to have sex with them unless they trick her into it. :D

I am just so glad kind gentlemen like Medical Oddities and Glorious Freedonia take time from their busy days to enlighten us poor, benighted females. ;)

You heard it here first, folks:

Being "nice" means assuming that women are stupid and that it's cool to lie to them in order to trick them into sleeping with you.

I'm not about to argue with a fellow as "nice" as this guy. I'm just going to enjoy yet another hearty chuckle at the expense of the pathetic creatures who can't get a woman to have sex with them unless they trick her into it. :D
I did not know this. I wonder if my ignorance of what it means when a Real Man(tm) tries to act nice is the reason I've never had lousy sex with some jerk I've never wanted to talk to again and was ashamed to admit to my friends that I slept with him. Hm...

No, I´m not gay. Quite the opposite.


What is the 'opposite' of 'gay'? You only let men do you?


Believe me, I can be nice to women because I know what to tell them - because I know the way they think.


If you are under the impression that knowing 'what to tell them' is a way of 'being nice', then I think it is fairly safe to say you really do not 'know what they think'.

It´s all very predictable, pretty much the same all the time. :p

Yes. It starts with a movie. Then some hand lotion, and a full-page spread of Ayn Rand...

and a full-page spread of Ayn Rand...

my eyes!!!

What is the 'opposite' of 'gay'? You only let men do you?



If you are under the impression that knowing 'what to tell them' is a way of 'being nice', then I think it is fairly safe to say you really do not 'know what they think'.



Yes. It starts with a movie. Then some hand lotion, and a full-page spread of Ayn Rand...

:eek: Eeewww :eek:

I stated that it has failed the poor. Tell me how the expectation that lower class women should now work, but still look after the children, is not a case where feminism has failed them?

Feminism isn't done, dearie.

Feminism activists are mostly from well to do families, or the well educated. To be a full time activists, somone needs to pay the bills and you need to be educated enough to care. This has meant a big focus on issues for wealthy or well educated women, and an unfortunate lack of focus for poor only issues. Please do not present issues that affect all classes, Violence, etc as proof that the poor have been helped. Obviously this does help the poor, but it also helps the rich and educated, which is why it was done.

Easy access to birth control and/or abortion is actually an issue that helps the poor much more than the affluent. The affluent will have access to those things no matter what the law says, and always have. It is the poor who were most affected by having birth control or abortion illegal, and they are the ones who most benefit from easy, cheap access.

C) The separation of men's and women's tours in tennis, as well as other sports in which both sexes compete, is and has long been a topic of hot debate. There are many women and men who firmly believe that women would not be able to match the physical performance of men, but many other women and men who think they might and who would like to give it a try.

Indeed. I don't pay all that much attention to sports, but I know that a female golfer has been competing in some of the men's tournaments. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in tennis.

Even high school football is starting to allow some female players, even in light of what happened to the first female college football player.

Indeed. I don't pay all that much attention to sports, but I know that a female golfer has been competing in some of the men's tournaments. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in tennis.

Even high school football is starting to allow some female players, even in light of what happened to the first female college football player.

Anika Sorenstam did play in a men's tournament. She didn't do all that well but neither did a lot of the men, when you get down to it. It'll come along, slowly, but eventually you'll see more mixing where it's feasible. Why any woman in her right mind would want to play football is beyond me, but that's not my call.

There is a woman competing with men in proffessional bowling and doing well. Im not sure if she has won a tournament yet, but she will.

In motorsports women drivers are on par with men but very underrepresented. Women have at times dominated both Top Fuel dragracing and ProStock motorcycle drag racing. In motorsports being smaller often means being faster.

Bottle has come back, more or less, but has yet to find anything in particular that is worth responding to from that particular quarter.

I was asked for my opinion. I gave it. Some people decided to put words in my mouth and deliberately misconstrue what I said. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and clarified myself. I feel no obligation to expend further energy on the subject. If they cannot handle the fact that I both have opinions and also express them, then they're welcome to whine about it some more.

yeah. i was amused that the guy thought he could pull out the "weak link" and attack her alone. it made me laugh that he thought the weak link was YOU.

If he acts like a real man and not the pussified wimp that "modern feminists" think men should be, he'll have more women than he can handle.I'm a feminist, and I prefer an equal, not a "pussified wimp." Unfortunately, some men can't handle a woman who's their equal. Those are the real pussified wimps.

I'm a feminist, and I prefer an equal, not a "pussified wimp." Unfortunately, some men can't handle a woman who's their equal. Those are the real pussified wimps.

i would like to find a woman equall to me, that would be nice, but thats hard. i know a guy who is as great as i am. he describes me as "opposite to boring", and as "exciting as posible".

I'm a feminist, and I prefer an equal, not a "pussified wimp." Unfortunately, some men can't handle a woman who's their equal. Those are the real pussified wimps.

No, a lot of guys just dislike bitches. (the username gives it away)

There is a woman competing with men in proffessional bowling and doing well. Im not sure if she has won a tournament yet, but she will.

In motorsports women drivers are on par with men but very underrepresented. Women have at times dominated both Top Fuel dragracing and ProStock motorcycle drag racing. In motorsports being smaller often means being faster.
Don't forget the woman who won the Iditarod four times.

No, a lot of guys just dislike bitches. (the username gives it away)

No, I think it's that those men think that any woman who doesn't subordinate her life to theirs is a bitch. Or feministy. Or both.

Don't forget the woman who won the Iditarod four times.

Ah, Alaska, where men are men and women Iditarod. :D

No, a lot of guys just dislike bitches. (the username gives it away)Apparently, there are plenty of guys who love bitches. But bitch is just a term used for stong independent women, those women tend to scare men who aren't secure in their masculinity.
And, yes, my nation name is intended to be descriptive. I'm proud to be a bitch.

i would like to find a woman equall to me, that would be nice, but thats hard. i know a guy who is as great as i am. he describes me as "opposite to boring", and as "exciting as posible".

i thought you said you arent gay.

Apparently, there are plenty of guys who love bitches. But bitch is just a term used for stong independent women, those women tend to scare men who aren't secure in their masculinity.
And, yes, my nation name is intended to be descriptive. I'm proud to be a bitch.

makes me do the "ha ha".

i would like to find a woman equall to me, that would be nice, but thats hard. i know a guy who is as great as i am. he describes me as "opposite to boring", and as "exciting as posible".
*falls off chair laughing*

...I'm sorry, were you being serious? So sorry to hear that there are no women out there as exciting and great as you are.

Excuse me while I go have a giggling fit.

i thought you said you arent gay.

i'm not. being gay goes against my master plan. i'm just saying i love him, that doesnt make me gay does it?

an inequality in numbers doesnt require a blatant discrimination on the university level.
I'm only joking. The reason that more girls go to university is that they do better at the Leaving Cert (which functions as a universal matriculation exam).

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
Learning how to construct 3D objects using tools is very much integral to sculpture. Which the girls I'm talking about volunteered to do, just as I did.

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.
Then why isn't there a problem with male students refusing to embrace learning of important skills?

I have seen just as many men as women coast through unwanted courses and tasks in pretty much the same weasling, shirking way.
I'm talking about people who have signed up to study a three-year degree course in sculpture, I have said that numerous times. Just read my posts.

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.
Which doesn't apply here. Refusal to learn about how to use tools in sculpture may not stop one making things which don't require tools, but it will close many channels of creative expression to you.

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?

Learning how to construct 3D objects using tools is very much integral to sculpture.

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.
I'm going on and on about women who conform to gender roles, which is a bad thing in the case from my life that I'm using as an example.

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.

Where did I say I was talking about women in general?

i'm not. being gay goes against my master plan. i'm just saying i love him, that doesnt make me gay does it?

Still a troll.

I'm not sure... when man and troll explore that forbidden boundary... where does it stand in terms of gay or straight?

Still a troll.

I'm not sure... when man and troll explore that forbidden boundary... where does it stand in terms of gay or straight?

do you know me personally? troll is a nickname someone in school gave me cause i said something about goats, and it stuck.
are you asking me on my opinion of gays?

Don't forget the woman who won the Iditarod four times.

Didnt they let her keep it after she won it the 1st three times?:p


Angelle Sampey (nee Seeling) won three consecutive championships and has finished in the top five for 9 straight years

http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/medium/OCPA-2005-09-14-083855.jpg

http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/medium/CSA-2005-09-07-083404.jpg

do you know me personally? troll is a nickname someone in school gave me cause i said something about goats, and it stuck.
are you asking me on my opinion of gays?

No, I'm really not asking, actually.

In 1985 Libby Riddles was the first woman to win the Iditarod. Susan Butcher won the next 3 consecutive years and again in 1990. A popular saying during the 1980's was "Alaska, where men are men, and women win the Iditarod.

This implies that tomboys cannot be hot. As somebody who has always been strongly attracted to tomboys, I find that odd.
I agree, as a male heterosexual, tomboys can often be really attractive.

Oooh, the raging dykes are back! And on the 69th page, too, how appropriate.
Display 40 posts per page and you won't have to deal with shit like "the 69th page". :)

I haven't seen any.

Well, how closely are you watching the Irish university scene? Probably not at all.

That said I don't really believe there is a discrimination problem, since our system is set up so that the universities don't know the sex of their applicants.

Apparently, there are plenty of guys who love bitches. But bitch is just a term used for stong independent women, those women tend to scare men who aren't secure in their masculinity.
And, yes, my nation name is intended to be descriptive. I'm proud to be a bitch.
Bitch isn't synonymous with feminist, it's a word for women who are emotionally volatile, over-demanding and heartless.

No, I'm really not asking, actually.

you did. by using this symbol "?".

[QUOTE=Ardee Street;11878135]Well, how closely are you watching the Irish university scene? Probably not at all.

That said I don't really believe there is a discrimination problem, since our system is set up so that the universities don't know the sex of their applicants.

QUOTE]

woman i think are 54% in uni's. or maybe just ucd.

Surely when we/one says "equal" we are talking about rights. As in women should have equal rights to men. Not that they have the same physical prowess or attributes.

Women should have exactly the same rights and freedoms as men - to suggest otherwise seems to me plainly wrong.

However there are clearly differences between the genders - starting with anatomy :p

how on earth can such a senseless thread get 1000+ posts in just two days?

how on earth can such a senseless thread get 1000+ posts in just two days?

Hard work and persistence.

you did. by using this symbol "?".

You misunderstand me, my friend.... you are correct that the "?" symbol implies a question - even a rhetorical one... but you are incorrect in assuming that I asked the question you seemed to think I asked.

woman i think are 54% in uni's. or maybe just ucd.

And?

Is that discrimination?

woman i think are 54% in uni's. or maybe just ucd.
UCD 54% female

Trinity 60% female

NCAD 75% female :D

And?

Is that discrimination?
No, it isn't because the admissions system is computerised.

And?

Is that discrimination?

didnt say it was.
this is an example of people like you, putting words in my mouth.

didnt say it was.
this is an example of people like you, putting words in my mouth.

By asking a question?

You must be a hoot at parties. (Or under bridges).

You must be a hoot at parties. (Or under bridges).

yep i am. people think one can only reach a certain level of greatness, then they meet me.

I am currently at SSU, and the ratio is nearly four female undergraduates to every 1 male undergraduate. This is not because of discrimation, but rather that more applicatants are women by a huge margin. Many of my female friends have decided to become lesbian or bi until graduation because that is the only way that they are going to get any.

BTW: Dunno if we are still polling but I am married to a conservative femminist.

BTW2: This means that she is mostly conservative but has alot of femminist views, which makes life very interesting.

BTW3: If you were wondering, I do the cooking and cleaning for the most part, but that actually is because she is OCD and can't deal with dirt.

BTW4: I think that I have begun to seriously abuse the 'BTW' tagline.

You bring up Maggie Thatcher as an example. I rebut your point. To do this, I use an example. All your above post shows is that you will use any technique to score points, even if you contradict yourself. Also the issue of, there aren't enough women with the experiece or established connections to "the network" to get the big name jobs,and that is the real reason behind glass ceiling, was once again Not Addressed.

Um, I brought up Maggie? Really. Can you link that post, please. Please remember that I am Jocabia.

I'm not scoring points. When the other person used an example rather than address it, you suggested that it doesn't matter because they are not stastically significan, while you continue to choose examples that are much, much less statistically relevant. So were you serious that examples are statistically irrelevant or were full of crap?


You asked for an example. I provided one. And if you're going to use stats, get it right. There were 256 people in the final 2 weeks of Wimbledon. That's more than 42 in a billion, and I'm not including those who tried, but didn't qualify.

Wow, now, that's statistically relevant 42 in a Billion specifically chosen because they are not average are representative of the general population. Amusing.

Meanwhile, again, I'm Jocabia. I asked you for no such thing. And your example sucks. You chose a very rare example where the people in the example are famous for being rare while chastising the person you're replying to for giving a general example not selected because it was unusual but because she knew it. Hypocrisy.


Every time you get something you can't rebut, it's either "that doesn't count", or "well, you say so, prove it." We're on a web forum. I don't have a $100 000 grant to do a PhD on the Negative aspects of feminism. If you wish to hide your head in the sand, and not accept that significant parts of 1st world countries still have messed up gender roles, then do so. I'm only commenting on the 1st world as most parts of the 3rd world are such baskets case for feminist issues, that it's hard to say anything except "Women are screwed, Until the country is fixed up, women will keep getting screwed. Fix the country." Stop asking me for stats, and I still haven't seen any stats backing your points, it's all anecdotal.

That's a cop out. It is absolutely possible to support you point. You don't. You're making assertions.

Meanwhile, I've proven that feminism is actively doing something you claimed it doesn't do. Your point is destroyed. Now learn how to read. My name is spelled J-O-C-A-B-I-A.

And yes, prove it or we'll recognize it for what it is - a wild assertion with the value of the paper it's written on.


The part in italics shows how blinded by ideology you are. If you honestly think that top women tennis player in the world would beat anyone in the top 20, let alone Roger Federer, you're dreaming. Please, please, respond how Mauresmo would beat 99% of men on the planet, it would make my day, and my point.
THis is good stuff. You should sell this material.



I stated that it has failed the poor. Tell me how the expectation that lower class women should now work, but still look after the children, is not a case where feminism has failed them?

Yes, that's the fault of feminism. Because feminism says that both parents should work but only women should look after the children. You're just making crap up. Link one site. Any feminist site that says that only women should take care of the children and they parents should never stay home to care for their children.

Feminism activists are mostly from well to do families, or the well educated. To be a full time activists, somone needs to pay the bills and you need to be educated enough to care. This has meant a big focus on issues for wealthy or well educated women, and an unfortunate lack of focus for poor only issues. Please do not present issues that affect all classes, Violence, etc as proof that the poor have been helped. Obviously this does help the poor, but it also helps the rich and educated, which is why it was done.

Again, prove it and stop making wild assertions. Yes, this is an internet forum which means you have access to nearly every study ever done. Please prove that ANYTHING you say is true.

i would like to find a woman equall to me, that would be nice, but thats hard. i know a guy who is as great as i am. he describes me as "opposite to boring", and as "exciting as posible".

I'm sure you'll eventually find a woman that is just as ignorant. Ignorance is exciting. When you don't know anything, everything is new.

I'm sure you'll eventually find a woman that is just as ignorant. Ignorance is exciting. When you don't know anything, everything is new.

I never thought of that, it explains so many things about the world. Sad things, but clearer now.

you did. by using this symbol "?".

I take it in your world every question is posed for you to answer, even rhetorical questions or jokes.

In case anyone is wondering, this is what CH does when he knows he's lost an argument. Smoke and mirrors.
Most of your talking points has consisted of smoke and mirrors, sidebar issues, baiting, and hyperbole. :p

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...
I was asking a serious question. You didn't put a smiley beside it, so I assumed that you were dead serious. Are you a dyke?

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

exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect

You use it a lot. You just might not recognize it?

Most of your talking points has consisted of smoke and mirrors, sidebar issues, baiting, and hyperbole. :p

Oh, look ad hominems. Rather than reply to the substantive post that proves that you misread the post of Bottle, you're rather just throw out accusations and then when called on it, more accusations. Yes, this really helps your claim that we supposed to be such a good example. Hypocrite.


I was asking a serious question. You didn't put a smiley beside it, so I assumed that you were dead serious. Are you a dyke?

Amusing. It's obvious that you are trying to change the subject because you realize you're nailed. And usually the "apparently" is a dead giveaway. I'm sorry that it was unclear to you.

Hyperbole:

exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect

You use it a lot. You just might not recognize it?

Amusing. So when she says feminists are dykes and I say "apparently, I'm a dyke." that's hyperbole. It doesn't help to look up the definition of a term and then use it wrong.

EDIT: Meanwhile, I accept your admission that you cannot actually prove that Bottle meant what you claimed when you chastised her so you have to throw up this smoke. Fair enough. I prefer to be the butt of your irrational rants. I'm happy to see that Bottle is no longer the butt of your joke of an argument.

That said I don't really believe there is a discrimination problem, since our system is set up so that the universities don't know the sex of their applicants.


it still could be a problem of discrimination, just not by the university.

have they done studies to figure out why there is such an imbalance? if men who in the past would have gone to university are now not even applying, that might be for bad reasons. if men are not qualfied for university in the same numbers they were in the past, that might be for bad reasons. if far more women then men are at the top of the university qualifications list, that might be for bad reasons.

it still could be a problem of discrimination, just not by the university.

have they done studies to figure out why there is such an imbalance? if men who in the past would have gone to university are now not even applying, that might be for bad reasons. if men are not qualfied for university in the same numbers they were in the past, that might be for bad reasons. if far more women then men are at the top of the university qualifications list, that might be for bad reasons.

It could, in fact, be evidence of a disadvantage for women that requires them to go to college to make a living with men being able to make a sustainable living without college. That's the problem of bringing this up with no knowledge of causes. The cause would be very demonstrative of what the problem actually is.

Oh, look ad hominems. Rather than reply to the substantive post that proves that you misread the post of Bottle, you're rather just throw out accusations and then when called on it, more accusations. Yes, this really helps your claim that we supposed to be such a good example. Hypocrite.
Ad hominems? You have been doing that throughout your posts in this discussion. Baiting, and hyperbole. That is what you have done. I am not making it up.

Amusing. It's obvious that you are trying to change the subject because you realize you're nailed. And usually the "apparently" is a dead giveaway. I'm sorry that it was unclear to you.
I am not nailed and you keep repeating yourself over and over. Again you didn't answer an honest question. Sidestepping?

Amusing. So when she says feminists are dykes and I say "apparently, I'm a dyke." that's hyperbole. It doesn't help to look up the definition of a term and then use it wrong.
I wasn't using that as an example of hyperbole. I just stated that hyperbole was one of your debating tools. Exaggeration used for effect. To suggest that I don't know the meaning of the word that I used, and then trot out an example of something totally unrelated is amusing.

EDIT: Meanwhile, I accept your admission that you cannot actually prove that Bottle meant what you claimed when you chastised her so you have to throw up this smoke. Fair enough.
I didn't "chastise" anyone. Now that is an classic example of your hyperbole. I cannot punish Bottle, nor can I scold her. I did offer criticism though. I remain focused on the points that Bottle presented, and my comment stands. Your sidebar issues are more a distraction, rather then dealing with the issue.

I'm sorry I challenged you with logic.
You keep rolling them out don't ya?

That is right.... If you are insearch of equal rights you are a dyke...

Spot on....

Ad hominems? You have been doing that throughout your posts in this discussion. Baiting, and hyperbole. That is what you have done. I am not making it up.

Assuming that is true, what value does that have to your argument? None.


I am not nailed and you keep repeating yourself over and over. Again you didn't answer an honest question. Sidestepping?

Whether I'm a dyke? You admitted that you know I'm a man and I said I was joking. If you don't recognize that as an answer, I don't know what to tell you. It's not an honest question. But, APPARENTLY, I'm sidestepping for not telling you that a man can't be a dyke while ignoring any posts about your claims about what Bottle meant. Amusing.

Again, keep be such a great example of how feminists are supposed to behave. Clearly, you're in a position to tell Bottle how to be more tolerant.

I wasn't using that as an example of hyperbole. I just stated that hyperbole was one of your debating tools. Exaggeration used for effect. To suggest that I don't know the meaning of the word that I used, and then trot out an example of something totally unrelated is amusing.

How useful your attacks are to proving your points that feminists should be held to a higher standard of behavior. Thanks for proving your hypocrisy.

If it was totally unrelated you shouldn't have linked it while accusing me of hyperbole. Meanwhile, what is your point? Do you have one? What does my alleged hyperbole have to do with your claims that Bottle meant something different than what she said?


I didn't "chastise" anyone. Now that is an classic example of your hyperbole. I cannot punish Bottle, nor can I scold her. I did offer criticism though. I remain focused on the points that Bottle presented, and my comment stands. Your sidebar issues are more a distraction, rather then dealing with the issue.

MY sidebar issues? You've taken to attacking me.

Meanwhile, I think reading your posts for 40 pages is punishment and intended to be. You intended to scold her (a form of punishment). Unfortunately, instead you embarrassed yourself by demonstrating that you misread her post. Now, you further the issue by deciding to attack me and act silly.

You keep rolling them out don't ya?

I certainly do. You keep proving me right. I was really hoping you'd show your true colors. Thank you for doing so.

Many of my female friends have decided to become lesbian or bi until graduation because that is the only way that they are going to get any.

How can you just decide to become lesbian or bi?

it still could be a problem of discrimination, just not by the university.

have they done studies to figure out why there is such an imbalance?
Yes, the imbalance is discussed in the media widely every year. The opinions I gave Cabra a few pages ago are recycled from the media.

That is right.... If you are insearch of equal rights you are a dyke...

Spot on....

thats right, baby!

even the men!

and let me tell you, you aint HAD a man until youve had a dyke man*!


*trademark pending

How can you just decide to become lesbian or bi?


Yes, the imbalance is discussed in the media widely every year. The opinions I gave Cabra a few pages ago are recycled from the media.

those dont seem to be very good answers (from what i remember of them)

is anyone trying to DO anything about it?

thats right, baby!

even the men!

and let me tell you, you aint HAD a man until youve had a dyke man*!


*trademark pending



I am so going to get a dyke husband.. Best of two worlds in one person.. I get access to a penis as well as the permission to dare to dream...


Is it really year 2006?

thats right, baby!

even the men!

and let me tell you, you aint HAD a man until youve had a dyke man*!


*trademark pending

Well, according to CanuckHeaven, I could be a dyke man* and need to stop avoiding the question. I love hearing about how all feminists are dykes.

I am so going to get a dyke husband.. Best of two worlds in one person.. I get access to a penis as well as the permission to dare to dream...


Is it really year 2006?

now youre thinkin'!

and YUP, when you have a dyke man*, you get to live in the 21st century!


*trademark still pending

Blah blah blah you're insufferable, Jocabia.

now youre thinkin'!

and YUP, when you have a dyke man*, you get to live in the 21st century!


*trademark still pending




You know I do not have a dyke husband yet, but my dyke boyfriends lets me drive the car and speak.

You know I do not have a dyke husband yet, but my dyke boyfriends lets me drive the car and speak.

wow he's quite the radical. i believe our original poster would have something unflattering to say about his manhood. (hmmm when you think about it, the "his" would probably correctly refer to both your dykebf and the op)

Blah blah blah you're insufferable, Jocabia.

Aw. How special. You pitched in just to insult me. I'm so lucky to have so many people who consider me to be so important that they have to join threads just to tell me how insufferable I am. I'm glad I gave you something to do. It's interesting how insufferable I am and how many people go out of their way to 'suffer' me. There's an ignore function in this forum. I really don't mind if you stop showing up to tell me how insufferable I am. I have other things to laugh about.

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.

No I would not. Like you said I'd get tired of the liberal psycho-babble, and definitely tired of the vegetables! If she wants far-left sentiment and a metrosexual for a man, she can look elsewhere. I'm proud of my genitalia, it's done nothing wrong to me or any woman (that I'm aware of, I'll question it later in the bathtub.) As for marriage... there are less costly and less painful methods of castration ;)

Aw. How special. You pitched in just to insult me. I'm so lucky to have so many people who consider me to be so important that they have to join threads just to tell me how insufferable I am. I'm glad I gave you something to do.

You always seem glad enough to do that anyway, so I figured I'd spare you the trouble. Anyway, I didn't tell you how insufferable you are; I simply stated that you are. To paraphrase George Harrison in 'A Hard Day's Night' - you're "a drag. A well-known drag. We turn the sound down on her and say rude things."

You always seem glad enough to do that anyway, so I figured I'd spare you the trouble. Anyway, I didn't tell you how insufferable you are; I simply stated that you are. To paraphrase George Harrison in 'A Hard Day's Night' - you're "a drag. A well-known drag. We turn the sound down on her and say rude things."

Ha. Excellent reference. Be careful though, hyperbole is today's cause.

By the way, you don't really have to state a degree. Insufferable indicates that I cannot be endured. The degree is inherent. I am happy that out of 100's of posts bashing feminism, you found my post stating that I'm not a dyke to be the one that most deserved your attention.

EDIT: Nice weather, huh?

Ha. Excellent reference. Be careful though, hyperbole is today's cause.

By the way, you don't really have to state a degree. Insufferable indicates that I cannot be endured. The degree is inherent. I am happy that out of 100's of posts bashing feminism, you found my post stating that I'm not a dyke to be the one that most deserved your attention.

On the contrary; it was, after reading the last half-dozen or so pages of your usual brand of mind-numbing, if not mind-numbingly pedantic attacks and rebukes of other posters that finally provoked me to state publicly what I've gradually come to realize after spending such a long time in relative orbit of each other: that you are undoubtedly one of the single-least entertaining personae that haunts these fora. You sir, are - frankly - dull. Tiresome. Not of intrinsic interest.

Whatever gender, whatever gender preference - you stand out. You stand out, as it were, for not appreciably standing out in any way, shape or form - other than to hector.

Dyke? I couldn't happen to care less. Dullard? Therein lies the seeds of my snarl.

On the contrary; it was, after reading the last half-dozen or so pages of your usual brand of mind-numbing, if not mind-numbingly pedantic attacks and rebukes of other posters that finally provoked me to state publicly what I've gradually come to realize after spending such a long time in relative orbit of each other: that you are undoubtedly one of the single-least entertaining personae that haunts these fora. You sir, are - frankly - dull. Tiresome. Not of intrinsic interest.

Whatever gender, whatever gender preference - you stand out. You stand out, as it were, for not appreciably standing out in any way, shape or form - other than to hector.

Dyke? I couldn't happen to care less. Dullard? Therein lies the seeds of my snarl.

Amusing. I'm so dull that you've chosen rather than use the ignore feature to attack me. Hmmmm...

I'll state it again, you are not forced to read my posts. Ignore. I'm sure there are those that will instruct you if you're unsure how to use it.

Amusing. I'm so dull that you've chosen rather than use the ignore feature to attack me. Hmmmm...

I'll state it again, you are not forced to read my posts. Ignore. I'm sure there are those that will instruct you if you're unsure how to use it.

And I'm just as sure that you're making a thinly-veiled attempt to intimidate me with Mod action, considering your subsequent decision (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505230) to appeal to authority in order to assuage your bruised ego, but let's choose not to speak anymore of your frailties.

And I'm just as sure that you're making a thinly-veiled attempt to intimidate me with Mod action, considering your subsequent decision (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505230) to appeal to authority in order to assuage your bruised ego, but let's choose not to speak anymore of your frailties.

No, I'm trying to encourage you to move on with your life. It appears I upset you when I reported you for baiting. I'm sorry that you took it so personally. I look forward to your contributions to threads, but you don't seem to have anything to add other than your opinion of me. Ignore me, or make an argument. My bruised ego will survive being put on ignore by you... somehow.

She didn't bash males. Not once.

Again, Bottle was not male-bashing.
I do believe that her words are quite evident and they contradict your continued assertion that she was not bashing males:

I find it adorable that so many people assume all women (or all feminists) want to get married so badly that they would put up with an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him.
So Jocabia, if someone called you an "insecure little boy", you wouldn't consider that demeaning or degrading?

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)
I didn't utter the comments. Bottle did. You keep questioning it and I keep reminding you what she stated. You are having a hard time seeing this?

For you, her comments weren't damaging enough so you had to alter them to make them more damaging. How sad for you.
I didn't alter her words and I mean no harm to Bottle. You can't seem to understand that? I suggested that her words do nothing to alleviate certain stereotypical images that some people have in regards to feminists.

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.
Yup, racists are indeed very sick people and they need help. There is a world of difference between a racist and an anti-feminist?

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.
Here is where you trail off to your sidebar issues. We are discussing:

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

Although Bottle stated that: "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.

It is still a discussion about "anti-feminists"? It is not about racism, and not about anti-Semitism. As much as you would like to steer the conversation in that fdirection, it does not apply.

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.
More sidebars to distract the discussion. However, since you mention it, yes, tolerance is the key. Try to understand where they come from, even though you may believe that they are wrong and/or sick and need help.

And yeah, IMHO Bottle's reply to the OP was intolerant and does nothing to promote the cause of feminism. If anything, it is that attitude that harms the cause.

In the quest for equality, one must rien in the extremists? Patience, tolerance, love and understanding are the desirable ingredients to harmony.

I do believe that her words are quite evident and they contradict your continued assertion that she was not bashing males:


So Jocabia, if someone called you an "insecure little boy", you wouldn't consider that demeaning or degrading?

Yes, I would. However, I would recognize that was about me and not about all men.

Yes, the OP was talking about men marrying a feminist. She replied to that exact point, and referred to people who do not believe in the equality of the sexes. That says nothing about men in general. The significant part of her comment about SEXIST men, not just men.

This may not be obvious to you, if tell my girlfriend that she is the most annoying woman that I know, I'm not bashing women. I'm bashing my girlfriend. The sexists she was talking about may have been males, but she was not talking about males in general in any way and I believe that was clear to anyone actually reading what she wrote rather than what they want it to say.

I didn't utter the comments. Bottle did. You keep questioning it and I keep reminding you what she stated. You are having a hard time seeing this?

No, I am not having a hart time. I just read what she wrote rather than what you try to say it "meant". She made her points clear. She was referencing sexists, not men in general despite your rather inexplicable claims.

Go ahead, show me how her post was about men rather than sexists. Show that she wasn't talking about feminism as the belief and not the title. Go ahead. Support your claims without changing the meaning of her words.


I didn't alter her words and I mean no harm to Bottle. You can't seem to understand that? I suggested that her words do nothing to alleviate certain stereotypical images that some people have in regards to feminists.

You did alter her words by claiming her meaning was something other than what she defined and expressed. How does your attacks on my help with that?


Yup, racists are indeed very sick people and they need help. There is a world of difference between a racist and an anti-feminist?

Why? Because they choose to discriminate based on race rather than sex? I know you want to draw a line here, but in terms of equality they both suggest that people are not born equal and you seem to believe that you should not be held to the same standards as Bottle. Of course, you wish to draw that line, because otherwise I've proven you're a hypocrite.


Here is where you trail off to your sidebar issues. We are discussing:

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

Although Bottle stated that: "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.

It is still a discussion about "anti-feminists"? It is not about racism, and not about anti-Semitism. As much as you would like to steer the conversation in that fdirection, it does not apply.

And given that they are equivelent as they are all people who believe that people are born unequal. There is no difference and if she is hurting the cause by saying she finds them sick then you are doing the same by saying as muchy about racists. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.


More sidebars to distract the discussion. However, since you mention it, yes, tolerance is the key. Try to understand where they come from, even though you may believe that they are wrong and/or sick and need help.[/QUOTE]

Amusing. So saying they are wrong, sick and need help is much better than what she said? You even attacked her for saying she wouldn't date them. You're hilarious.

And yeah, IMHO Bottle's reply to the OP was intolerant and does nothing to promote the cause of feminism. If anything, it is that attitude that harms the cause.

No more intolerant than saying racists are sick. Hold yourself to the same standards or perhaps just worry about yourself.

In the quest for equality, one must rien in the extremists? Patience, tolerance, love and understanding are the desirable ingredients to harmony.

Yes, yes, like calling people sick and suggesting that them having their opinion is one of the biggest problems in this country. You don't want to admit it but logically there is no difference when talking about equality between a racist and a sexist, but you seem to require Bottle to treat sexists differently than you treat racists. Follow your own advice and use patience, tolerance, love and understanding. And when you've accomplished this noble goal and not before, you'll be in a position to scold Bottle. Don't worry, we'll still be hear waiting with bated breath.

Bottle was not bashing males in general. Just the ones that can't stand independent women.

Bottle was not bashing males in general. Just the ones that can't stand independent women.

Yes, exactly. I think it's funny that he suggests that I can't compare sexism to racism and to do so is to distract from the point, but he can compare Bottle's clear and concentrated attack on a discriminatory ideology to sexism.

She in no way attacked men in general and his suggestion that she did is perpetuating the stereotype much more than what she said. She made a comment that was about the actual beliefs of certain men and Canuck is trying to make it appear that she was male-bashing, thus reinforcing the stereotype.

Canuck, don't you notice that what you're doing is much worse even than what you're accusing her of? First, her comment would be gone by now if not for this nonsense so you make sure that any and everyone sees it. Second, you make sure that anyone who wants to twist her post into general male-bashing or an attack on people who don't call themselves feminists has your support. You keep claiming this is about her giving an argument to anti-feminists, but you are actually MAKING their argument for them. You're doing much more than setting up an argument for them, you're actually doing everything you can to suggest they're right.

Yes, exactly. I think it's funny that he suggests that I can't compare sexism to racism and to do so is to distract from the point, but he can compare Bottle's clear and concentrated attack on a discriminatory ideology to sexism.
Come on now, get serious. There is a huge difference between racism and sexism.

She in no way attacked men in general and his suggestion that she did is perpetuating the stereotype much more than what she said. She made a comment that was about the actual beliefs of certain men and Canuck is trying to make it appear that she was male-bashing, thus reinforcing the stereotype.

Canuck, don't you notice that what you're doing is much worse even than what you're accusing her of? First, her comment would be gone by now if not for this nonsense so you make sure that any and everyone sees it. Second, you make sure that anyone who wants to twist her post into general male-bashing or an attack on people who don't call themselves feminists has your support. You keep claiming this is about her giving an argument to anti-feminists, but you are actually MAKING their argument for them. You're doing much more than setting up an argument for them, you're actually doing everything you can to suggest they're right.
Wait. You want to blame me, even though it is you that kept challenging my points, and I had to keep pointing out the errors of your ways, by posting references to what she said? BTW, when you were challenging my points, you did so in a manner that was begging for a comeback, i.e. baiting, off topic, and hyperbole.

And you want to blame me for her comments as well. That is ridiculous.

She did address the OP in a condescending manner, and yes in this case it was male bashing, considering the OP was male. You fail to see that. That is your problem and not mine.

Here is your opportunity to drop the discussion regarding Bottle's comments. The ball is in your court. :D

Come on now, get serious. There is a huge difference between racism and sexism.

Really? What is the difference? Other than one being about skin color and one being about the sex of a person, what is the qualitative difference? How is it different to think people aren't equal based on one immutable quality or another?

Wait. You want to blame me, even though it is you that kept challenging my points, and I had to keep pointing out the errors of your ways, by posting references to what she said? BTW, when you were challenging my points, you did so in a manner that was begging for a comeback, i.e. baiting, off topic, and hyperbole.

And you want to blame me for her comments as well. That is ridiculous.

She did address the OP in a condescending manner, and yes in this case it was male bashing, considering the OP was male. You fail to see that. That is your problem and not mine.

Here is your opportunity to drop the discussion regarding Bottle's comments. The ball is in your court. :D

I'm not the one arguing that people SHOULD read her comments to be male-bashing rather than comments about sexists. I'm not the one arguing that people should look at her as one of those phantom feminazis. I'm not the one arguing that she was bashing people because they don't call themselves feminists. That's all you, bud. And, worse, she didn't do or say any of those things. You simply made it up. And, yes, I know you think it hurts the cause but I'm going to point out, and support, why Bottle is NOT one of those mythical feminazis despite your assertions to the contrary.

You can keep arguing that she said things she didn't if you like, and I'll keep making you look silly. I don't mind. However, one has to wonder what your goal is given that you claim you're trying to protect the feminist cause. Will you have achieved a victory by claiming the Bottle, the feminist, is male-bashing and attacking women for not calling themselves feminists despite all evidence. All you'll have done is given anti-feminists evidence against us. Now, I'm cocky and I admit it. I have no intention of losing, so I have no interest in stopping. But unless you intend to lose, what could you possibly gain by such an argument unless you're really a wolf in sheep's clothing?

I'm only joking. The reason that more girls go to university is that they do better at the Leaving Cert (which functions as a universal matriculation exam).

Learning how to construct 3D objects using tools is very much integral to sculpture. Which the girls I'm talking about volunteered to do, just as I did.
Excuse me, then you need to clarify your argument, because you also said the COURSE WAS REQUIRED. If it's REQUIRED, then they're not VOLUNTEERING for it. Make up your mind.

Then why isn't there a problem with male students refusing to embrace learning of important skills?
Generalization. According to you, ALL the women -- or at least all the ones you want to talk about as if they represent all the women -- in your class refuse to learn how to use tools, while ALL the men have no problem learning "important" skills.

So now you're generalizing about both men and women and about what kinds of skills constitute "important."

The problem with this argument of yours is that it is bull. You are trying to take some very limited personal observation of a very limited personal experience and expand it to cover this whole broad subject of whether feminists are worth a damn or not. And in order to keep hawking this fairy tale, you just keep on refusing to acknowledge the following:

A) Men slack off just as much as women.

B) Women and men do not slack off when they WANT TO LEARN a skill.

C) That there are many well known examples of female sculptors in media like metal, stone and wood who use tools and do physical work all the time. I even cited myself as such an example. You ignore such examples, obviously because it torpedos your flawed argument.

D) And finally, it is not up to you to decide what skills are "important" for other people to learn. Your course might require training in tools, but not all forms of sculpture require the same kinds of tools, and if your course has not taught you that, then it's not much of a course.

I'm talking about people who have signed up to study a three-year degree course in sculpture, I have said that numerous times. Just read my posts.
I have re-read your posts. Your description of the terms of the course are unclear. Sometimes you make it look like it's just a single term introductory course, other times you make it seem as if sculpture is just part of an overall arts training course, and now you make it sound like a degree program in sculpture. So what the hell is it?

And here's another question about it? What the fuck do you care if a few bints thought it would be a femme version of "rocks for jocks" and are trying to coast through it? How do they represent the attitudes of feminists?


Which doesn't apply here. Refusal to learn about how to use tools in sculpture may not stop one making things which don't require tools, but it will close many channels of creative expression to you.
And now you get to decide what avenues their creativity is going to take? Who are you, their daddy?

Learning how to construct 3D objects using tools is very much integral to sculpture.
I have already explained how unclear your description of the course has been. You spent all this time making it sound as if this sculpture program was part of something broader. Now you make it seem like a degree-level course on its own. So if that's the case, then surely these women will fail it, won't they?

I'm going on and on about women who conform to gender roles, which is a bad thing in the case from my life that I'm using as an example.
Yeah, and your take on it has been confusing, inconsistent and rather peevish. You say it's bad for women to conform to gender roles, but you blame them alone, as if there is no societal pressure on them to conform. You observe behavior and ASSIGN meaning and motives to it, but from the way you've been telling this mangled story, I do not believe you really know what their problem is or why they are behaving the way they are. I also do not believe you have bothered to really think beyond your own pet peeve to see if this story is really applicable to the issues of feminism. I also notice that you keep harping on this one limited, anecdotal tale about these women, but you have no detailed stories about the men in the class and whether there are any slackers who have penises in this course. You have no such examples to give. You only come back with broad, unsupported generalizations.

Where did I say I was talking about women in general?
This seems to be the theme of the week. Posters talk themselves into a corner and rather than either find a way out or concede the point, they just try to deny that they said things that are recorded in the thread.

In more than half your posts, you have used the phrases "women do/don't do" this or that and "men do/don't do" this or that and similar generalizations in an attempt to make this art school anecdote seem relevant to this discussion. I have no intention of going back and quoting so many posts. I'll just quote one. This one.

Originally posted in the first paragraph of your post
The reason that more girls go to university is that they do better at the Leaving Cert (which functions as a universal matriculation exam).
There you go, one generalization about what women/girls do and why they do it. Just one of many.

Come on now, get serious. There is a huge difference between racism and sexism.

I am curious. What is this "huge difference" between judging people on the basis of their race and judging people on the basis of their gender?

<snip>
Bitch isn't synonymous with feminist, it's a word for women who are emotionally volatile, over-demanding and heartless.
According to men who use it to insult women. According to the women who took possession of the term, it means something else.

First, her comment would be gone by now if not for this nonsense so you make sure that any and everyone sees it.

Here is your opportunity to drop the discussion regarding Bottle's comments. The ball is in your court.

Now, I'm cocky and I admit it. I have no intention of losing, so I have no interest in stopping. But unless you intend to lose, what could you possibly gain by such an argument unless you're really a wolf in sheep's clothing?
So, you want to blame me for continually referencing Bottle's posts, and when I offer to drop the conversation, you can't because you want the win.

You are priceless!! :rolleyes:

Wrong, but priceless!!

I am curious. What is this "huge difference" between judging people on the basis of their race and judging people on the basis of their gender?
The difference is in the number of body bags required. :eek:

The difference is in the number of body bags required. :eek:

If you agree with those historians who consider the 15th-17th century witch crazes to be gender-driven issues, then the difference is not so great.

Now, tell us what the difference in the thinking of the bigot is, and the difference in his attitude towards the people he is bigoted against.

Really? What is the difference? Other than one being about skin color and one being about the sex of a person, what is the qualitative difference? How is it different to think people aren't equal based on one immutable quality or another?

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11880476&postcount=1116

I'm not the one arguing that people SHOULD read her comments to be male-bashing rather than comments about sexists.
Bottle's comments were directed at the OP who is a male. Shall I post what she said again?

I'm not the one arguing that people should look at her as one of those phantom feminazis.
There ya go with the hyperbole again. I never referred to Bottle as a "feminazi". Can we blame you now for using that term? :eek:

I'm not the one arguing that she was bashing people because they don't call themselves feminists.
But she was bashing non/anti-feminists, suggesting that they were "inherently sub-par", "lowlifes", "lousy in bed", "idiots", "fun to bait", "dull", "snivveling weaklings", "cowards", and "bottom of the barrel".

Now that "snivveling weaklings" surely must be directed at males? Surely she wouldn't call a woman a "snivveling weakling"?

That's all you, bud. And, worse, she didn't do or say any of those things. You simply made it up.
There ya go wanting to blame me for what Bottle said again. I haven't made anything up. You are doing the fabricating.

And, yes, I know you think it hurts the cause but I'm going to point out, and support, why Bottle is NOT one of those mythical feminazis despite your assertions to the contrary.
There ya go again, using Bottle and feminazi in the same sentence. And again, I must correct you and advise you that I have never referred to any woman as a feminazi. Can we blame you for pushing the stereotype?

You can keep arguing that she said things she didn't if you like, and I'll keep making you look silly.
If your goal is to make me look silly rather then debate the issues then I will hold up the mirror for you. :p

However, one has to wonder what your goal is given that you claim you're trying to protect the feminist cause.
Well, we know what your goal is.....you want the win. How sad.

My initial response was one line, very few words. I guess the best that I could have hoped for was Bottle to admit that it was a bit over the top, and move on. And here we are.

Will you have achieved a victory by claiming the Bottle, the feminist, is male-bashing and attacking women for not calling themselves feminists despite all evidence.
All it is to you is about a victory? It is not learning about life and find ways to resolve differences and actually achieve some good in the world?

All you'll have done is given anti-feminists evidence against us.
I didn't write Bottle's posts for her. Quit trying to blame me for the results.

Now we can end the discussion? The ball is once again back in your court.

Apparently, there are plenty of guys who love bitches. But bitch is just a term used for stong independent women, those women tend to scare men who aren't secure in their masculinity.
And, yes, my nation name is intended to be descriptive. I'm proud to be a bitch.

Strong women are what all women should be (it's sad when people won't stand up for themselves), but not "bitches." To me, that describes someone who is cruel, meanspirited, selfish and petty. Basically just a synonym for "jerk" or "asshole." Just equivalent to calling someone a dick or prick or whatever. I don't like assholes, doesn't matter if they're male or female.

Like, my girlfriend is a strong person, who won't let people push her around. She's definitely the leader in our relationship, and that's just fine, since she's so nice and sweet. :)

She did address the OP in a condescending manner, and yes in this case it was male bashing, considering the OP was male. You fail to see that. That is your problem and not mine.

Here is your opportunity to drop the discussion regarding Bottle's comments. The ball is in your court. :DAddressing a male in a condescending manner is not neccessarily male bashing. If I speak to a member of any particuliar group in a less than complementry manner, it doesn't reflect on the whole group.
If I tell a black man that he's an idiot, it hardly makes me a racist.

Strong women are what all women should be (it's sad when people won't stand up for themselves), but not "bitches." To me, that describes someone who is cruel, meanspirited, selfish and petty. Basically just a synonym for "jerk" or "asshole." Just equivalent to calling someone a dick or prick or whatever. I don't like assholes, doesn't matter if they're male or female.

Like, my girlfriend is a strong person, who won't let people push her around. She's definitely the leader in our relationship, and that's just fine, since she's so nice and sweet. :)
Bitch is what women who behave too much like men are called. Yes, I'm emotionally volatile. But I'm hardly mean spirited.

So, you want to blame me for continually referencing Bottle's posts, and when I offer to drop the conversation, you can't because you want the win.

You are priceless!! :rolleyes:

Wrong, but priceless!!

Like I said, I said what my intent is. I believe you are promoting a myth of the feminazi and I intend to stop you. When I challenged you for promoting this myth, you didn't suggest you weren't intentionally promoting this myth, but instead that I should drop it so you'll stop. Yes, I'm priceless.

The difference is in the number of body bags required. :eek:

Ah, yes. Considering the majority of racists and the majority of sexists aren't going to kill anyone that's a cop out. There is no difference between judging people on one immutable quality or another especially when we aren't talking about what these different groups (racists and sexists) do but what is an appropriate response to them and whether it is hypocritical in the name of tolerance.

Meanwhile -
http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/
If you can show that 2000 people are dying a year in the US due to racism or that their are more rapes, and beating due to racism than domestic violence, I can't wait to read it.

You'll try anything to divorce your behavior toward racists from your hypocritical attitude toward Bottle's treatment of sexists.

If you agree with those historians who consider the 15th-17th century witch crazes to be gender-driven issues, then the difference is not so great.
Witch hunts were generally driven by religious factions., and apparently it was not only females that were persecuted. Certainly, it had nothing to do with feminism.

Now, tell us what the difference in the thinking of the bigot is, and the difference in his attitude towards the people he is bigoted against.
Bigotry based on religion and/or racism has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. I don't see that in regards to modern day feminism. That is why I say there is a world of difference.

Having said that, I don't want to divert from the topic at hand.

Bitch is what women who behave too much like men are called. Yes, I'm emotionally volatile. But I'm hardly mean spirited.

I don't agree at all. "bitch" is a female term for a person you would call a "prick" if they were a guy. It's a word for a jerk. I'm sure a lot of the gals I hang out with couls be said to "act like men," but that doesn't mean they're "bitches."

As I understand it, if someone's not mean, they can't possibly be a "bitch." It's not really a term I really like using, partly because my former roommate seemed to think it was a synonym for "female," which pissed me off. But let's not get into that, because a lot of things he did pissed me off.

Like I said, I said what my intent is.
Yes to get the win.

I'm cocky and I admit it. I have no intention of losing, so I have no interest in stopping.

I believe you are promoting a myth of the feminazi and I intend to stop you.
You bring up the word feminazi and then have the gall to suggest that I am promoting the "myth of the feminazi".

When I challenged you for promoting this myth, you didn't suggest you weren't intentionally promoting this myth, but instead that I should drop it so you'll stop. Yes, I'm priceless.
Your logic is a bit twisted oh priceless one. :eek:

Because I didn't suggest that I was intentionally promoting this myth of feminazism, then I am promoting it? You are bent my friend. What I said:

And again, I must correct you and advise you that I have never referred to any woman as a feminazi. Can we blame you for pushing the stereotype?

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11880476&postcount=1116

Bottle's comments were directed at the OP who is a male. Shall I post what she said again?

Bottle's post were on the subject of the thread. I take it that's another thing you didn't read. "Do you GUYS want to marry..."

She can say anything she likes about the OP who was male and it still won't be male-bashing, no matter how much you want it to be. A minute ago I told my girlfriend she was being weird, was that an attack on women, maybe on short people, the Irish?

Your posts smack of desperation. First, she was attacking some different version of non-feminists than what she explicitly said and now she's male-bashing. Anything to further your cause, huh?


There ya go with the hyperbole again. I never referred to Bottle as a "feminazi". Can we blame you now for using that term? :eek:

Yes, you didn't suggest that she was supporting the stereotype for forty pages. Seriously, this is just sad.


But she was bashing non/anti-feminists, suggesting that they were "inherently sub-par", "lowlifes", "lousy in bed", "idiots", "fun to bait", "dull", "snivveling weaklings", "cowards", and "bottom of the barrel".

Now that "snivveling weaklings" surely must be directed at males? Surely she wouldn't call a woman a "snivveling weakling"?

Certainly, she could. Regardless of what names she called them she was not talking about men. She was talking about sexists. Those sexists, because of the OP, might have been men in some of her statements, but that doesn't make her statements male-bashing anymore than get mad at the Boy Scouts is male-bashing or any group that (due to the specifics of the OP "Do any GUYS want to marry...") is composed of men.


There ya go wanting to blame me for what Bottle said again. I haven't made anything up. You are doing the fabricating.

I blame you for what you said. Bottle NEVER said what you claimed she said. You claimed she was talking about what people call themselves. That is a lie. You claimed she was male-bashing. That is a lie. I blame you for lying. Unless you're claiming that she lied about what she said.


There ya go again, using Bottle and feminazi in the same sentence. And again, I must correct you and advise you that I have never referred to any woman as a feminazi. Can we blame you for pushing the stereotype?

No, you only referenced a site about how evil feminism is and the stereotype of the feminazis and then claimed that Bottle was supporting that stereotype despite the fact that the only way to evidence this is to lie about what she said.


If your goal is to make me look silly rather then debate the issues then I will hold up the mirror for you. :p

You think looking in the mirror makes you look silly?


Well, we know what your goal is.....you want the win. How sad.

I did win. I want to make sure that your assertions are debunked and that you don't further the cause of the anti-feminists. That requires me to win.

You don't deny that you are trying to support the stereotype. Hmmmm...

My initial response was one line, very few words. I guess the best that I could have hoped for was Bottle to admit that it was a bit over the top, and move on. And here we are.

I didn't jump in on your initial response. I jumped in when you claimed you said that you wouldn't accept that she meant feminism as she defined it in her post and that she was talking about what people self-identify as, despite all evidence being against your claims.


All it is to you is about a victory? It is not learning about life and find ways to resolve differences and actually achieve some good in the world?

It's about making the world better and to me the world is better if your falsehoods do not stand.

Again, I've asked several times and you've not denied that you are furthering the cause of the anti-feminists. I'm arguing against you. So is your argument that you are making the world a better place by furthering the cause for anti-feminists or will you admit that you're just trying to win. I mean you did claim that feminism isn't as big of an issue as racism because of the number of body bags. You're being completely absurd.


I didn't write Bottle's posts for her. Quit trying to blame me for the results.

No, you simply interpreted her posts to say things they didn't say, against all evidence. Even in this post you continue to do so. She made SOME comments about a select group of men, but you claim she was male-bashing. She makes comments about people who do not believe in the equality of the sexes, but you claim she was talking about what people call themselves or about men in general. You continually lie about what she said and then pretend that by arguing against your claims I'm arguing against Bottle. That's just weak. You've been here for years. Certainly, you've developed some skill at debate.

Now we can end the discussion? The ball is once again back in your court.

Nope. I know you're desperate to let your false claims stand, but it won't happen.

Yes to get the win.

To prove you wrong. You claimed Bottle supports a myth and then twisted her words to make it appear as if that were true. I'm simply exposing you, which is why you keep asking me to quit. If that's not your purpose and winning is as bad as you imply, then why not let it drop? We both know why. Because it's very important to you that she appear to be proof of this myth for some reason. Shall we speculate?


You bring up the word feminazi and then have the gall to suggest that I am promoting the "myth of the feminazi".

Yep. You've admitted as much. Or are you now claiming that your assertion was not that she was promoting the stereotype? Be careful what your answer is, because the quote function is readily available.

Your logic is a bit twisted oh priceless one. :eek:

Because I didn't suggest that I was intentionally promoting this myth of feminazism, then I am promoting it? You are bent my friend. What I said:

You accused her of promoting the stereotype several times and then twisted her posts to make that appear true. And you appear to not be satisfied until you've convinced everyone that she does fit the stereotype. Unfortunately, for you, I'm patient and I have no intention of letting you. I'll keep exposing this dishonest assertion and keep clearing away the smoke and shattering the mirrors. Come on, go back to attacking me personally. That was working.

Witch hunts were generally driven by religious factions., and apparently it was not only females that were persecuted. Certainly, it had nothing to do with feminism.

Witch hunts were often focused on strong women. The very idea of the witch is the undermine the idea of the sacred feminine. To deny that is to deny our history.


Bigotry based on religion and/or racism has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. I don't see that in regards to modern day feminism. That is why I say there is a world of difference.

Having said that, I don't want to divert from the topic at hand.

Yes and if we had a time machine that would be relevant. And of course, we'd have to make up the numbers for spousal abuse and rape since until recently nobody even cared that it occurred.

However, let's talk about today. We're both living in North America, do we think racial hate crimes or domestic violence and rape is more prevelant? Do we think that racism is more frequent or sexism? To pretend like racism doing more damage than sexism is a given is absurd and to pretend like that has ANY effect in what is hypocritical or not in terms of how we treat racists or sexists is simply a smokescreen tactic.

You want to divorce these issues because if you don't it exposes your hypocrisy. You found it perfectly acceptable to call racists sick, but you claim that Bottle can't say that sexists should not be dated. You, my friend, have been exposed.

I suddenly have the song, "Hey, Joe" stuck in my head.

Ah, yes. Considering the majority of racists and the majority of sexists aren't going to kill anyone that's a cop out. There is no difference between judging people on one immutable quality or another especially when we aren't talking about what these different groups (racists and sexists) do but what is an appropriate response to them and whether it is hypocritical in the name of tolerance.
There is a significant difference between racism and feminism and you know it. Not even in the same league, and here you are going off topic once again.

Meanwhile -
http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/
If you can show that 2000 people are dying a year in the US due to racism or that their are more rapes, and beating due to racism than domestic violence, I can't wait to read it.
And this has what to do with feminism?

You'll try anything to divorce your behavior toward racists from your hypocritical attitude toward Bottle's treatment of sexists.
No, you will do anything to divert the topic, which is feminism.

I blame you for what you said. Bottle NEVER said what you claimed she said. You claimed she was talking about what people call themselves. That is a lie. You claimed she was male-bashing. That is a lie. I blame you for lying. Unless you're claiming that she lied about what she said.
You will do anything for a win huh? Even if it is flamebait, trolling, threadjacking, calling me a liar, hyperbole, etc....

Not working Jocabia. Sorry.

There is a significant difference between racism and feminism and you know it. Not even in the same league, and here you are going off topic once again.

No, there isn't. I see no significant difference between different types of discrimination based on immutable properties. Maybe to you a life lost to racism is worth less than life lost to sexism, but not to me. They are equivelent and racism and sexism are equally dangerous ideologies and both racists and sexists deserve intolerance.

In fact, you specifically referenced the cause of sexism with a statement about how people are born that would easily encapsulate both. You've only tried to divide the topics when your hypocrisy was exposed.

"We are all created equal in the eyes of the Lord." First, it's about equality then all of the sudden what is appropriate for the cause of equality changes depending on what 'kind' of equality and we have to treat sexists and racists different. Either we're all created equal or we're not. You can't say that people of different races are more equal than people of different sexes. To allow inequality in one is to allow inequality period. Both causes are of equal importance and deserve equal outrage. You don't get to scold Bottle because she has less right to be outraged about sexism than you do about racism.

And this has what to do with feminism?

It has to do with your attempts to claim that you are justified in your behavior toward racists while condemning Bottle for similar behavior toward sexists. I recognize that you don't want people to recognize this fact, because if they do they will recognize you as a hypocrite.


No, you will do anything to divert the topic, which is feminism.

This isn't a diversion. We are talking about the behavior of activists for equality and your behavior violates your own claims of what should be expected. The fact that you want to pretend like that behavior doesn't count because it was toward racists is your diversion, not mine.

Either the cause of tolerance (how you were referring to it until you suddenly had to seperate the two causes so you wouldn't be exposed as a hypocrite) is hurt by intolerant behavior toward people who have an ideology of inequality or it isn't. According to you, it isn't when it's you and it is when it's Bottle. Oh, wait, I mean, it isn't when it's racism and it is when it's Bottle. Oh, wait, I mean, it isn't when it's racism and it is when it's sexism. Absurd. You're exposed. Take your castor oil.

Yes and no. As you described them--absolutely not. That's the stereotype angry dyke femi-nazi who hates anything with a penis. I don't like them.

I did win. I want to make sure that your assertions are debunked and that you don't further the cause of the anti-feminists. That requires me to win.
For you to be a true winner then you should be supporting the cause of "feminism". You aren't.

If you have a self-proclaimed feminist suggest that non/anti-feminists are somehow inferior to her (sexually, intellectually, physically, etc.) and you support that view, then you hurt the cause.

You want to invite someone into the feminist club, and when they show up at the door, someone tells that person that although they are "inherently sub-par", the club is willing to work with them. Yeah, that works. :rolleyes:

Then you tell them that in no time at all, they will be sexually, intellectually, and physically fit to be full members. Yeah, that works. :rolleyes:

If you really want to be a winner, then work for it.

If I was running the club, I certainly wouldn't let you be the one standing at the door.

CanuckHeaven, if this is truly not about you being right and attempting to paint Bottle as the mythical man-hating feminist, then you'll be happy if I just explain what she meant so that it is clear that she is neither male-bashing nor is she attacking women who stay at home or don't call themselves feminists.
I find it adorable that so many people assume all women (or all feminists) want to get married so badly that they would put up with an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him.
Read: I should think it's obvious that a feminist, who believes in the equality of the sexes, would have no interest in you, a person who believes in the inequaltiy of the sexes born of insecurity, nor any of the baggage that goes with that view for inequality.

Note: this was directed at the OP and the OP only and you used as if she was making a generalized statement against men. It was a pointed reaction to his beliefs not his sex.
If you actually are interested in hearing from a feminist (which I kinda doubt), then here you go:
Read: If you'd like to hear from a feminist, here you go.
A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes.
Read: A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. All future references to feminism, non-feminism and anti-feminism are reference this definition and thus, the belief. (It should go without saying, that this definition doesn't reference how people identify themselves, because if it did, it would mention it.)
In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place.
Read: Personally, I wouldn't be interested in dating a person who doesn't believe in equality because I think they are bad people.
Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes, anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment,
Read: Much like every other kind of person who is against equality, anti-feminists are fun to argue with.
but they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.
Read: But other than arguing I don't have much time for people who don't believe in equality and their lack of respect for women makes them of little use to me even for sex.
Hence, I don't have to ever worry about ending up with some dude/dudette who bitches about me being a feminist, because I wouldn't be dating them unless they were a feminist as well.
Read: Therefore, I don't need to worry about what someone who doesn't believe in equality thinks about dating me, because I wouldn't date a man or women who doesn't equally believe in equality.
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.
Read: I don't have to deal with the kind of people who wouldn't date me because I'm strong-willed, because I don't date that kind of person.
I've been in a serious relationship with a man for about 5 years now. I've had other lovers in the past, both male and female, and not a single one has ever been an anti-feminist or been turned off by my feminist beliefs.
Read: Everyone I've ever dated has been accepting of the equality of the sexes.
Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such, so you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you want to try to date an anti-feminist.
Read: I think that people who don't believe in equality are idiots. I don't date idiots.

There. You wanted it to be clear that she isn't a male-basher or a feminazi so she doesn't hurt the cause. I've made it clear. You should be ecstatic and any further efforts will be seen, rightfully, as an attempt to make Bottle, a classic feminist, appear to be a male-hating stereotype of the 'modern feminist', despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

A couple of notes -
Male-bashing
You claim she's male-bashing. She specifically says "some dude/dudette". Except for in the first post where she is referring to the original poster who is male, she specifically points out that she is referring to both men and women. She is clear in that she never makes a single reference to the sex of a person unless she is referencing the original poster directly. Also note that she said this right before her posts about snivelling weaklings, thus making it clear that she was not referring to just men. Unsurprisingly, you left out this reference when you claimed she must be referring to just men.

You claiming she was male-bashing-
Now that "snivveling weaklings" surely must be directed at males? Surely she wouldn't call a woman a "snivveling weakling"?
Her, showing that she is referencing both men and women -
Hence, I don't have to ever worry about ending up with some dude/dudette who bitches about me being a feminist, because I wouldn't be dating them unless they were a feminist as well.

I also don't have to worry about snivveling weaklings who can't handle a strong-willed partner, because I don't date that kind of coward.
Bottle dates men and women. She made it clear that when she is talking about the people she dates it could be either a man or a woman. In the second statement, she uses the word also because she is talking about people who are not upset because she's a feminist, but because she's strong-willed, which makes the statement you reference not only not male-bashing, but not even directly aimed at non-feminists or anti-feminists, though you've referenced it several times as if it were.

Bottle's definition of feminism-
You claim she is talking about how people identify themselves. "Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such". She makes it clear that her definition of feminism is not about how people identify themselves.
Her definition of feminism does the same... "A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes." She says nothing in her definition about how people self-identify and explicitly says that she considers people feminists even if they don't self-identify, yet you inexplicably try to make this about how people self-identify. It's lunacy.

Now, if you're really sincerely trying to do what you claim and simply prevent Bottle from seeming like the stereotype, then you'd want to support this way of expressing her ideas. There is nothing to gain by trying to make her ideas seem more harsh and twist them to be about people they were not meant for. She's clarified herself. Others have supported that clarification. Trying to make it say other than what the poster, herself, is saying is simply attempting to paint her as something she is not, and one has to wonder what you could possibly gain by turning Bottle into the stereotype.

CanuckHeaven, if this is truly not about you being right and attempting to paint Bottle as the mythical man-hating feminist, then you'll be happy if I just explain what she meant so that it is clear that she is neither male-bashing nor is she attacking women who stay at home or don't call themselves feminists.

Read: I should think it's obvious that a feminist, who believes in the equality of the sexes, would have no interest in a person who believes in the inequaltiy of the sexes born of insecurity nor any of the baggage that goes with that view for inequality.

Read: If you'd like to hear from a feminist, here you go.

Read: A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. All future references to feminism, non-feminism and anti-feminism are reference this definition and thus, the belief.

Read: Personally, I wouldn't be interested in dating a person who doesn't believe in equality because I think they are bad people.

Read: Much like every other kind of person who is against equality, anti-feminists are fun to argue with.

Read: But other than arguing I don't have much time for people who don't believe in equality and their lack of respect for women makes them of little use to me even for sex.

Read: Therefore, I don't need to worry about what someone who doesn't believe in equality thinks about dating me, because I wouldn't date a man or women who doesn't equally believe in equality.

Read: I don't have to deal with the kind of people who wouldn't date me because I'm strong-willed, because I don't date that kind of person.

Read: Everyone I've ever dated has been accepting of the equality of the sexes.

Read: I think that people who don't believe in equality are idiots. I don't date idiots.

There. You wanted it to be clear that she isn't a male-basher or a feminazi so she doesn't hurt the cause. I've made it clear.

A couple of notes -
Male-bashing
You claim she's male-bashing. She specifically says "some dude/dudette". Except for in the first post where she is referring to the original poster, she specifically points out that she is referring to both men and women. Also note that she said this right before her posts about snivelling weaklings, thus making it clear that she was not referring to just men. Unsurprisingly, you left out this reference when you claimed she must be referring to just men.

You claiming she was male-bashing-

Her, showing that she is referencing both men and women -

Bottle dates men and women. She made it clear that when she is talking about the people she dates it could be either a man or a woman. In the second statement, she uses the word also because she is talking about people who are not upset because she's a feminist, but because she's strong-willed, which makes the statement you reference not only not male-bashing, but not even directly aimed at non-feminists or anti-feminists, though you've referenced it several times as if it were.

Bottle's definition of feminism-
You claim she is talking about how people identify themselves. "Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such". She makes it clear that her definition of feminism is not about how people identify themselves.
Her definition of feminism does the same... "A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes." She says nothing in her definition about how people self-identify and explicitly says that she considers people feminists even if they don't self-identify, yet you inexplicably try to make this about how people self-identify. It's lunacy.

Now, if you're really sincerely trying to do what you claim and simply prevent Bottle from seeming like the stereotype, then you'd want to support this way of expressing her ideas. There is nothing to gain by trying to make her ideas seem more harsh and twist them to be about people they were not meant for. She's clarified herself. Others have supported that clarification. Trying to make it say other than what the poster, herself, is saying is simply attempting to paint her as something she is not, and one has to wonder what you could possibly gain by turning Bottle into the stereotype.

No, we can assume that you'll come back and try to take more of her post out of context and claim it says things it doesn't and even the opposite of what it does say by redefining her use of the word feminists or pointing her post at a different audience than it was intended for. And I'll be here, to expose the absurdity of those claims.
Well, what do you know, NS has its' own Bottle interpreter. Just put in Bottle words and they come out Jocabian (the easier, softer word processor) . Your own version of spin the Bottle?

You are one desperado. :(

For you to be a true winner then you should be supporting the cause of "feminism". You aren't.

Yes. It would be better if I lied about what Bottle said.

If you have a self-proclaimed feminist suggest that non/anti-feminists are somehow inferior to her (sexually, intellectually, physically, etc.) and you support that view, then you hurt the cause.

I don't support that view. I am clarifying what she said. You are lying about what she said. One has to wonder what you hope to gain.

You want to invite someone into the feminist club, and when they show up at the door, someone tells that person that although they are "inherently sub-par", the club is willing to work with them. Yeah, that works. :rolleyes:

Except rather than addressing what she did say, you've twisted her words into saying something else entirely, until I felt it necessary to end your dishonesty. You'll notice I didn't jump in until you claimed she was talking about something else when she referenced feminists.

Then you tell them that in no time at all, they will be sexually, intellectually, and physically fit to be full members. Yeah, that works. :rolleyes:

Ah, yes. Hypocrite. Let's change the example.

"You invite someone to the racial equality club. When they show up at the door you tell them that are "sick individuals", but the club is willing to work with them. Yeah, that works. :rolleyes:"

You are a dishonest person. If this was your purpose, then you would admit that you've made similar comments about racists and have equally hurt the cause of treating ALL people equally. However, you haven't admitted that because this is about you misreading Bottle's post and being unwilling to admit your mistake. You're so afraid of admitting that mistake that you're willing to argue for a stereotype against all evidence. Preserving your mistake is so important to you that you're unwilling to admit your own similar behavior and have tried to divorce femisim from racial equality, when both should be treated EXACTLY the same. There is only one cause. It is to make equality a trait we are all born with.

If you really want to be a winner, then work for it.

If I was running the club, I certainly wouldn't let you be the one standing at the door.
Yes, because you're a hypocrite. See, I've not supported her claims at all. I've only clarified them and preventing you from turning them into something they aren't. Meanwhile, you've made similar claims about racists, so your club reference must not apply when we're talking about your behavior.

Proving you didn't misread her post, no matter how obvious it is that you did, is so important to you, that you've even gone so far as to claim that women's quest for equality is not nearly as necessary as that of minorities. And, yes, while you didn't say that explicitly, what do you think your claim that the significant difference between the two is that racism kills more people or any claim that one claim to equality is significantly different than the other says about your views of each movement?

If this is how you further a cause...

Well, what do you know, NS has its' own Bottle interpreter. Just put in Bottle words and they come out Jocabian (the easier, softer word processor) . Your own version of spin the Bottle?

You are one desperado. :(

Amusing. Can't let people read her words for what they were meant to convey, can you? Might expose your misinterpretation, huh? My claims are supported by Bottle's own explanation. Your claims deny the exact words she used. Even claiming she was talking about only men when she explicitly said she was referring to both. Even claiming she was talking about how people self-identify when she TWICE shows she is referring to what people believe not how they identify themselves. Even claiming that racial equality is a significantly different cause than feminism because racial equality protects more lives.

You'll go anywhere and do anything to make it seem like Bottle was wrong here and supported a stereotype rather than simply admit your error. Why are you so married to ensuring people misread her post? Why is making Bottle appear to male-bash so important when she is referring only to a specific group and that group wasn't only male, or even once was simply referring to a single individual? Why is this so necessary to you since you claim you aren't just out to win?

You've sacrificed the idea that all claims for equality are equally important. You've sacrificed the idea that the OP's mythical man-hating feminazi is a myth. You've sacrificed the idea that one can't explain what someone meant without supporting their ideas.

I suppose I'm not you're "kind of feminist" because I'm not willing to throw Bottle on the grenade because you pulled the pin and dropped and you're freaking out. If that's so, then I couldn't happier that I'm not you're "kind of feminist".

You are lying about what she said.

Hypocrite.

You are a dishonest person.

However, you haven't admitted that because this is about you misreading Bottle's post and being unwilling to admit your mistake.

You're so afraid ...

because you're a hypocrite.
You have been throwing these at me since your first post. I have been very tolerant with you. However, enough is enough. I am tired of your trolling, your flamebaiting, your threadjacking, your hyperbole, and your desire to get the "win".

Be gone troll. :eek:

You will do anything for a win huh? Even if it is flamebait, trolling, threadjacking, calling me a liar, hyperbole, etc....

Not working Jocabia. Sorry.

When you say she said something that she didn't say. That's a lie. When you say she meant something that she didn't mean. That's a mistake. When she tells you she didn't mean it and you continue to claim she did. That's a lie. Saying you lied and proving it, isn't flamebait or trolling (two words you appear to be unclear on). It's evidence against your attacks on Bottle.

Meanwhile, the original point here was that you claimed that I was blaming you for what Bottle said. That's simply a falsehood, no matter how you slice it. And you know it. I was blaming you for what you claimed she said, not what she actually said. You know by now that I don't believe you're correct in your analysis of what she meant, mostly because it would require her to not know English and it would also require her to be a pathological liar. So when I contest what you claim she meant, I am contesting your claim. To pretend that my issue is with what she said and not what you claim she said is a lie. However, if you're so certain that I'm guilty of wrong-doing feel free to emply the moderation forum.

You have been throwing these at me since your first post. I have been very tolerant with you. However, enough is enough. I am tired of your trolling, your flamebaiting, your threadjacking, your hyperbole, and your desire to get the "win".

Be gone troll. :eek:

Ha. I'll take ad hominems for the win, Alex.

I find it amusing that you just quoted me without clarifying that what you are quoting is not a quote of what I said, but parts of speech mashed together and then complained that I said you were being dishonest.

When you alter a quote, you should make it clear that you did so. To not do so is blatantly dishonest.

Like I said, if I'm a troll. Report me. Otherwise, your attempts here are simply to use ad hominems, because you lost the argument. And it's the second time when cornered you've chosen to abandon the argument altogether and attack me.

I joined in a conversation that was already occuring about your strawman argument against Bottle. If there was a threadjack, you performed it and it had already occurred when I arrived.

Bottle's post was in direct reply to the OP and was on topic. Your post sought to undermine her post. To burn your strawman is very much on topic. And I do desire to "win" because you're wrong. To allow your point to stand would be to allow you to turn Bottle into evidence of a stereotype that is very much the topic of this thread. I won't you let you support the myth. Yes, I desire to win.

Nothing I've said was designed to anger you. It was designed to trip you up. It was designed to expose your flawed arguments. It was designed to expose your dishonest arguments (like the one claiming you were 'honestly' unsure if I was dyke, despite knowing I'm a man, or the one including in this post I'm replying to that quotes a post that never happened.) It was designed to utterly destroy the strawman you created. It worked perfectly and THAT is why you're upset.

Now, your tactics may have worked against posters in the past, but I'm patient. I don't care how much you attack me as a troll or a dyke or a traitor to the cause. I really don't care what you think. Nothing you say matters. Nothing you do matters. I don't care. I only care about your argument and it's quality. This is a debate forum. So make your argument or admit you can't.

Now, back to your strawmen -
I initially was contesting Bottle's claim to her feminism.
You admit your initial intent was to claim that Bottle was not a feminist. Of course, as the debate continued, it became about a million other things because you kept losing on various points.

When Dakini calls you out on speaking about not referencing the definition of feminism that Bottle was refering to, you admit that you aren't.
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.
More claims that feminist in Bottle's post means other than explicitly defined.
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.
To make this clear, you defined that you believe an anti-feminist is a bigot and a non-feminist can be someone who believes in equality, but simply doesn't identify as a feminist.
I guess I don't understand where you're coming from. Does your attitude apply similarly to racists and non-racists, or homophobes and non-homophobes? 'Cause, see, I think being a bigot is inherently inferior to not being a bigot, and I don't find it offensive to criticize bigotry. Apparently, you do, and that's your prerogative, but I admit that that makes very little sense to me.
I 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.
And this is the position you were coming from, because you claimed that she wasn't referencing people who don't believe the sexes are equal, but instead that she insulted people who simply don't identify as feminists.
To further evidence this claim -
Okay meat and potatoes time. :D

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

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

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

Hey, if you want to be a "feminist" great, but surely to God there is no need to attack other women just because they choose to be "non-feminists".
You make it clear that you believe she is talking about people choose to be, not simply whether or not they believe in equality.

Unfortunately, her post clearly undermines this claim.
A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes.
Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such
She makes it clear that she is talking about belief and not how someone self-identifies, yet you inexplicably choose to condemn her and claim she is not really a feminist because of what you think she meant by feminist even though it directly contradicts what she said in defining her terms.

And when you lost that argument, you moved on to several others eventually claiming she was male-bashing.
She did address the OP in a condescending manner, and yes in this case it was male bashing, considering the OP was male.
Of course, your claim would mean that every time I've ever addressed a person in a condescending manner I was bashing whatever groups they could belong to. She wasn't bashing the OP because he was male, she was bashing the OP because of what he, an individual, said.
Now that "snivveling weaklings" surely must be directed at males? Surely she wouldn't call a woman a "snivveling weakling"?
Now, of course, you took this quote out of context, so let's see what she really said.
Hence, I don't have to ever worry about ending up with some dude/dudette who bitches about me being a feminist, because I wouldn't be dating them unless they were a feminist as well.

I also don't have to worry about snivveling weaklings who can't handle a strong-willed partner, because I don't date that kind of coward.
As everyone can see, in context, she makes it clear that she was referring to both men and women, thus the "dude/dudette". This would be because Bottle is bisexual. It also makes your claim that she must have been talking about men require one to not read her post or be dishonest about what that post says. You, in particular, not only read her post, but know that she is a bisexual so that when she refers to herself dating in general, she's referring to both sexes.

Now, you can continue your attacks on me. Or you can try to defend your strawman. Or, even better, you can let your fallacious claims die a noble death without all the theatrics. Personally, I'm going to stick to the debate. No need to alter the course when you're winning the race, I say.

Come on now, get serious. There is a huge difference between racism and sexism.


i would agree. if someone came up to and complained that someone was being racist against them, i would take that more seriously than if someone was being sexist against them.
why?
cause black people who feel that some white person is trying to opress them, they dont call them selves "blackists". they are just people wanting to be treated as individuals. were as feminists, deliberately seperate themselves.

i would agree. if someone came up to and complained that someone was being racist against them, i would take that more seriously than if someone was being sexist against them.
why?
cause black people who feel that some white person is trying to opress them, they dont call them selves "blackists". they are just people wanting to be treated as individuals. were as feminists, deliberately seperate themselves.

Amusing. Feminism is the term because at the time the group that was lacking in rights was females, or appeared to be. After the movement was already widespread and very famous they realized that really both groups are injured by the kind of gender roles and stereotypes you support. However, by then, it had a life of it's own. It was feminism forever more. Black people and hispanics had movements called Black Power and the Chicano movement among other things, however it was the term civil rights that stuck.

Nothing about the term changes the meaning. The term references the equality of the sexes. You can't have equality for females without equality for males. It's impossible.

Meanwhile, thank you for evidencing my point. We can see which person's posts are being used to further claims against feminism. We can see that I was correct that your arguments, CH, are very much an argument for putting feminism on the back burner for 'more important' movements. It's probably Bottle's fault, right? Maybe mine? For someone so worried about appearances, you'd think you'd have thought of the consequences of an argument that racism is a more important cause than sexism.

So, you want to blame me for continually referencing Bottle's posts, and when I offer to drop the conversation, you can't because you want the win.

You are priceless!! :rolleyes:

Wrong, but priceless!!

You didn't 'offer to drop the conversation'... you made your points in a patronising manner, and then said the OTHER poster could drop the conversation.

It seems fairly evident your intent was to get the last word... and, considering several posters seem to think you have already misrepresented the words of at least ONE other poster,it is somewhat understandable that another poster might be loathe to leave you as the 'last word' on the matter.

The difference is in the number of body bags required. :eek:

How so?

And, more to the point... what does the number matter?

Racism is persecution based on an innate and 'unchosen' aspect of a person... that is, their skin tone. Sexism is persecution based on an innate and 'unchosen' aspect of a person... that is, their genitals.

If you perceive a real difference between the two, I suspect it is because you wish to.

If you agree with those historians who consider the 15th-17th century witch crazes to be gender-driven issues, then the difference is not so great.

Now, tell us what the difference in the thinking of the bigot is, and the difference in his attitude towards the people he is bigoted against.

I suspect we are supposed to ignore the purges of female children, both historically, and in certain parts of the modern world, also.

Witch hunts were generally driven by religious factions., and apparently it was not only females that were persecuted. Certainly, it had nothing to do with feminism.


Witch hunts do seem to have a historical association with religion - and there is some evidence that both males and females fell victim. The claim often made, was that these persons were practising some 'dark art' - which most consider to be nothing more than church double-speak for them NOT toeing the party line on church matters. Example: using herbal remedies, rather than just praing and hoping 'it' goes away.

However, while some communities may have suffered a more balanced gender cull... the stereotypical witch was a woman - because she consorted with Satan, was the Whore of Babylon, a Jezebel... etc. It is not hard to imagine the phallotheistic Christian church attacking any signs of feminine strength. It is certainly historically supported that women HAVE been supressed in Christian cultures, as a systematic and deliberate process.


Bigotry based on religion and/or racism has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. I don't see that in regards to modern day feminism. That is why I say there is a world of difference.


You don't see it in regards to feminism. Because, obviously, only body counts matter.

What about the fact that the Christian church has basically perpetuated two thousand years of sanctioned rape?

Or, is rape not important? Only murder?


Having said that, I don't want to divert from the topic at hand.

The evidence suggests something quite contrary.

Well, what do you know, NS has its' own Bottle interpreter. Just put in Bottle words and they come out Jocabian (the easier, softer word processor) . Your own version of spin the Bottle?

You are one desperado. :(

Is interpreting Bottle not the very thing you have been doing?

Contrary to - not only Jocabia's interpretations... but even Bottle's own latter claims?

If we have an NS Prophet of Bottle, I think it;s obvious where the smart money goes.

I do believe that her words are quite evident and they contradict your continued assertion that she was not bashing males:

So Jocabia, if someone called you an "insecure little boy", you wouldn't consider that demeaning or degrading?

Just to clear things up, I said that a man who freaks out when women talk back to him is an insecure little boy. If you want to claim that all men will behave this way, then I think you're the one engaging in male-bashing. I happen to think that the vast majority of men recognize that female human beings both have opinions and should be permitted to voice them.


And yeah, IMHO Bottle's reply to the OP was intolerant and does nothing to promote the cause of feminism. If anything, it is that attitude that harms the cause.

In the quest for equality, one must rien in the extremists? Patience, tolerance, love and understanding are the desirable ingredients to harmony.
Let's be careful with our terms, shall we?

I tolerate misogyny, in that I don't try to make it illegal to hate women, nor do I advocate taking illegal or violent actions against misogynists. I tolerate mysogeny the way I tolerate racism; I believe people get to have whatever opinions they like, they just don't get to violate anybody else's rights.

Do I speak rudely to racists and sexists? You betcha. I don't see why I should worry about sparing the tender feelings of a group of people who think I don't deserve fundamental human rights.

Feminists have been told to quiet down and be nicer and more lady-like for generations. We haven't listened to you yet, and we've won ever step along the way by being louder and harsher and more confrontational. Every inch of progress has been won by nasty opinionated feminists who are "intolerant" of the BS that is going on around them. "The Cause" isn't harmed by this, any more than the Million Man March harmed the cause of racial equality because it was loud and made racists unhappy.

If you want feminists to shut up and chill out already, then pitch in and help us get some work done. 'Cause we ain't gonna quiet down until we're finished. :D

Is interpreting Bottle not the very thing you have been doing?

Contrary to - not only Jocabia's interpretations... but even Bottle's own latter claims?

If we have an NS Prophet of Bottle, I think it;s obvious where the smart money goes.
Hey, CH makes unsubstantiated claims about my desires based solely on projection of his own internal assumptions, claims which bear little to no resemblence to reality...I'd say that makes him the perfect Prophet, don't you? ;)

But seriously, Joc has rocked my socks through this whole thread. I've actually come back and lurked a couple of times just to watch the show. Awesome stuff!

Well, what do you know, NS has its' own Bottle interpreter. Just put in Bottle words and they come out Jocabian (the easier, softer word processor) . Your own version of spin the Bottle?

You are one desperado. :(
As the leading authority on What Bottle's Words Really Mean, allow me to help out:

Joc's right. You're wrong.

Joc has helpfully demonstrated how a person who is Not Bottle can read and understand Bottle's Words, using the intended meanings of the words instead of presuming to change the meanings of the words to fit one's personal assumptions about feminazis. Joc appears quite accomplished at this. I'm sure you could get some helpful tips or lessons if you asked nicely.

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).

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?Hm. I suppose that it could be interpreted by a lack of male teachers that men shouldn't be teachers, even if this isn't explicitly stated.

I suppose also, that someone who is a boy would then decide to behave in the ways that boys behave...I suppose that a far goal of feminism is to eliminate the idea that boys and girls are supposed to behave differently from one another, but right now that idea exists and we shouldn't act as though it doesn't.
So what I'm saying is that I agree with both of you.

As the leading authority on What Bottle's Words Really Mean, allow me to help out:

Joc's right. You're wrong.

Joc has helpfully demonstrated how a person who is Not Bottle can read and understand Bottle's Words, using the intended meanings of the words instead of presuming to change the meanings of the words to fit one's personal assumptions about feminazis. Joc appears quite accomplished at this. I'm sure you could get some helpful tips or lessons if you asked nicely.

Huh... what would you know?

You only 'said' it. Understanding was granted only to CH.


I have this vision of some guy from one of the modern churches standing on a hill facing a face of god leaning out of the clouds. The little figure is shaking fists at the face in the sky, and explaining why the Bible means what HIS church insists....

Hey, CH makes unsubstantiated claims about my desires based solely on projection of his own internal assumptions, claims which bear little to no resemblence to reality...I'd say that makes him the perfect Prophet, don't you? ;)

But seriously, Joc has rocked my socks through this whole thread. I've actually come back and lurked a couple of times just to watch the show. Awesome stuff!

He seems to be pissing off all the right people, too. I mean - people join the thread JUST to diss Jocabia. Apparently, taking an opponent and listing their every contradiction is not 'exciting' enough for some.

Hm. I suppose that it could be interpreted by a lack of male teachers that men shouldn't be teachers, even if this isn't explicitly stated.

I suppose also, that someone who is a boy would then decide to behave in the ways that boys behave...I suppose that a far goal of feminism is to eliminate the idea that boys and girls are supposed to behave differently from one another, but right now that idea exists and we shouldn't act as though it doesn't.
So what I'm saying is that I agree with both of you.
The problem is that we really have no idea what "boys are like" or "girls are like" innately, since girls and boys grow up in a cultural context that imposes all sorts of expectations and gendered ideas on them.

If we really were concerned about making sure that girls and boys get to live out their individual differences, we'd try to create a cultural context in which they aren't expected to be one thing or the other just because of their gender. People who support sexism often like to talk about how men and women are just inherently different, yet they support all these institutions and policies that ARTIFICIALLY impose gender roles. Which shouldn't be necessary, if men and women just naturally choose to fall into these roles.

The problem is that we really have no idea what "boys are like" or "girls are like" innately, since girls and boys grow up in a cultural context that imposes all sorts of expectations and gendered ideas on them.

If we really were concerned about making sure that girls and boys get to live out their individual differences, we'd try to create a cultural context in which they aren't expected to be one thing or the other just because of their gender. People who support sexism often like to talk about how men and women are just inherently different, yet they support all these institutions and policies that ARTIFICIALLY impose gender roles. Which shouldn't be necessary, if men and women just naturally choose to fall into these roles.Yes, this is what I was thinking, too: why would someone need a role model of a particular gender? I suppose the answer is that right now, we do live in such a cultural context as you described, and not the ideal cultural context.

Yes, this is what I was thinking, too: why would someone need a role model of a particular gender? I suppose the answer is that right now, we do live in such a cultural context as you described, and not the ideal cultural context.
Exactly!

I'd love to have somebody give me an example of one value that can only be imparted by persons with a particular set of genitals. I've yet to encounter one in my lifetime, but perhaps I am missing something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fleeing Oppressed View Post
I stated that it has failed the poor. Tell me how the expectation that lower class women should now work, but still look after the children, is not a case where feminism has failed them?

Yes, that's the fault of feminism. Because feminism says that both parents should work but only women should look after the children. You're just making crap up. Link one site. Any feminist site that says that only women should take care of the children and they parents should never stay home to care for their children.
Of course feminism doesn't say that. But there has been a lot more movement on getting wealthy, well educated women the ability to get top end jobs, than have childrearing recognised as a valid, worthwhile pursuit, in and of itself. You asked for links. Here's one
http://www.diversityhotwire.com/business/diversity_statistics.html#fem_workforce
This link shows stats on percentages of women in high end jobs. I found that in less than 30 seconds. I spent atleast 5 minutes, on different options in google such as "women in th workforce" "minimum wage" "statistics" "historical" in an attemp to find a page with stats on the rising number of women in dead end jobs, but I couldn't do so.
My suppostion is that a large proportion of women, not feminists, want a big protector, but also want the good stuff of feminism. You've asked me to provide stats and links. I challenge you to provide a study that shows a majority of women do not want a man to do the traditional role of protector.

Just to try to stop the obvious responsethat will attack the man, not the point, I accept feminists are predominately women, and I am not claiming feminists aren't women in my above post.

The problem is that we really have no idea what "boys are like" or "girls are like" innately, since girls and boys grow up in a cultural context that imposes all sorts of expectations and gendered ideas on them.

If we really were concerned about making sure that girls and boys get to live out their individual differences, we'd try to create a cultural context in which they aren't expected to be one thing or the other just because of their gender. People who support sexism often like to talk about how men and women are just inherently different, yet they support all these institutions and policies that ARTIFICIALLY impose gender roles. Which shouldn't be necessary, if men and women just naturally choose to fall into these roles.
I'm with you part of the way here. We do not know what boys are like and girls are like without socialization, but (and I know some of you disagree) there is a fair amount of evidence that if you do not give boys something to be like they make up their own minds based on their friends and frequently that is not an image that benefits many people in society.

I am not saying you need a role model to show boys to carry out male stereotypes or to place women in a position of inferiority or that boys should go off an be buildres or bankers, but you need a role model to show boys what not to do.

I know a few of you disagree (wouldn't it be dull if we were all the same) but I think there are differences between the genders that go beyond social mores - which is part of why members of different genders respond differently to each other than they do to their own genders - the sex thing plays no small part in this. And in learning to behave males often look to other males and females often look to other females.

Of course feminism doesn't say that. But there has been a lot more movement on getting wealthy, well educated women the ability to get top end jobs, than have childrearing recognised as a valid, worthwhile pursuit, in and of itself. You asked for links.

Can you support this claim, specifically? My experience has been that feminists are dedicated to both pursuits. Indeed, feminists are among the few who realize that these two issues are actually one and the same; making sure that women have better jobs and working conditions will make them more able to support and care for their children.

Better jobs mean safer lives and more time to spend with their kids. Better jobs mean better health care, better neighborhoods, better schools, and better conditions for their kids. Better career options will also make it possible for women to take time off to spend with their children, without having to sacrifice their own careers or future earning potential. This means that women won't have to choose between supporting their family and spending time with their family.

Feminist have also been the ones pushing to have domestic work respected more, instead of having it diminished as "women's work." This includes child care, as well as caring for the elderly and for relatives, maintaining a household, and all the other thankless (and frequently unpaid) work that has been traditionally assigned to women.

My suppostion is that a large proportion of women, not feminists, want a big protector, but also want the good stuff of feminism.

Well, sure. Just like lots of men want all the benefits feminism has brought us, but also want to have a submissive sextoy/housebot for a girlfriend/wife.

I know a few of you disagree (wouldn't it be dull if we were all the same) but I think there are differences between the genders that go beyond social mores - which is part of why members of different genders respond differently to each other than they do to their own genders - the sex thing plays no small part in this. And in learning to behave males often look to other males and females often look to other females.
I would agree, but Bottle would smack me.

Exactly!

I'd love to have somebody give me an example of one value that can only be imparted by persons with a particular set of genitals. I've yet to encounter one in my lifetime, but perhaps I am missing something.
How do children learn behavior?

Is it fair to say they learn behavior from seeing how other people behave?
Is it fair to say children know which gender they are?
Is it fair to say children see the way their gender behave in relation to the other and often immitate that when they grow up?

Can you honestly say that males and females react to each other the same way they do to their own genders? I think it would be a very stragne world if men and women reacted exactly the same to each other regardless of gender - how exactly would courtship work? Unless everyone was fully bisexual that is...

I don't think many could say I want to enforce sexist/discriminitory views, or want to keep women out of the workplace or subjugate women. But that does not mean I think men and women are identical except for genetils and their biological roles in repoduction.

I'm with you part of the way here. We do not know what boys are like and girls are like without socialization, but (and I know some of you disagree) there is a fair amount of evidence that if you do not give boys something to be like they make up their own minds based on their friends and frequently that is not an image that benefits many people in society.

There is a fair amount of evidence that PEOPLE do this. It's not unique to boys or men. So? There is absolutely no reason why we have to provide an image that is based on gender, any more than we have to provide one that is based on race.


I am not saying you need a role model to show boys to carry out male stereotypes or to place women in a position of inferiority or that boys should go off an be buildres or bankers, but you need a role model to show boys what not to do.

Children, male or female, require role models. Humans are not born with knowledge of manners and appropriate conduct. Criminal statutes are not coded in our DNA. We don't have a "please and thank you" gland built in.

Yes, children require role models. What they do not require is gendered role models. The presence or absence of a penis does not make or break a good role model.


I know a few of you disagree (wouldn't it be dull if we were all the same) but I think there are differences between the genders that go beyond social mores - which is part of why members of different genders respond differently to each other than they do to their own genders - the sex thing plays no small part in this. And in learning to behave males often look to other males and females often look to other females.
I think none of us can possibly guess at what ACTUAL gender differences may exist, since we have so many layers of gendering going on that it's impossible for us to tell. If you really want to find out about that sort of thing, then you've got to strip away all the artificial boys-versus-girls crap first. So we've all got common cause! :D

I would agree, but Bottle would smack me.
Why would I smack you? Yes, people behave in gendered ways. That's not anything shocking. I simply don't think we can tell which behaviors are "innate" and which are conditioned, since we have so much conditioning going on (even at levels we may not consciously notice). I'd be very curious to see what happens if we get rid of the conditioning and look at the actual innate differences.

Of course feminism doesn't say that. But there has been a lot more movement on getting wealthy, well educated women the ability to get top end jobs, than have childrearing recognised as a valid, worthwhile pursuit, in and of itself. You asked for links. Here's one
http://www.diversityhotwire.com/business/diversity_statistics.html#fem_workforce
This link shows stats on percentages of women in high end jobs. I found that in less than 30 seconds. I spent atleast 5 minutes, on different options in google such as "women in th workforce" "minimum wage" "statistics" "historical" in an attemp to find a page with stats on the rising number of women in dead end jobs, but I couldn't do so.

Um, you do realize this doesn't help your case at all. There is no evidence that these women were the 'goal of feminism' or that these women did not come from poverty or would not have been impovershed. You are making a lot of assertion and grasping at straws in terms of evidence. It's not enough to show a link or two, but you also have to show that it proves what you claim. Something you've failed at consistently.

My suppostion is that a large proportion of women, not feminists, want a big protector, but also want the good stuff of feminism.

Oh, so you were bashing feminism because some people who are not feminists are hypocrites for, you know, not believing in equality (something inherent in not being a feminist, a person who believes in equality). Amusing.

Can you explain to me what is hypocritical about a person who doesn't believe in equality and want a big male protector? Do you not know what hypocritical means or do you not intend to use that word?

You've asked me to provide stats and links. I challenge you to provide a study that shows a majority of women do not want a man to do the traditional role of protector.

I don't have to. I've demonstrated that feminism is fighting to change that problem. You suggested that feminism was only fighting for the 'good stuff'. I proved you wrong.

Just to try to stop the obvious responsethat will attack the man, not the point, I accept feminists are predominately women, and I am not claiming feminists aren't women in my above post.

I recognize that. What you're doing is saying that feminists are responsible for the actions of non-feminists in your posts. What you're doing is changing your claims because your initial claims got debunked. What you're doing is embarrassing yourself.

Feminism is fighting to destroy gender roles.

Why would I smack you? Yes, people behave in gendered ways. That's not anything shocking. I simply don't think we can tell which behaviors are "innate" and which are conditioned, since we have so much conditioning going on (even at levels we may not consciously notice). I'd be very curious to see what happens if we get rid of the conditioning and look at the actual innate differences.

I think there are actual differences in the ways our brains work gender-wise.

I don't know how much of it is 'socialized' into people but it's def. there. (I was 'socialized' into some thought patterns that I am still trying to get rid of though)

How do children learn behavior?

Is it fair to say they learn behavior from seeing how other people behave?
Is it fair to say children know which gender they are?
Is it fair to say children see the way their gender behave in relation to the other and often immitate that when they grow up?

Can you honestly say that males and females react to each other the same way they do to their own genders? I think it would be a very stragne world if men and women reacted exactly the same to each other regardless of gender - how exactly would courtship work? Unless everyone was fully bisexual that is...

I don't think many could say I want to enforce sexist/discriminitory views, or want to keep women out of the workplace or subjugate women. But that does not mean I think men and women are identical except for genetils and their biological roles in repoduction.

Again, you prove that you're worried that gender roles, something you claimed were due to differences in the genders, are learned and won't be without forcing people to learn them. Either they are nature, as you've claimed, and learning is not necessary, or they are nurture, as we've claimed, and then you've got to prove the roles themselves are necessary.

You're complaints that they must be learned have proved exactly what we've always claimed. They are nurture. We teach them. And guess what, we want to stop teaching them. They have no value and do much harm. Now, prove that anything that a man needs to know can't be learned from a woman or expect us to keep laughing at your claims.

How do children learn behavior?

Is it fair to say they learn behavior from seeing how other people behave?
Is it fair to say children know which gender they are?
Is it fair to say children see the way their gender behave in relation to the other and often immitate that when they grow up?

Yes, yes, and yes. Of course, that last question the begs another question: is this a good thing? Yes, children model their gendered behavior on what they observe. Is that necessarily good? Do children benefit from viewing their gender in terms of how they differ from another gender? Do they benefit from building part of their identity this way?

Try putting race in place of gender, and see how you feel about it. Are children better off if they make their skin color a major part of their identity? Are they better off if their role models teach them that white people behave a certain way while black people behave another way? Are they better off immitating adults who believe that white people should behave a certain way to black people, but a different way to other white people?


Can you honestly say that males and females react to each other the same way they do to their own genders?

I'm sorry, where did I say that? I think I've very clearly stated, several times, that people behave in gendered ways.


I think it would be a very stragne world if men and women reacted exactly the same to each other regardless of gender - how exactly would courtship work? Unless everyone was fully bisexual that is...

I think it would be a very strange world if every male engaged in courtship with every female he encountered, and every female engaged in courtship with every male she encountered. I think it would be a very strange world if all human relationships were defined by courtship and mating behaviors.


I don't think many could say I want to enforce sexist/discriminitory views, or want to keep women out of the workplace or subjugate women. But that does not mean I think men and women are identical except for genetils and their biological roles in repoduction.
I don't think men and women are identical, either. I simply think that we don't know what the more subtle differences between the genders are, particularly since gender itself is something we have largely constructed (and there are plenty of people who don't participate in EITHER male or female gender, or who participate in both). I think the first step should always be to learn, and we have a lot more learning to do before we can consider ourselves experts on the sexes. We need to learn what differences are actually "innate" before we go around assuming anything.

But, perhaps more importantly, why are we so concerned about generalized differences? What about all the people who don't fit the averages? Should they be made to feel lousy just because they aren't average? Should they feel obligated to conform to a certain role because of the genitals they were born with? Or should we, perhaps, just give up on gender-typing and let people be who they are? Who cares if a boy wants to play with dollies and a girl wants to box? Who cares if these aren't average behaviors? Why should that matter? Why should it matter if women tend to want to stay at home with babies and men tend to want to work? Should we be stopping the women who DO want to work, or the men who want to stay with the babies? What purpose does it serve us to concern ourselves with these generalizations, other than to give us a way to punish or shame those who don't conform?

I think none of us can possibly guess at what ACTUAL gender differences may exist, since we have so many layers of gendering going on that it's impossible for us to tell. If you really want to find out about that sort of thing, then you've got to strip away all the artificial boys-versus-girls crap first. So we've all got common cause! :D

As a start that would get less complaints than using a few thousand african orphans in a giant social experiment you could try with chimps.

Take a couple hundred male and female baby chimps, isolate them completely from any adult chimps from 1week old or so and let them grow developing their behavior patterns based only on what they see each other doing. You'd get a chimps 'innate' behavior which you could compare to their earned behavior.

Repeat with only female adults and only male adults.

Exactly!

I'd love to have somebody give me an example of one value that can only be imparted by persons with a particular set of genitals. I've yet to encounter one in my lifetime, but perhaps I am missing something.

Oh, you know, men have to learn... ahem... well... you know... the male values that only men can teach because if they don't learn them they won't be 'real' men. These values are things men are born with, only men have to teach it to other men because they don't know they're born with them. Yes, I know that's illogical, but I'm trying to argue FOR sexism so what does logic have to do with anything?

I think there are actual differences in the ways our brains work gender-wise.

I don't know how much of it is 'socialized' into people but it's def. there. (I was 'socialized' into some thought patterns that I am still trying to get rid of though)
There are likely some sex differences in brains, like there are sex differences in other parts of the body. We have no idea how these differences might manefest in complex social/cultural interactions, or how nuture may influence nature in this context. There's just not enough information yet, so I think it is irresponsible to make assumptions.

As the leading authority on What Bottle's Words Really Mean, allow me to help out:

Joc's right. You're wrong.

Joc has helpfully demonstrated how a person who is Not Bottle can read and understand Bottle's Words, using the intended meanings of the words instead of presuming to change the meanings of the words to fit one's personal assumptions about feminazis. Joc appears quite accomplished at this. I'm sure you could get some helpful tips or lessons if you asked nicely.

No prophet skills necessary. Just a computer and an interest in what your posts actually explicitly stated. Now, you could have MEANT to male-bash and just forgot that when you explicitly reference both sexes. You could have MEANT to talk about how people identify themselves even though you twice stated the opposite. HOWEVER, I choose to follow the evidence and not make it up because I want it to be different. The evidence consistently and overwhelming suggests that you were referencing sexists and while CH may not consider sexism to be as big of a problem as racism, you and I do.

As a start that would get less complaints than using a few thousand african orphans in a giant social experiment you could try with chimps.

Take a couple hundred male and female baby chimps, isolate them completely from any adult chimps from 1week old or so and let them grow developing their behavior patterns based only on what they see each other doing. You'd get a chimps 'innate' behavior which you could compare to their earned behavior.

Repeat with only female adults and only male adults.
Doesn't work. As you said, kids need role models. And not just for gendering. They don't need men to show them how to be men and women to show them how to be women, they need adults to show them how to be adults.

If you take youngsters away from all adults at that young age, they become deeply fucked up. (Don't get scared off by my technical terminology, now! :D)) This has been shown with chimp young many times. It's not the lack of gendering that's the problem, it's that apes (including humans) are social creatures and require social context to thrive.

There are likely some sex differences in brains, like there are sex differences in other parts of the body. We have no idea how these differences might manefest in complex social/cultural interactions, or how nuture may influence nature in this context. There's just not enough information yet, so I think it is irresponsible to make assumptions.

Not likely, definitely. Unfortunately the differences in the brain are on a spectrum with men and women tending toward opposite ends of the spectrum but men and women CAN appear anywhere on the spectrum. The problem with gender roles is that rather than assigning roles based on the actual gender of our brains and bodies we assign gender based on sex which has proven to A) be too simple of a method and B) to be faulty even as a simple method.

Not likely, definitely. Unfortunately the differences in the brain are on a spectrum with men and women tending toward opposite ends of the spectrum but men and women CAN appear anywhere on the spectrum. The problem with gender roles is that rather than assigning roles based on the actual gender of our brains and bodies we assign gender based on sex which has proven to A) be too simple of a method and B) to be faulty even as a simple method.
When people talk about supposed gender differences, they always talk about differences in hormones or brain structures. But there are women who have the "male" brain structures, and who show more "male" hormone patterns than some men, and vice versa! So we have to start asking how we're defining the genders in the first place...

Are "men" all human beings with male primary sex characteristics, and "women" all human beings with male primary sex characteristics?

Are "men" those with XY chromosomes, and "women" those with XX?

Are "men" those who have male secondary sex traits, and "women" those with female secondary sex traits?

Are "men" and "women" defined by the patterns of hormones that course through them?

All these definitions become problematic, and the intitial topic soon becomes somewhat circular. For example, if a "man" is anybody with XY chromosomes, then a girl I went to school with is actually a man because she has XY chromosomes, while a man I work with is actually a woman because he has a hormonal disorder that strongly impacts the sex hormone balance in his system (rendering him closer to the average for females than males).

When people talk about supposed gender differences, they always talk about differences in hormones or brain structures. But there are women who have the "male" brain structures, and who show more "male" hormone patterns than some men, and vice versa! So we have to start asking how we're defining the genders in the first place...

Are "men" all human beings with male primary sex characteristics, and "women" all human beings with male primary sex characteristics?

Are "men" those with XY chromosomes, and "women" those with XX?

Are "men" those who have male secondary sex traits, and "women" those with female secondary sex traits?

Are "men" and "women" defined by the patterns of hormones that course through them?

All these definitions become problematic, and the intitial topic soon becomes somewhat circular. For example, if a "man" is anybody with XY chromosomes, then a girl I went to school with is actually a man because she has XY chromosomes, while a man I work with is actually a woman because he has a hormonal disorder that strongly impacts the sex hormone balance in his system (rendering him closer to the average for females than males).

Well, the first step would be to seperate gender and sex from one another. It is a failed oversimplification. That makes a lot of those questions much easier to answer. Then we make gender an identification of where one exists on the spectrum (which is a much better identifier of how they'll behave and tons of physical characteristics, the function of their eyes, for example, than sex ever has been or could ever possibly be). Then we allow people to grow into the roles best suited to them instead of forcing them upon them like a hand-me-down suit.

It's not really that complicated once we abandon the old oversimplifications.

You're complaints that they must be learned have proved exactly what we've always claimed. They are nurture. We teach them. And guess what, we want to stop teaching them. They have no value and do much harm. Now, prove that anything that a man needs to know can't be learned from a woman or expect us to keep laughing at your claims.

Well... There are thousands of young men getting free room and board at Her Majestys Lesiure who were not taught gender roles.

You seem to be makin an assumption that nature and nurture are mutually exclusive - on what basis do you make this claim?

Care to prove that all gender roles do much harm btw?
Care to prove they have no value?

I know as well as you do that for every stastical arguement you can make to support removing all role models of a particular gender can be confronted by comparison with an array of other factors. Someone earlier pointed out the pirates/global warming (I've got the mug) case for proving correleration does not equal causation. However in this there is another point about PROVING anything where there could be (and most likely is) more than one cause. Even with global warming which has thousands of scientists all over the world vigeruosly researching global warming and it's causes it is still possibly to construct plenty of arguements that humans are not responsible for it OR that we are having less impact than many scientsist think. With billions spent of worldwide research there is still room for pointing out other factors to an extent that shows the correleration in man made factors and global warming does not prove causation. I don't agree with them, but they are there.

Behavior trends are even harder to proove - the research on single parentness and crime is a miniscule fraction of that on the research on global warming. And like global warming much of the research is done by people with an agenda - which makes finding unbaised information or conclusion almost impossible. Single parentness, poverty, criminal history in the family, abuse, lack of attention - they are all suspected causes and I don't believe it is possible to prove any one of them, let alone prove what extent is plays a part in crime/etc.

With this issue I can find plenty to support my opinion, I can also find a lot to suggest otherwise. In neither can I see the raw data and in both the sources are often "Fathers For Equality" or "Women against Abusive Fathers" or the like. I think it would be almost impossible to find an unbaised study on this issue, let alone a com,prehensive one. So all I can do (and all you can do) is use personal judgement to form opinions. I have my opinion - which I have formed by balancing what I see, what I have read with my own judgement. You have most likely done the same. Unless you wish to provide the level of proof you are demanding of me in support of your view then quit with the laughing as you are apparently basing your opinions on the same basis as I am.

Well, the first step would be to seperate gender and sex from one another. It is a failed oversimplification. That makes a lot of those questions much easier to answer. Then we make gender an identification of where one exists on the spectrum (which is a much better identifier of how they'll behave and tons of physical characteristics, the function of their eyes, for example, than sex ever has been or could ever possibly be). Then we allow people to grow into the roles best suited to them instead of forcing them upon them like a hand-me-down suit.

It's not really that complicated once we abandon the old oversimplifications.
Yeah, but most people won't be able to handle a world where biological sex and gender are not inherently linked. The rage directed at homosexuality is but one example of the resistence to such things, since much of it stems from anxiety about seperating gender roles and gender from biological sex.

Doesn't work. As you said, kids need role models. And not just for gendering. They don't need men to show them how to be men and women to show them how to be women, they need adults to show them how to be adults.

If you take youngsters away from all adults at that young age, they become deeply fucked up. (Don't get scared off by my technical terminology, now! :D)) This has been shown with chimp young many times. It's not the lack of gendering that's the problem, it's that apes (including humans) are social creatures and require social context to thrive.

Doesn't that mean the inate state of mind is something approaching savagery?

That 'what boys are like' and 'what girls are like' are really what we would consider to be seriously fucked up individuals?

Well... There are thousands of young men getting free room and board at Her Majestys Lesiure who were not taught gender roles.

You seem to be makin an assumption that nature and nurture are mutually exclusive - on what basis do you make this claim?

No, I seem to make the assumption that if they are required by nature, they will develop no matter the circumstance, which is how nature works.

The point is that many like yourself are afraid to learn that they are learned constructs because admitting they are makes you defend them.


Care to prove that all gender roles do much harm btw?

Yes. I can. Where do you want me to start? How about the effect they have on classroom performance of males? How about the effect they have on female body image? How about the effect they have on female access to many jobs? How about the effect they have on men's ability to seek medical attention?

Or, oh, I know, I could just repeat the several dozen bad effects you yourself have complained about.

How about how we don't choose the most effective soldiers for combat, but rather only the most effective males for combat? (If you're goal is to, you know, limit casualties, then the best people for the job should be chosen regardless of sex. How about how we don't choose the most effective person for many jobs, several of which you've mentioned? How about the effect gender roles are having on the courts in custody cases? How about the effect gender roles are having in causing men to abandon their children?

Care to prove they have no value?

I don't have to prove they have no value. You have to prove they do have value since you're claiming that children are harmed by a lack of them.

I know as well as you do that for every stastical arguement you can make to support removing all role models of a particular gender can be confronted by comparison with an array of other factors. Someone earlier pointed out the pirates/global warming (I've got the mug) case for proving correleration does not equal causation. However in this there is another point about PROVING anything where there could be (and most likely is) more than one cause. Even with global warming which has thousands of scientists all over the world vigeruosly researching global warming and it's causes it is still possibly to construct plenty of arguements that humans are not responsible for it OR that we are having less impact than many scientsist think. With billions spent of worldwide research there is still room for pointing out other factors to an extent that shows the correleration in man made factors and global warming does not prove causation. I don't agree with them, but they are there.

Amusing. Another cop out. The burden of proof is on you. If you wish to thrust your gender roles on people, you have to demonstrate they have value. I've not seen any evidence suggesting they do. NONE. Are current construct is overly simplistic and denies the science, hmmmm......, much like you're doing now.

Behavior trends are even harder to proove - the research on single parentness and crime is a miniscule fraction of that on the research on global warming. And like global warming much of the research is done by people with an agenda - which makes finding unbaised information or conclusion almost impossible. Single parentness, poverty, criminal history in the family, abuse, lack of attention - they are all suspected causes and I don't believe it is possible to prove any one of them, let alone prove what extent is plays a part in crime/etc.

Yes, which is why your assertions are simply wild assertions, yet you're claiming them as evidence in favor of your claims. I'm sorry, but the wild assertion evidence has yet to be persuasive in a debate.

With this issue I can find plenty to support my opinion, I can also find a lot to suggest otherwise. In neither can I see the raw data and in both the sources are often "Fathers For Equality" or "Women against Abusive Fathers" or the like. I think it would be almost impossible to find an unbaised study on this issue, let alone a com,prehensive one. So all I can do (and all you can do) is use personal judgement to form opinions. I have my opinion - which I have formed by balancing what I see, what I have read with my own judgement. You have most likely done the same. Unless you wish to provide the level of proof you are demanding of me in support of your view then quit with the laughing as you are apparently basing your opinions on the same basis as I am.

Oh, now, you can't find an unbiased study because both sides are doing it. You've altered your claim. Before it was that all the scientists were feminists. I guess we'll just keep shifting our claims to anywhere that we think we can't be proven wrong. Of course, that's bad debate. But why stop now. You're on a roll.

Doesn't that mean the inate state of mind is something approaching savagery?

In a sense, yes. "Savage" is a word with some really harsh connotations, so it might not be the one I would choose, but it's true that humans aren't born with an innate social conscience that will necessarily rule their other drives.

We have innate drives to be kind, to be generous, to be loving, and to be a part of a caring social structure. However, we also have drives to be aggressive, selfish, unkind, and individually-focused.

It takes most of us a lifetime to figure out how to integrate our various motivations and wishes, if we ever really manage to do so. Children tend to be better off if they have some adult guidance and support to help them with at least the simplest levels of this integration process.

(For example: Yes, Junior, we know that you want to have all the toys for yourself. However, you aren't allowed to hit that kid and take his toy. You must content yourself to have some toys while allowing other children to have other toys, and you may not hit and take things. Here is an opportunity to teach you the importance of empathy! You would not like to be hit or to have your toy taken, so can you see why that other child will be sad if you hit and take their toy? We can also learn about long-term thinking: hitting may get you a toy now, but it will make other things bad for you in the future.)


That 'what boys are like' and 'what girls are like' are really what we would consider to be seriously fucked up individuals?
Is it really a surprise that children don't automatically all grow up to be model citizens?

Doesn't that mean the inate state of mind is something approaching savagery?

That 'what boys are like' and 'what girls are like' are really what we would consider to be seriously fucked up individuals?

No. It wouldn't. For animals, it would mean that interaction with adults is necessary. However, there has never been shown to be a significant difference in animals raised by solely one sex of parents.

With humans, however, it would mean that some societal constructs, those that have an obvious benefit require learning from adults, for example, language, math, science, following the law (don't kill, don't steal, etc.)

We've also find that children need interaction with adults because once they imprint with parents (and yes, humans to a degree imprint) they crave the attention of those parents (something that certain gender roles actually discourage).

Yes. I can. Where do you want me to start? How about the effect they have on classroom performance of males?
Hmmm... hasn't classroom performance of males gotten worse with reduced proportions of male teachers?


How about the effect gender roles are having in causing men to abandon their children?

Aren't men who were abandoned themselves the ones most likely to abandon their children. I.e. the ones who grew up without a male role model showing them that men should look after kids, help with raising the children and so on?


I don't have to prove they have no value. You have to prove they do have value since you're claiming that children are harmed by a lack of them.

Kid grows up with no male in family. Kid sees that males do not stick with females to raise kids. Kid gets girl pregnant and skips out on her.
You can teach boys a positive gender role (stick with the kids) or a negative one (men don't stick with kids).

OR give boy NO gender role of men. Kid gets girl pregnant and does not feel he has an obligation to stick about as he has no reason to think he has a role in the upbringing of his kid. Where has he seen that he should have a role?

Oh, now, you can't find an unbiased study because both sides are doing it. You've altered your claim. Before it was that all the scientists were feminists. I guess we'll just keep shifting our claims to anywhere that we think we can't be proven wrong. Of course, that's bad debate. But why stop now. You're on a roll.
No. I am weighing the evidence that I see and making a judgement. Just as you are doing. We have made different judgements.

Now - care to show me where I sad "Before it was that all the scientists were feminists."? I would really like to know.

No. It wouldn't. For animals, it would mean that interaction with adults is necessary. However, there has never been shown to be a significant difference in animals raised by solely one sex of parents.
How many experiments have there been done on this?

Hmmm... hasn't classroom performance of males gotten worse with reduced proportions of male teachers?

There used to be virtually no male teachers. Meanwhile, you're going to have to show some causation here.


Or, oh, I know, I could just repeat the several dozen bad effects you yourself have complained about.

Aren't men who were abandoned themselves the ones most likely to abandon their children. I.e. the ones who grew up without a male role model showing them that men should look after kids, help with raising the children and so on?

Nope. Again, you lean on correllation like a crutch. Please stop pretending like correllation and causation are the same.


Kid grows up with no male in family. Kid sees that males do not stick with females to raise kids. Kid gets girl pregnant and skips out on her.
You can teach boys a positive gender role (stick with the kids) or a negative one (men don't stick with kids).

Or, perhaps, children learn that men do not raise children and that it's women's work, so they leave the work to the children. Children do learn from their parents. No one denies that. You've only shown that they learn from their parents no matter what.

OR give boy NO gender role of men. Kid gets girl pregnant and does not feel he has an obligation to stick about as he has no reason to think he has a role in the upbringing of his kid. Where has he seen that he should have a role?

The idea that men don't have a role in childrearing is a gender role that has been perpetuated for centuries. Men bring home the money. Women raise the children. These are standard gender roles. To pretend that gender roles suggest otherwise requires one to simple ignore reality.


No. I am weighing the evidence that I see and making a judgement. Just as you are doing. We have made different judgements.

No, you aren't weighing evidence. You're weighing a lack of it. You've not shown any evidence and even whined that it doesn't exist. Please show the evidence if you have it. You've shown not one lick. Just wild assertions.

Your job in a discussion is the make sure we see the evidence you see. You just claimed there isn't any to present or complained that if you presented it, it would be shown to be faulty or that there would be counter evidence. Either the evidence is compelling or it isn't. You seem sure it isn't. So much so that presenting it is a waste of your time.

Now - care to show me where I sad "Before it was that all the scientists were feminists."? I would really like to know.

Workin' on it. It's a big thread.

EDIT: My apologies. That was someone else explaining why their claims don't have any evidence. Sorry, it's hard to keep all the people making assertions and then excuses for a lack of evidence straight.

How many experiments have there been done on this?

What am I? Kreskin. I only know what I've seen.

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a difference. You're making a positive assertion that would only be supported if such a difference occurred.

There is of course the evidence that there is not a signifanct difference in children raised in stable homes with two parents of the same gender.

To the original point, you've complained about some of the bad effects of gender roles so we agree that they exist. You've not offered up any value to the gender roles that you've shown any evidence for. I consider your claim that they have a positive value to be without merit. Obviously, since you've failed to present your evidence, so do you.

Kid grows up with no male in family. Kid sees that males do not stick with females to raise kids. Kid gets girl pregnant and skips out on her.
You can teach boys a positive gender role (stick with the kids) or a negative one (men don't stick with kids).

Or...

Kid grows up with no male in family, but with loving and supportive role models. Kid learns that human beings respect one another and behave kindly. When faced with an unplanned pregnancy, Kid has loving support network of caring adults to help Kid know how to behave responsibly and maturely.

Seriously are you suggesting that all kids who grow up with a single mother for a parent will be assholes? Because I happen to know at least half a dozen individuals who have somehow managed to learn not to be assholes despite being fatherless. I also know three girls who have managed to grow into amazing and wonderful women despite not having a mother in their life (she died when the oldest was barely out of diapers).


OR give boy NO gender role of men. Kid gets girl pregnant and does not feel he has an obligation to stick about as he has no reason to think he has a role in the upbringing of his kid. Where has he seen that he should have a role?

Why does Kid require men to learn not to ditch out on his responsibilities? Why does Kid believe that the default for males is to not have a role in caring for children? Why does Kid believe that his maleness is the defining factor that he should use to identify his role in the world? Why does Kid believe that his maleness exempts him from the standard rules of conduct for decent human beings?

If Kid grows up with no black parent, does this mean Kid also assumes that the default for black people is to not care for children?

There used to be virtually no male teachers. Meanwhile, you're going to have to show some causation here.
It used to be an almost exclusively male profession in the UK. And the rates have been steadily falling in recent years. At the same time that girls results started to eclipse boys.

Can you confirm somethine - you are refering to the poor peformance of boys in classrooms of late?


Nope. Again, you lean on correllation like a crutch. Please stop pretending like correllation and causation are the same.
This point can be brought up for ANY stastical point. Can you refute the link with a counterpoint?


The idea that men don't have a role in childrearing is a gender role that has been perpetuated for centuries. Men bring home the money. Women raise the children. These are standard gender roles. To pretend that gender roles suggest otherwise requires one to simple ignore reality.
And I am saying maybe it would be an idea if boys were perhaps given a gender role that shows that men should stick with the family.

Or that they should be shown a gender role where males are actually expected to be studious. Girls see female teachers, the see that females know stuff and learn stuff. Boys see female teachers. The don't see male teachers. This shows that males do not have much to do with school. Just a thought.


No, you aren't weighing evidence. You're weighing a lack of it. You've not shown any evidence and even whined that it doesn't exist. Please show the evidence if you have it. You've shown not one lick. Just wild assertions.

Ok. Lets assume I'm pig ignorant (an easy assumption for some...). Educate me please with the evidence I should be looking at and the reasoning behind your conclusions. I promise I am willing to learn if you can teach. Show me that I am fundamentally wrong and I will a. thank you for correcting me. b. be happy to admit I was wrong and learnt something.

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

Would we have a transitionalist marriage or a traditional one.

Well, do you "let" her do things, or do you have a give-and-take on both ends? I think you're a transitionalist. I don't know what your wife would like, so I don't know what your whole marriage would be considered. I'd say this is a talk to have with her...it seems pretty interesting, don't you agree?

What am I? Kreskin. I only know what I've seen.

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a difference. You're making a positive assertion that would only be supported if such a difference occurred.


I thought the person making statements had the burden to show the proof?

You made a statement that animal experiments show no difference in genders of the rearing animals. Or does the burden only fall on people you disagree with?

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

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


Excellently put.

And I am saying maybe it would be an idea if boys were perhaps given a gender role that shows that men should stick with the family.

Or that they should be shown a gender role where males are actually expected to be studious. Girls see female teachers, the see that females know stuff and learn stuff. Boys see female teachers. The don't see male teachers. This shows that males do not have much to do with school. Just a thought.

And we're saying that it would be better to not teach kids that they need gender roles to be decent human beings.

Feminism suggests that we teach children (both male and female) that PARENTS should be caring, responsible, and honorable. Feminism suggests that kids be brought up knowing that a PARENT should stick by their family. The gender of the parent is totally and completely 100% irrelevant, because both men AND women should be equally expected to be good parents, and equally free to be good parents as well!

Feminism suggests that children should be taught that learning and knowledge are valuable and positive. CHILDREN, not "boys" or "girls." All children. Genitals and genders are beside the point.

Genitals and genders are beside the point.
When you make the tiny assumption that boys identify with women in exactly the same way as girls do and vice-versa.

When you make the tiny assumption that boys identify with women in exactly the same way as girls do and vice-versa.
You're the one assuming that boys will automatically be unable to identify with women, and girls with men. You're assuming that the maleness of a role model will define the role model's value to a child.

That would be a sad world indeed. My father is as much a role model to me as my mother. My father has taught me as much about being a good person as my mother. My personality is actually a lot more like my father's than my mother's, as it happens. My brother just happens to be the reverse (more like Mom than Dad).

Growing up, I always identified more readily with males. Not because they were male, I now realize, but because my personality was more like what society refers to as "masculine." The people who had personalities like mine, and who had interests in line with mine, most often were male. So that's who I identified with. When I encountered women who were more like me, I identified with them as well.

Most kids are like that. Hell, most people are like that. They don't identify strongly with people to whom they cannot relate in any way. They identify more strongly with people who seem to be like them.

The assumption that all boys are going to be more like a male role model than a female role model, or will be better off with one than the other, is part of the key problem in the thinking here. It's quite often not true, but we impose these expectations that then shape kids along the gender roles that we've already assume exist. (And by "we" I am including even people like me, because I know I can't completely remove myself from the gender roles and gender context I've grown up with. I know that I have internalized a lot of my culture's gender assumptions, even though I might not like them.)

Remember, the adults in question were kids once too! They are the PRODUCT of all the gender conditioning! The women and men who are being role models to these kids will, themselves, have been "gendered" throughout their life. I tended to identify with male role models because females in my culture aren't encouraged to show the kind of interests and traits that I identify with, so fewer females end up displaying those interests and traits.

You're the one assuming that boys will automatically be unable to identify with women, and girls with men. You're assuming that the maleness of a role model will define the role model's value to a child.

I am assuming they identify differently, not that they do not identify at all.

I am freely prepared to admit that a part of this is due to gender preconditioning, but what is it that actually makes a small child often take the preconditioning? Or is it something they do naturally - taking their own genders examples as how they should behave?

Now that "snivveling weaklings" surely must be directed at males? Surely she wouldn't call a woman a "snivveling weakling"?

Why not? A woman can meet that description just as well as a man.

Why not? A woman can meet that description just as well as a man.
Due to the gendering that goes on in my society, men who are snivveling weaklings are often derided as being "bitches" or "pussies" or "women." Weakness is often equated with femininity. Not only can women meet the description I gave...being a "woman" is a synonym for it!

Due to the gendering that goes on in my society, men who are snivveling weaklings are often derided as being "bitches" or "pussies" or "women." Weakness is often equated with femininity. Not only can women meet the description I gave...being a "woman" is a synonym for it!

Yet another hurdle for feminism to conquer.

It's stuff like this that gets to me when people are like "You got laws saying we gotta employ women, what more do you want?"

That and the fact people are reluctant to obey the laws. Step 1 - get leglislation to enforce equality in employment. Step 1 - get employers to BELIEVE it not just fill the quotas because they have to.

I am a feminist and I have had as much boys as I wanted. Now, I am happily engaged for a couple of years.

Answer that your questions?

At last, in Europe, the weird thing is to not be feminist. Even men.

Aren't men who were abandoned themselves the ones most likely to abandon their children. I.e. the ones who grew up without a male role model showing them that men should look after kids, help with raising the children and so on?

Not necessarily. In fact, a man who grew up seeing his mother struggle, wishing he knew his father, might be the least likely to abandon children.

Kid grows up with no male in family.

This situation is extremely unlikely. Even if a child's father skips out, there are other male relatives - grandfathers, uncles, older cousins, etc. And male friends can very much be a part of the family as well.

Kid sees that males do not stick with females to raise kids. Kid gets girl pregnant and skips out on her.
You can teach boys a positive gender role (stick with the kids) or a negative one (men don't stick with kids).

But if a man does skip out on his responsibility, the adults still in that child's life can teach him that he shouldn't do so.

That would be a sad world indeed. My father is as much a role model to me as my mother. My father has taught me as much about being a good person as my mother. My personality is actually a lot more like my father's than my mother's, as it happens. My brother just happens to be the reverse (more like Mom than Dad).

And therein lies a very large point. Children are going to identify with those who they see as being most like them. Gender *may* be an issue and it may not. Children may even look to someone other than their parents as a very prominent role model. A favorite aunt, uncle, grandparent, or family friend might shape a child's life in a huge way because the child identified with that role model.

In the end, the goal of parents should be to ensure that they are, themselves, good role models, and should also ensure that the child has other role models to look to. Even the most attentive parent may one day find that their child is more comfortable going to someone else with a given issue.

It used to be an almost exclusively male profession in the UK. And the rates have been steadily falling in recent years. At the same time that girls results started to eclipse boys.

Can you confirm somethine - you are refering to the poor peformance of boys in classrooms of late?

The US is a counter-example. Teaching was almost exclusively a female profession and recently became more balanced about the time girls started eclipsing boys here too. Both changes were the result of feminism. Perhaps feminism is the cause of the performance of women improving.


This point can be brought up for ANY stastical point. Can you refute the link with a counterpoint?

The burden is on your friend. Pirates and climate. I don't have to prove they aren't causing one another. You're required to prove they are. You've not even made an effort.

My salary has gone up steadily since 1987. Now I could assert that since it has continued to go up that this is because salaries are on the rise. However, in the absense of something that shows there an actually rise in salaries causing my increase in salary as opposed to a number of other equally plausible events that happened at the same time, then I'd have to say that I'm really not able to draw a conclusion.

You may be happy to make conclusions in conflicting evidence when no causation is apparent, but I'm not as willing to do so.


And I am saying maybe it would be an idea if boys were perhaps given a gender role that shows that men should stick with the family.

Or how about it's not a gender role and we teach that raising your children is every parent's job? How about we teach that being a role model to children is every PERSON's job? If we teach both males and females to active in the lives of their chidlren, it's not a gender role.

Or that they should be shown a gender role where males are actually expected to be studious. Girls see female teachers, the see that females know stuff and learn stuff. Boys see female teachers. The don't see male teachers. This shows that males do not have much to do with school. Just a thought.

There are tons of male teachers here and we still experience the same phenomena. Again, if you teach that being studious isn't a man/woman thing, but a people thing, then it's not a gender role. Gender role refers to when it's the role on one gender or the other.

Ok. Lets assume I'm pig ignorant (an easy assumption for some...). Educate me please with the evidence I should be looking at and the reasoning behind your conclusions. I promise I am willing to learn if you can teach. Show me that I am fundamentally wrong and I will a. thank you for correcting me. b. be happy to admit I was wrong and learnt something.

Good. First, look at the occurance of male teachers in the US and the performance of boys. You'll find that the emergence of women as students coincides with feminism and very much resembles the performance you are seeing in the UK. However, in the US male teachers were not introduced UNTIL that time (for the most part).

Men have never topped 35% in grade schools in the US (the high was 1971 due to Viet Nam). It has been lower than that lately, but the performance of girls over boys has been steadily increasing since feminism was introduced.

http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publications/research-report/rr2006/classrooms.asp
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s77285.htm

Also, studies show that when boys are placed in a classroom where they are expected to perform higher they are, suggesting that the performance issue has to do with poor gender roles and nothing to do with whether or not the teacher is male. When we ignore gender roles and encourage both boys and girls to perform, we get exactly that.

They link this problem as related to gender roles when school performance should be equally expected of both sexes. Another ding for gender roles, my friend.

Second, take into account your own claims about the damage that gender roles do, like gender roles that teach a man that he not made for childrearing. You're right they should be taught better. Both parents should. This proves the value of destroying gender roles.

Third, and finally, I cannot show evidence that there is no positive value to gender roles. You've made the claim that there is. It's a positive assertion. And in the light of no evidence, it's worth the paper it's written on and unless you printed it out...

I thought the person making statements had the burden to show the proof?

You made a statement that animal experiments show no difference in genders of the rearing animals. Or does the burden only fall on people you disagree with?

No, I didn't. I said... "However, there has never been shown to be a significant difference in animals raised by solely one sex of parents. "

It's a negative assertion. That means that I can't show lack of article after lack of article to show what HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. It means that if it has been shown, then you can easily prove me wrong by showing it.

You made the assertion that there is a difference. There have been tons of animals that were raised missing parents of one sex or another. I have seen no evidence that there is any difference in the behavior of these animals. Now, if you'd like to demonstrate that evidence does exist to support your claims for a different please do so.

Positive claims have the burden of proof in debate. You made an assertion. I said that assertion has never been shown to be true. Offer proof or admit that you're wildly speculating, AGAIN.

Not necessarily. In fact, a man who grew up seeing his mother struggle, wishing he knew his father, might be the least likely to abandon children.
...

The evidence would suggest this is 'hopeful wishing' on your part.

African American Families show a second and third generation of non-participation by the father to be an increasing trend, not a decreasing trend. 70% of African American children are born into single parent families now whereas 70% the non-African American children are born into families with two parents (married or otherwise sharing a household). The trend suggests that households without fathers spawn more households without fathers rather than less.

The evidence would suggest this is 'hopeful wishing' on your part.

African American Families show a second and third generation of non-participation by the father to be an increasing trend, not a decreasing trend. 70% of African American children are born into single parent families now whereas 70% the non-African American children are born into families with two parents (married or otherwise sharing a household). The trend suggests that households without fathers spawn more households without fathers rather than less.Is this non-participation voluntary, or the result of other factors, such as death?
(I'm referring to the low life expectancies that African-American males have here.)

The evidence would suggest this is 'hopeful wishing' on your part.

African American Families show a second and third generation of non-participation by the father to be an increasing trend, not a decreasing trend. 70% of African American children are born into single parent families now whereas 70% the non-African American children are born into families with two parents (married or otherwise sharing a household). The trend suggests that households without fathers spawn more households without fathers rather than less.

Again, can you evidence causation here? You seem to be linking it to a black thing (perhaps a stereotype that black men aren't required to stick around and raise their children) rather than simply linked to being raised without a father.

Studies also link this issue to relative to poverty (single mothers having a MUCH higher incidence of poverty). Is it perhaps that these children are being raised in homes where this just no positive male role model, but the mother is generally not present as well (always working)? Is it possible that these children are being raised in neighborhoods where bad influences abound?

Could it be the lack of stability found in a single parent home rather than the lack of male role models? Could it be any number of things found in the single parent home with more prevelance? Yes, of course it could. But you'd rather just assert causation and leave at that, huh?

EDIT: And 70%? Really?

http://www.cbpp.org/6-15-01wel.htm

The Census Bureau has it at 43% and decreasing in 2000.

The evidence would suggest this is 'hopeful wishing' on your part.

African American Families show a second and third generation of non-participation by the father to be an increasing trend, not a decreasing trend. 70% of African American children are born into single parent families now whereas 70% the non-African American children are born into families with two parents (married or otherwise sharing a household). The trend suggests that households without fathers spawn more households without fathers rather than less.

Not really. You have to look at a number of other factors as well. For instance, African American familes, particularly single-income families, tend to have financial difficulties. This often means that they live in what most people would refer to as "bad" parts of town. There are all sorts of struggles such a child would go through above and beyond simply not having a father in the home that might affect his decision-making later.

Add to that the fact that there are other cultural factors and gender stereotypes to deal with and the idea that this trend is caused solely by the existence of single-parent households looks pretty ridiculous.

Again, can you evidence causation here? You seem to be linking it to a black thing (perhaps a stereotype that black men aren't required to stick around and raise their children) rather than simply linked to being raised without a father.

Studies also link this issue to relative to poverty (single mothers having a MUCH higher incidence of poverty). Is it perhaps that these children are being raised in homes where this just no positive male role model, but the mother is generally not present as well (always working)? Is it possible that these children are being raised in neighborhoods where bad influences abound?

Could it be the lack of stability found in a single parent home rather than the lack of male role models? Could it be any number of things found in the single parent home with more prevelance? Yes, of course it could. But you'd rather just assert causation and leave at that, huh?

EDIT: And 70%? Really?

http://www.cbpp.org/6-15-01wel.htm

The Census Bureau has it at 43% and decreasing in 2000.



FYI: I mentioned “born into” because that is a specific statistic, not a living in statistic which is affected by divorce and remarriage etc., an equally valuable source, but a different source. You made an apples to oranges compare though, your numbers are a different family of numbers from a different question…

As to the accusation that I exaggerated the statistic though… For the race specific question of children born into households with two parents, yes it’s 70%, just like I said. Your own link agrees with the 70% here…

The majority of children less than 18 years old — 70 percent — live with two married biological, adoptive, or step-parents.

And as to the why I stated African American over simply poor, is because that too is a different question. And yes, I personally link it to be a causation of poor and institutionalized racism in society, I don’t think it’s a black thing at all. The data from these studies divides them by this categorization thus I am stuck with it as well, But thanks all the same for trying to slide in the accusation that my points might simply be dismissed as a bigotry. How political of you for trying the mud slinging route of debate form, I suppose this is the season for it though.

As to the rate of African Americans born into single mother household, I did indeed look it up and it does appear to be closer to 67.7% than 70%, my bad.
Table 1-22. Number of Births to Unmarried Women by Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother, by Age of Mother and Percents by Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother for Metropolitan Areas of the United States: 2000 …

White 26.8%
Black 67.7%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x22.pdf

My sincerest apologies for having exaggerating it by my own error, due to my bad memory, all the way to the erroneously report 70%... I think my point still stands though.

Not really. You have to look at a number of other factors as well. For instance, African American familes, particularly single-income families, tend to have financial difficulties. This often means that they live in what most people would refer to as "bad" parts of town. There are all sorts of struggles such a child would go through above and beyond simply not having a father in the home that might affect his decision-making later.

Add to that the fact that there are other cultural factors and gender stereotypes to deal with and the idea that this trend is caused solely by the existence of single-parent households looks pretty ridiculous.

Single parent families do indeed have financial problems, without a doubt.

Single parent household issue create more poverty and less supervision due to no fault of the parent, the situation goes hand in hand with the other issues you mentioned, I didn't dismiss the other issues whatsoever.

No, I didn't. I said... "However, there has never been shown to be a significant difference in animals raised by solely one sex of parents. "

It's a negative assertion. That means that I can't show lack of article after lack of article to show what HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. It means that if it has been shown, then you can easily prove me wrong by showing it.


You however can show articles that show they have not found a link.

Unless there are not any, along with no positive ones - and then your statement basically should read "There are not any studies on the difference in animals raised solely by one sex".

The statement as is reads as though there have been studies, and they found no link. In which case you can post links to such studies (or reports on them). Particulary in the context replying to my suggestion of doing social tests on animals to see if there is a difference.

The US is a counter-example. Teaching was almost exclusively a female profession and recently became more balanced about the time girls started eclipsing boys here too. Both changes were the result of feminism. Perhaps feminism is the cause of the performance of women improving.
Good. First, look at the occurance of male teachers in the US and the performance of boys. You'll find that the emergence of women as students coincides with feminism and very much resembles the performance you are seeing in the UK. However, in the US male teachers were not introduced UNTIL that time (for the most part).

Men have never topped 35% in grade schools in the US (the high was 1971 due to Viet Nam). It has been lower than that lately, but the performance of girls over boys has been steadily increasing since feminism was introduced.

http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publications/research-report/rr2006/classrooms.asp
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s77285.htm

Also, studies show that when boys are placed in a classroom where they are expected to perform higher they are, suggesting that the performance issue has to do with poor gender roles and nothing to do with whether or not the teacher is male. When we ignore gender roles and encourage both boys and girls to perform, we get exactly that.

They link this problem as related to gender roles when school performance should be equally expected of both sexes. Another ding for gender roles, my friend.

Second, take into account your own claims about the damage that gender roles do, like gender roles that teach a man that he not made for childrearing. You're right they should be taught better. Both parents should. This proves the value of destroying gender roles.

Third, and finally, I cannot show evidence that there is no positive value to gender roles. You've made the claim that there is. It's a positive assertion. And in the light of no evidence, it's worth the paper it's written on and unless you printed it out...

Thankyou. Before we go further can I ask a few questions.

we'll scratch the thirdly point - I think we're talking about very different things, and some of it is too subjective. I'll try to keep it as civil as possible and the third point I think will boil down only to opinion rather than fact which will not help the discussion.

(btw - much of my knowlege on this is based on the UK system, which as we have seen has a very different history, although a similar recent trend. The us system is not an area I know a lot about. )

Firstly - so we're both on the same page can you define what you mean when you say "since feminism was introduced". I will not debate your definition of feminism, but need to know so I can understand what you mean with this statement without ambiguity.

Secondly - can you state or explain or clarify the mechinism by which the introduction of feminism has had less of a positive impact on boys than girls (as I understand both have improved, but boys have been improving slower?) What is it about feminism that has helped girls more than boys? and why? And how does this show that male role models are not essential to the development of males (or females).

Thirdly - can you state how you can exclude other causes other than the mechinism you are citing, or otherwise show that dispite other causes the mechinism you are talking about do have an effect.

Can a gay be a feminist? :eek:

Can a gay be a feminist? :eek:

Of course.

Of course.

Ah.

Well in that case, if he was hot, sure I would date him.

Secondly - can you state or explain or clarify the mechinism by which the introduction of feminism has had less of a positive impact on boys than girls (as I understand both have improved, but boys have been improving slower?) What is it about feminism that has helped girls more than boys? and why?

I think his point is that boys, as a general rule, performed much better in schools prior to feminism being widespread. This was largely because girls were not supposed to concentrate on their studies - they weren't supposed to be good at math or science or any of that. As, more and more, women and girls are seen in society as equals with men and boys, female students have been improving. The faster rate of improvement probably has more to do with the fact that they had some catching up to do.

A similar situation would be with ethnic background in the US. For a very long time, black students were intentionally kept in sub-par schools, segregated from the good schools that white students went to. They were not "supposed to" succeed. Thus, one would expect that black students would show a faster rate of improvement in scholastic areas than white students. Make sense?

Can a gay be a feminist?

Considering that the very existence of homosexuality challenges "traditional" gender roles, I think it would be rather hard on a gay person not to be a feminist.

It used to be an almost exclusively male profession in the UK.


And an almost exclusively famale profession before that.

And, for MOST people, for MOST of the history of the UK - it didn't matter either way, because you got little or no education. (Regardless of your gender).

The evidence would suggest this is 'hopeful wishing' on your part.

African American Families show a second and third generation of non-participation by the father to be an increasing trend, not a decreasing trend. 70% of African American children are born into single parent families now whereas 70% the non-African American children are born into families with two parents (married or otherwise sharing a household). The trend suggests that households without fathers spawn more households without fathers rather than less.

No - you can make that conclusion from what is observed, but there is too little information to actually make a strong case for anything.

Example - your figures describe a difference between African American and non-African American.... and yet you try to pin the 'cause' on the particiaption of one parent - where there could be a number of specifically societal reasons.

Single parent families do indeed have financial problems, without a doubt.

Single parent household issue create more poverty and less supervision due to no fault of the parent, the situation goes hand in hand with the other issues you mentioned, I didn't dismiss the other issues whatsoever.

Actually - by implying a causative link over the oversimplification of the figures, you really are dismissing the other issues.

Considering that the very existence of homosexuality challenges "traditional" gender roles, I think it would be rather hard on a gay person not to be a feminist.
Indeed. Gay men, in particular, are targetted for insults related to being "women" or "feminine" or "pussies," so they are often very aware of how pervasive anti-woman sentiments are in our culture. They have first-hand experience with a lot of the same gender-related discrimination and harassment that women experience. And, of course, they are personally familiar with the aspects of our culture which punish anybody who wasn't lucky enough to be born a hetero boy.

However, there is also a weird and hostile subculture among some gay men that I have encountered, wherein the gay men are EXTREMELY anti-woman. I don't know where this comes from, or why some gay men go that route instead of the (I think) more common path of becoming allies with feminists and other progressives.

In a way it reminds me of how an increasing number of black churches are extremely homophobic; you'd think that black Americans would be more sensitive to discrimination and injustice practiced against minorities, yet all of a sudden we see a fairly substantial movement of black Americans advocating that homosexuals be subject to the very discrimination that the Civil Rights era attacked.

Sometimes people confuse me.

Actually - by implying a causative link over the oversimplification of the figures, you really are dismissing the other issues.
Pretty much, yeah.

Sweeping aside radically different socioeconomic conditions as if they were minor inconveniences is a bit goofy, in my opinion. I've found that upper middle class single parent families have more in common with upper middle class dual parent families than they have with lower class single parent families. The socioeconomic status is pretty much always the more defining and dominant factor.

Hell, upper middle class single parents often get to spend more time with their kids than lower class working parents do, even when there's two of them in the household! If you want to talk about the importance of role models in a kid's life, I'd say that's a pretty serious consideration.

I think his point is that boys, as a general rule, performed much better in schools prior to feminism being widespread. This was largely because girls were not supposed to concentrate on their studies - they weren't supposed to be good at math or science or any of that. As, more and more, women and girls are seen in society as equals with men and boys, female students have been improving. The faster rate of improvement probably has more to do with the fact that they had some catching up to do.
Faster rate of improvement while catching up, yes.

But girls are not just improving faster, they now exceed boys and are continuing to improve faster than boys. The question is now why are girls accelerating ahead of boys.

Which is not quite the point of this part of the discussion - he (or she? i cant remember) is proving to me their view of a link and demonstrating the difference between correleration and causality and how they show that the link between the two rather than have just a possible coincidental relationship, or both being indicators of the same third party item. The questions I asked are to clarify my understanding of their position so I can understand it better and to gain further understanding of the cause-effect relationship in this case.

However, there is also a weird and hostile subculture among some gay men that I have encountered, wherein the gay men are EXTREMELY anti-woman. I don't know where this comes from.

Probably the same place where most hate based on what someone is rather than who some is.

You don't ahve to be blond haired blue eyed to be rascist.

You dont have to be a male to be sexist

you dont have to be hetrosexual male to hate women

ditto for just about anything. some people are just haters.

Hell, upper middle class single parents often get to spend more time with their kids than lower class working parents do, even when there's two of them in the household! If you want to talk about the importance of role models in a kid's life, I'd say that's a pretty serious consideration.

This would however seem to point that unemployed parents (in the UK at least due to a very generous benefit system) should turn out the highest quality most well adjusted kids due to being able to spend even more time with them.

Faster rate of improvement yes.

But girls are not just improving faster, they now exceed boys and are continuing to improve faster than boys.

That could have a lot to do with imposed gender roles as well - as Bottle has already pointed out (and I think Jocabia did as well). Girls are now told that they are supposed to be well-behaved and studious in school. Boys, on the other hand, are thought to be naturally rowdy. A boy cutting up in school is "just being a boy," while a girl doing so is a discipline problem. But if we tell young boys that they don't need to pay attention - that they don't need to apply themselves in the classroom, what do we expect in the end?

Which is not quite the point of this part of the discussion - he (or she? i cant remember)

Jocabia's a guy. =)

What Bottle really said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18):

I find it adorable that so many people assume all women (or all feminists) want to get married so badly that they would put up with an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him.

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

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

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

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

What Bottle said, according to Jocabia, and approved by Bottle (see below):

I should think it's obvious that a feminist, who believes in the equality of the sexes, would have no interest in you, a person who believes in the inequaltiy of the sexes born of insecurity, nor any of the baggage that goes with that view for inequality.

If you'd like to hear from a feminist, here you go.

A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. All future references to feminism, non-feminism and anti-feminism are reference this definition and thus, the belief. Personally, I wouldn't be interested in dating a person who doesn't believe in equality because I think they are bad people.

Much like every other kind of person who is against equality, anti-feminists are fun to argue with. But other than arguing I don't have much time for people who don't believe in equality and their lack of respect for women makes them of little use to me even for sex.

Therefore, I don't need to worry about what someone who doesn't believe in equality thinks about dating me, because I wouldn't date a man or women who doesn't equally believe in equality.

I don't have to deal with the kind of people who wouldn't date me because I'm strong-willed, because I don't date that kind of person. Everyone I've ever dated has been accepting of the equality of the sexes. I think that people who don't believe in equality are idiots. I don't date idiots.
How convenient. Jocabia has removed all the potentially offensive words. Perhaps if you had written your original post the way that Jocabia has massaged it here, then I might not have been compelled to reply in the manner that I did.

Perhaps you should filter all future posts through Jocabia? :D

As the leading authority on What Bottle's Words Really Mean, allow me to help out:

Joc has helpfully demonstrated how a person who is Not Bottle can read and understand Bottle's Words, using the intended meanings of the words instead of presuming to change the meanings of the words to fit one's personal assumptions about feminazis. Joc appears quite accomplished at this. I'm sure you could get some helpful tips or lessons if you asked nicely.
Rather than changing the meaning of the words, he just removed the words that might cause someone to actually think that you just might be one of those "feminazis" that both you and your pal Joc have referred to?

However, it is nice to see that both you and Jocabia agree that a toned down version of your original post is more appropriate.

What Bottle really said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859244&postcount=18):



What Bottle said, according to Jocabia, and approved by Bottle (see below):


How convenient. Jocabia has removed all the potentially offensive words. Perhaps if you had written your original post the way that Jocabia has massaged it here, then I might not have been compelled to reply in the manner that I did.

Perhaps you should filter all future posts through Jocabia? :D


Rather than changing the meaning of the words, he just removed the words that might cause someone to actually think that you just might be one of those "feminazis" that both you and your pal Joc have referred to?

However, it is nice to see that both you and Jocabia agree that a toned down version of your original post is more appropriate.

More appropriate than the lie you posted about what she said? Yes. I would say it's way more appropriate to look at what her post really meant rather than what you claimed it said.

Meanwhile, the point is that minus the offensive words it still said EXACTLY the same thing and it was still COMPLETELY the opposite of what you claimed it said. Toned down it still said exactly what she was trying to say about non-feminists. It still didn't reference an attack on people for not calling themselves feminists despite your dishonest claims. It still didn't reference any man-hating despite your dishonest claims. I didn't change the meaning of her post at all and now you agree with it. Sucks to get caught being dishonest, doesn't it?

Single parent families do indeed have financial problems, without a doubt.

Single parent household issue create more poverty and less supervision due to no fault of the parent, the situation goes hand in hand with the other issues you mentioned, I didn't dismiss the other issues whatsoever.

Yet you suggested a lack of male role models was causitive. You've got a ton a work to do for that assertion to have ANY merit.

However, there is also a weird and hostile subculture among some gay men that I have encountered, wherein the gay men are EXTREMELY anti-woman. I don't know where this comes from, or why some gay men go that route instead of the (I think) more common path of becoming allies with feminists and other progressives.

Sometimes people confuse me.I've met Lesbians that are openly hostile to men. Short of assaulting them at first sight for no reason other than that they are men.

there are a lot of variety of people in this world...

You however can show articles that show they have not found a link.

Unless there are not any, along with no positive ones - and then your statement basically should read "There are not any studies on the difference in animals raised solely by one sex".

The statement as is reads as though there have been studies, and they found no link. In which case you can post links to such studies (or reports on them). Particulary in the context replying to my suggestion of doing social tests on animals to see if there is a difference.

Again, in debate the positive assertion has the burden of proof. Feel free to offer proof. Until then we'll feel free to be amused by your wild assertions.

I said there is no evidence of a link because you claimed there was. Feel free to offer proof of your claim.

FYI: I mentioned “born into” because that is a specific statistic, not a living in statistic which is affected by divorce and remarriage etc., an equally valuable source, but a different source. You made an apples to oranges compare though, your numbers are a different family of numbers from a different question…

As to the accusation that I exaggerated the statistic though… For the race specific question of children born into households with two parents, yes it’s 70%, just like I said. Your own link agrees with the 70% here…

The majority of children less than 18 years old — 70 percent — live with two married biological, adoptive, or step-parents.

And as to the why I stated African American over simply poor, is because that too is a different question. And yes, I personally link it to be a causation of poor and institutionalized racism in society, I don’t think it’s a black thing at all. The data from these studies divides them by this categorization thus I am stuck with it as well, But thanks all the same for trying to slide in the accusation that my points might simply be dismissed as a bigotry. How political of you for trying the mud slinging route of debate form, I suppose this is the season for it though.

As to the rate of African Americans born into single mother household, I did indeed look it up and it does appear to be closer to 67.7% than 70%, my bad.
Table 1-22. Number of Births to Unmarried Women by Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother, by Age of Mother and Percents by Race and Hispanic Origin of Mother for Metropolitan Areas of the United States: 2000 …

White 26.8%
Black 67.7%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x22.pdf

My sincerest apologies for having exaggerating it by my own error, due to my bad memory, all the way to the erroneously report 70%... I think my point still stands though.
Are you unaware that you changed your claim? First, now it's only those in metropolitan areas even though 14% of black people do not live in cities and this would of course drastically affect the statistics. Second, you said single parent families, not unmarried people. That's not the same thing.

You weren't even close. I showed the percentage of actual children living in single parent homes according to the same census you cited and it's about half of what you claimed. That may have to do with where they are living, but according to your claims about divorces you should see an increase in single parent homes after birth. And considering you were talking about black people growing up without male role models, what does the marital status at birth have to do with anything?

Again, in debate the positive assertion has the burden of proof. Feel free to offer proof. Until then we'll feel free to be amused by your wild assertions.

I said there is no evidence of a link because you claimed there was. Feel free to offer proof of your claim.

Where did I claim there was a link between animals raised by only one gender? I was commenting on bottles comment on studies where animals were raised with NO adult influence - which according to bottle produces fucked up animals (when the animals were social animals I assume). With my comment being that if without any influence does that mean the natural state is being 'fucked up'.

I suggested doing experiments where you do that to find out what happens - I never suggested what the results of the animal testing would be.

You then said "However, there has never been shown to be a significant difference in animals raised by solely one sex of parents." Which suggests there have been studies and they found no connection.

What I am asking is: Have there been studies and they found no connection? Or did you mean there have never been any studies on this topic. The two are very different. Pretty simple really.

<ad hominem removed> Yes. I would say it's way more appropriate to look at what her post really meant rather than what you claimed it said.
I agree, it is more appropriate then what she originally posted. Keep up the fine editing job. :D

Meanwhile, the point is that minus the offensive words it still said EXACTLY the same thing and it was still COMPLETELY the opposite of what you claimed it said.
I disagree with the word exactly but then that is my perogative?

Toned down it still said exactly what she was trying to say about non-feminists. It still didn't reference an attack on people for not calling themselves feminists <ad hominem removed>. It still didn't reference any man-hating <ad hominem removed>. I didn't change the meaning of her post at all and now you agree with it.
Yet, you did indeed change the mean spirited approach somewhat and made it certainly a lot more presentable and easier to digest. I am delighted that Bottle has agreed for you to act as a filter for her words. :D

<ad hominem removed>
Note, that I have removed the words that are not necessary for meaningful debate. :)

I sure wouldn't. I'd want my boys to be boys, girls to be girls...

*snip*

Good stuff. Since you're not aware. He was caught dishonestly presenting Bottle's post. To call him on it is not an attack on him, it's an attack on his argument. Ad hominem means "to the man" in Latin. I called his ARGUMENT a lie. It has nothing to do with him and everything to do with his argument. If you're unaware of the meaning of a word, please don't use it. You're already losing this argument.

What you removed was the FACT that his claims were dishonest. He admits that she meant things the way I phrased him after arguing for 60 pages that she said something completely different. That's dishonest. Change it if you like, but a dishonest argument should absolutely be pointed out in debate. Bottle agreed that the gist of what I said was the same as what she said. And, yes, what I said was in direct contention with what Canuck repeatedly claimed she said despite knowing better. Her words were explicit and he literally claimed she said the opposite. No matter how you slice it saying she said the something that is exactly opposite of what she did say is a lie. The fact that his claims were false, very much addresses the argument.

Ad hominems also require that I attack the person and claim it falsifies their claim.

Example: He is a liar therefore his statement is a lie.

Example of what is not an ad hominem: That statement is false and he has been shown that it is false yet he continues to state it. It is a lie.

The second is an example of an already falsified statement used to reference that repeated us of it is not valid.


Now as to the part of your post that was useful., you continue to try and pretend like your post stands alone rather inside of discussion where you claim that children are damaged by a lack of gender roles. You asserted this repeated. I pointed out that there is no evidence for your claim which is exaclty what Bottle was responding to as well.

If you don't want to present evidence of a value to gender roles, then we'll accept that there isn't any. If you're trying to convince everyone that gender roles have no value, I would say you're make the best argument I've ever seen.

When I make a positive assertion, like the damage that gender roles cause, I'm happy to support. To some degree I can support it just by referencing your posts.

if youre looking for sweet-sweet lovey-lovey let's-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya out of bottle, you are attending the wrong summer camp.
This has to be my favourite post in the whole thread!!

It made me smile and laugh......THX!! :)

This has to be my favourite post in the whole thread!!

It made me smile and laugh......THX!! :)

Threadjacker :)

This would however seem to point that unemployed parents (in the UK at least due to a very generous benefit system) should turn out the highest quality most well adjusted kids due to being able to spend even more time with them.

Not necessarily - because that might not be the ONLY consideration, even if it were the most important.

Hunger can be a big motivator.

1 @/\/\ 5p@/\/\ \/\/0/\/\@/\/ @/\/6 7h0u h@7h @/\/g3r36 /\/\3 101z

1 @/\/\ 5p@/\/\ \/\/0/\/\@/\/ @/\/6 7h0u h@7h @/\/g3r36 /\/\3 101z

What the hell lady? Translate. In ENGLISH!

I am Spam Woman and thou hast angered me.

Geez, I'm old and I still got that.

I am Spam Woman and thou hast angered me.

Geez, I'm old and I still got that.

Don't forget the all-important 'lolz'.

I'm thinking someone was up way past their bedtime... and will probably not be posting any more until the 'rents are out of the way.

Yet you suggested a lack of male role models was causitive. You've got a ton a work to do for that assertion to have ANY merit.

Do you even recall the topic I responded to? Dem said that a fatherless boy might grow up to become a stay with his family man simply because he was fatherless.

THAT was the topic. THAT was the only claim I disputed. I made no judgment or analyses of the data, I made no moral declarations about what it meant, nothing outside of the FACT that suggest otherwise, that fatherless families do not suddenly produce, in the next generation as one the suggestion, a group of stay with the families Dads.

Did YOU produce any data to dispute that claim? Did YOU produce any example to dispute the claim? Or did YOU question the assertion Dem made? Did you question the causative facts or data or merit of her assumption/proposal? Did you produce anything about BIRTH statistics to dispute mine at all?

Why no, no you did not do anything of those things. YOU did nothing but attack blindly, as is customary for you it seems.

Do you even recall the topic I responded to? Dem said that a fatherless boy might grow up to become a stay with his family man simply because he was fatherless.

THAT was the topic. THAT was the only claim I disputed. I made no judgment or analyses of the data, I made no moral declarations about what it meant, nothing outside of the FACT, that fatherless families do not suddenly produce stay with the families on the next generation.

Did YOU produce any data to dispute that claim? Did YOU produce any example to dispute the claim? Or did YOU question the assertion Dem made? Did you question the causative facts or data or merit of her assumption/proposal? Did you produce anything about BIRTH statistics to dispute mine at all?

Why no, no you did not do anything of those things. YOU did nothing but attack blindly, as is customary for you it seems.

You didn't present any such 'fact'... you presented a statistic, which (if even true) shows no definite links that might be considered honestly causative.

Dem said something might happen... you presented a statistic that has no controls, and think it somehow agrees/disagrees with the original 'might'.

...
Ad hominems also require that I attack the person and claim it falsifies their claim.

Example: He is a liar therefore his statement is a lie.

Example of what is not an ad hominem: That statement is false and he has been shown that it is false yet he continues to state it. It is a lie.

The second is an example of an already falsified statement used to reference that repeated us of it is not valid.
....

The ad hominem attack example you forgot is the one you do. It is the one you use when you don't like someone's opinion.

Example: call someone’s opinion a lie. Translation, a lie is an intentional untruth, therefore, calling the statement a lie is to call the speaker a liar, a personal attack.


If you did not want the questioning of the opinion to be a personal attack, you would say something like, you are mistaken, that is erroneous, you are incorrect about that fact, etc., etc., etc. But YOU do NOT do that, you call it a LIE, accusing them of doing it on purpose to turn it into a persoanal attack against them as a person.

You didn't present any such 'fact'... you presented a statistic, which (if even true) shows no definite links that might be considered honestly causative.

Dem said something might happen... you presented a statistic that has no controls, and think it somehow agrees/disagrees with the original 'might'.


Let's see what I said...

The evidence would suggest this is 'hopeful wishing' on your part.
...

It looks like I was suggesting something different might be concluded from the evidence, and then I showed what evidence I was talking about, I never claimed it was the end all of the possibilities.

Strong women are what all women should be (it's sad when people won't stand up for themselves), but not "bitches." To me, that describes someone who is cruel, meanspirited, selfish and petty. Basically just a synonym for "jerk" or "asshole." Just equivalent to calling someone a dick or prick or whatever. I don't like assholes, doesn't matter if they're male or female.

Like, my girlfriend is a strong person, who won't let people push her around. She's definitely the leader in our relationship, and that's just fine, since she's so nice and sweet. :)
As long as some men will use "bitch" to describe any woman who is strong and independent, then I will use "bitch" to describe myself, especially when talking to such men as those.

Witch hunts were generally driven by religious factions., and apparently it was not only females that were persecuted. Certainly, it had nothing to do with feminism.
I don't think it has anything to do with feminism, but there are some accredited historians who do. I was just tossing that into the mix.

Bigotry based on religion and/or racism has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. I don't see that in regards to modern day feminism. That is why I say there is a world of difference.

Having said that, I don't want to divert from the topic at hand.
The first problem with your distinction is that gender-based bigotry against women -- even violence that has resulted in millions of deaths over time -- has existed far longer than the feminist movement. And it still exists in many parts of the world, and women are still being abused and killed as a result every single day.

The second problem with your distinction is that you are now making it a distinction between racism/religious bigotry and feminism, but the original distinction you made was between racism and sexism. It's no surprise that feminism, which seeks to end gender bigotry, has not resulted in millions of deaths, but I maintain that sexism has. I challenge you to prove otherwise in support of this difference you claim.

As for diverting from the topic, the topic of the thread is feminism, and not that I don't love and admire both you and Jocabia, I find the topic much more interesting than this side show of yours over "What Bottle Said" (suggested title for new radio drama).

The ad hominem attack example you forgot is the one you do. It is the one you use when you don't like someone's opinion.

Example: call someone’s opinion a lie. Translation, a lie is an intentional untruth, therefore, calling the statement a lie is to call the speaker a liar, a personal attack.


If you did not want the questioning of the opinion to be a personal attack, you would say something like, you are mistaken, that is erroneous, you are incorrect about that fact, etc., etc., etc. But YOU do NOT do that, you call it a LIE, accusing them of doing it on purpose to turn it into a persoanal attack against them as a person.

No, it's only a fallacy when you attack the person and claim that that invalidates their argument, not when you attack the argument and claim it makes them a bad person.
If that wasn't true, (pardon the godwin) we'd have no grounds for saying the Nazis were evil.

I suspect we are supposed to ignore the purges of female children, both historically, and in certain parts of the modern world, also.
I suspect that what we are witnessing here is a person who just doesn't want to back down from a point, even though it is based on an obvious, and trivial, mistake, possibly because he just doesn't like the person who has been calling him on it.