NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think women's role in society should be? A more traditional role or more of the new age feminist thing? poll coming.

Whatever they like. I'd posit that most women would choose to live a traditional lifestyle if they were not subject to feminist bullying over it, though.

I support individual women choosing their own roles, without interference from the law or societal prejudice and indoctrination.

I support the same for all human beings.

People should be free to choose their roles as much as possible. I know there will always be societal and cultural pressures, but I believe that maximizing the ability of women to choose their own role should be paramount. That's the same for all people, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion, or anything else.

i dont see why either gender should be relegated to "roles" people should live as they wish.

Full equality. Whatever they like.

People should be free to choose their roles as much as possible. I know there will always be societal and cultural pressures, but I believe that maximizing the ability of women to choose their own role should be paramount. That's the same for all people, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion, or anything else.

My sentiments exactly.

Whatever works for that woman at that particular moment in her life. Her choice.

Women are legally and morally equal to men, and should be accorded equal rights as men.

If they should desire to work outside of the home, it is their right, if they should desire to do housework, that is also their right.

Whatever they choose for it to be, whether they want to have a traditional role, or a non-traditional.

I bet this world would see a lot less trouble if we were subservient to women. :cool:

Women should all be subservient to me. Not to men generally speaking, rather me particularly.

I bet this world would see a lot less trouble if we were subservant to women. :cool:

Somehow I don't disagree with this, although I feel I should... but, I just can't bring myself to because it would be a better world...

"the new age feminist thing"? Oh boy. :rolleyes:

I bet this world would see a lot less trouble if we were subservant to women. :cool:

Better then women subservant to men, but still not that great.

I bet this world would see a lot less trouble if we were subservant to women. :cool:

Ann Coulter and Margaret Thatcher? No, thanks.

Women are legally and morally equal to men, and should be accorded equal rights as men.

If they should desire to work outside of the home, it is their right, if they should desire to do housework, that is also their right.

OMG! I actually agree with you on an issue? Did I fall into an alternate universe by accident?

Better then women subservant to men, but still not that great.

Wait, why do you think it's better?

Ann Coulter and Margaret Thatcher? No, thanks.

Yeah...i'll pass...

Better then women subservant to men, but still not that great.

Oh, I disagree. There's an equal amount, if not more, nutty woman then nutty men. Hillary Clinton, Katherine Harris, Condeleeza Rice, Ann Coulter, plenty of everyday women...

Full equality. Whatever they like.

Amen!

Ann Coulter and Margaret Thatcher? No, thanks.

Are you trying to give me nightmares!? :eek:

Amen!

I'm against "whatever they like" if it means "men subservient to woman"

OMG! I actually agree with you on an issue? Did I fall into an alternate universe by accident?

Yes you did, it's called uhhh...Alcaban!

Would you support a woman whose deepest wish it is to be a mother and rear children? This doesn't necessarily mean she is subervant to a man, quite the opposite she can also be the one with the pants on in the relationship, depends all on personalities.

One thing I found disturbing in some feminist is, that despite saying women should be free to choose what they will, they often scorn women who choose to have children instead of a career. Doesn't that contradict with allowing a woman to "choose" her future?

Me personally, I take the view a woman should be free to choose what she wants to become and not be criticised for it. If she chooses to have a career and never have children she shouldn't be slandered against (higher taxed out of the social economic reasons yes; like men without children), same that women who choose to have a family and raise children shouldn't be slandered against.

One thing I found disturbing in some feminist is, that despite saying women should be free to choose what they will, they often scorn women who choose to have children instead of a career. Doesn't that contradict with allowing a woman to "choose" her future?


Radicals don't typically notice their own hypocrisy.

Wait, why do you think it's better?

Hitler vs. Ann Coulter.

Oh wait...
My mistake, sorry.

Somehow I don't disagree with this, although I feel I should... but, I just can't bring myself to because it would be a better world...
I know what you're getting at. I got the same feeling but posted my first thought anyway.
Better then women subservant to men, but still not that great.
Better than now would be a change, though.
Ann Coulter and Margaret Thatcher? No, thanks.
Those ain't women. They're men in a female body...
I'm against "whatever they like" if it means "men subservient to woman"
Why not let them? They take charge, we take care, they carry the responsibility.

Those who speak of equal rights and chances also have to mention equal responsibilities and risks.

Women should be free to do whatever they hell they wanna do. :)

Hitler vs. Ann Coulter.

Oh wait...
My mistake, sorry.

Hitler, please. At least he can be trusted not to torture everyone to death and rape babies.

I bet this world would see a lot less trouble if we were subservant to women. :cool:You can be for a price;)

Better then women subservant to men, but still not that great.

Wait...why is it better for a man to be subservant to a woman than the other way around?

The role is that of a vole. Most wholesome. Wholly.

Those ain't women. They're men in a female body...And Hitler was a woman in a man's body.

Fairly or the same, either is fine, but only one as general policy. And preferably not with either gender above the other.

In MMORPGs, the role of woman is often played by a man. And where's the poll option "pie"?

In MMORPGs, the role of woman is often played by a man. And where's the poll option "pie"?
There was debate whether "pie" would be considered feminine or not. *nods*

In MMORPGs, the role of woman is often played by a man. And where's the poll option "pie"?
On the intraweb, the role of a woman is often played by a man. :p

To OP: I'm a feminist, so what do you think?

There was debate whether "pie" would be considered feminine or not. *nods*

Well, they certainly have ambigious genitalia.

There was debate whether "pie" would be considered feminine or not. *nods*

In the coloquial. it most certainly is ;)

Now, I'm afraid I must be the person to make the obvious, lewd comment.

"KNEELING DOWN IN FRONT OF ME!!!"

Ahem. Sorry. I just felt we had to have an immature comment on here.

There was debate whether "pie" would be considered feminine or not. *nods*
Well, whether it's feminine or not, I wholly support its right to choose its future occupation and status in society.
Now, I'm afraid I must be the person to make the obvious, lewd comment.

"KNEELING DOWN IN FRONT OF ME!!!"

Ahem. Sorry. I just felt we had to have an immature comment on here.
*bows and worships* :p

To OP: I'm a feminist, so what do you think?

I find feminism to be misguided. Why are you a feminist?

I find feminism to be misguided. Why are you a feminist?
Because I was hated and slandered in my childhood by my grandmother for the sole reason that I don't have a penis, so it kind of became my life's goal to prove that females are not inferior to males in any way.

On the intraweb, the role of a woman is often played by a man. :p

To OP: I'm a feminist, so what do you think?

I think that feminism has largely achieved those objectives that it can expect to. Now it runs the risk of fighting for women to be treated better than men.

Well, whether it's feminine or not, I wholly support its right to choose its future occupation and status in society.

*bows and worships* :p

Thank you, thank you. And I'm sigging you.

Because I was hated and slandered in my childhood by my grandmother for the sole reason that I don't have a penis, so it kind of became my life's goal to prove that females are not inferior to males in any way.

:mad: as im not saying what i think about grandmother what she didi to you

I think that feminism has largely achieved those objectives that it can expect to. Now it runs the risk of fighting for women to be treated better than men.
In western societies, maybe. In rural China, where I was born and my grandmother has lived all of her life, sexism is still rampant. I was worthless in my grandmother's eyes because I'm female. If that's not sexist behaviour, then I don't know what is. I know in India, it's the same situation. There is still a lot of fighting to do, just maybe not in your community or country.

I think that feminism has largely achieved those objectives that it can expect to. Now it runs the risk of fighting for women to be treated better than men.

That's what I've always thought.

Because I was hated and slandered in my childhood by my grandmother for the sole reason that I don't have a penis, so it kind of became my life's goal to prove that females are not inferior to males in any way.

You woudl have to admit most men are stronger than most women, no?

I find myself amused at the notion of the OP differentiating choices by labeling them 'The Traditional Path' and 'The New Age Feminist Thing'. Does wanting equal rights for men and women amount to feminism? Does wishing both gender/sexes to have the same opportunities count as feminazi nonsense? Why should it?

In western societies, maybe. In rural China, where I was born and my grandmother has lived all of her life, sexism is still rampant. I was worthless in my grandmother's eyes because I'm female. If that's not sexist behaviour, then I don't know what is. I know in India, it's the same situation. There is still a lot of fighting to do, just maybe not in your community or country.

Ah, sorry. I made the assumption that you were from the West (where most of my first hand experience lies). Sorry, again, I do know of the sexism still present in China.

whatever works?

I mean I do all the traditional stuff and still work like a dog........it's like the best of both worlds (and the worst too) so it works for me.

The word is "subservient."

You woudl have to admit most men are stronger than most women, no?

Stronger does not inherently mean superior.

Thank you, thank you. And I'm sigging you.
sweetness. :p
You woudl have to admit most men are stronger than most women, no?
Maybe physically, but not neccessarily emotionally or psychologically. Beyond what biology dictates, women are not weaker.

You woudl have to admit most men are stronger than most women, no?

You've confused an individual trait, which is value neutral, with overall superiority. A common (male) shortcoming ;)

I find myself amused at the notion of the OP differentiating choices by labeling them 'The Traditional Path' and 'The New Age Feminist Thing'. Does wanting equal rights for men and women amount to feminism? Does wishing both gender/sexes to have the same opportunities count as feminazi nonsense? Why should it?

Because he's Muslim.

You've confused an individual trait, which is value neutral, with overall superiority. A common (male) shortcoming ;)

You've displayed a tendency to think men are stupid. A typical female shortcoming;)

Maybe physically, but not neccessarily emotionally or psychologically. Beyond what biology dictates, women are not weaker.

you said women weren't inferior in anyway, I just should that there was at least one way in which that was the case.

You've displayed a tendency to think men are stupid. A typical female shortcoming;)

I haven't seen very much evidence to the contrary.

Does wanting equal rights for men and women amount to feminism?

Yes. That's what feminism is all about.

You've displayed a tendency to think men are stupid. A typical female shortcoming;)

Men are stupid. If they weren't, would we be having this debate?

I haven't seen very much evidence to the contrary.

Would you like me to give you a list of nobel prize winners? Gender of the majority of engineers and scientists? Take your pick.

Yes. That's what feminism is all about.

Really. I would have sworn that was just... I dunno... common decency?

Men are stupid. If they weren't, would we be having this debate?

You cannot condemn an entire group based on the failings of one (thats my job).

Ah, sorry. I made the assumption that you were from the West (where most of my first hand experience lies). Sorry, again, I do know of the sexism still present in China.
It's okay. I live in Canada now. And truly, the sexism situation is not as bad as western media makes it out to be. It is pretty much non-existent in cities anymore. Only rural villages in the interior still hold the belief that male babies are superior.
You've displayed a tendency to think men are stupid. A typical female shortcoming;)
But men ARE stupid. :p

Would you like me to give you a list of nobel prize winners? Gender of the majority of engineers and scientists? Take your pick.

Even the most intelligent can also be stupid. Depends on the subject.

But men ARE stupid. :p

I love it when people prove me right. :p

Would you like me to give you a list of nobel prize winners? Gender of the majority of engineers and scientists? Take your pick.

What, you think only business circles have glass ceilings?

What are these beings you call "women", and do they even exist on these here interwebs?

What, you think only business circles have glass ceilings?

Oh come on, there's a glass ceiling for nearly everyone, not just women. There's glass ceilings for just about everything you can think of. For example, most corporate CEOs aren't horribly scarred.

Even the most intelligent can also be stupid. Depends on the subject.

Stephen Hawkings being the exception.:D

you said women weren't inferior in anyway, I just should that there was at least one way in which that was the case.
How is being physically weaker inferior? How many guys would actually enter a physical contest with girls anyway?

Stephen Hawkings being the exception.:D

Oh, I doubt we'd wanna hear Stephen Hawking's sex advice.


The soap for washing out your brain is in the cupboard.

Oh come on, there's a glass ceiling for nearly everyone, not just women. There's glass ceilings for just about everything you can think of. For example, most corporate CEOs aren't horribly scarred.

That you know of. Corporate CEOs are not exactly a large sampling group.

I love it when people prove me right. :p
Glad to help, stupid. :p
What are these beings you call "women", and do they even exist on these here interwebs?
Last time I checked, I didn't have a penis or balls. Does that count?
Oh come on, there's a glass ceiling for nearly everyone, not just women. There's glass ceilings for just about everything you can think of. For example, most corporate CEOs aren't horribly scarred.
I think not being horribly scarred is a job requirement rather than a glass ceiling.

Oh, I doubt we'd wanna hear Stephen Hawking's sex advice.


The soap for washing out your brain is in the cupboard.

You clearly do not know the context.

That you know of. Corporate CEOs are not exactly a large sampling group.

When was the last time you saw a transexual manager?

You clearly do not know the context.

Of what?

When was the last time you saw a transexual manager?

When was the last time I saw a transsexual, would be a better question.

When was the last time you saw a transexual manager?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm talking to one right now.

How is being physically weaker inferior? How many guys would actually enter a physical contest with girls anyway?

I would not enter a fight with anyone, but I've played sports against and with girls many times, and there is no significant dropoff, if any, in ability if any until you reach a very high level of competion in my experience. Not that the ability to play sports has anything to do with being "superior".

Of what?

The origional context of the remarke I made. One that is not worth explaining, but brings me some small enjoyment to say. It also has nothing to do with sex.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm talking to one right now.

Dammit.

Um...

When was the last time you saw a dwarf manager?

The origional context of the remarke I made. One that is not worth explaining, but brings me some small enjoyment to say. It also has nothing to do with sex.

Ah. Well, someone said "everyone's stupid about something" and then you said "except stephan hawking". I'd be interested in the original context other than that.

Dammit.

Um...

When was the last time you saw a dwarf manager?

A few months ago, actually... but then its hard to tell if they're dwarves or just really short.

Dammit.

Um...

When was the last time you saw a dwarf manager?
The Japanese managers all look rather dwarfish to me.

Last time I checked, I didn't have a penis or balls. Does that count?

:eek:

A being without a penis or balls?!?! Here!? On the interwebs?

I....I........ *runs away*

:eek:

A being without a penis or balls?!?! Here!? On the interwebs?

I....I........ *runs away*

In fairness, some guys on the interwebs may as well not have a penis or balls. Not like they're having any use for it.

Because he's Muslim.

Nah, it's because he's a misogynist. He was like this before he converted.

Ah. Well, someone said "everyone's stupid about something" and then you said "except stephan hawking". I'd be interested in the original context other than that.

This is not worth the argument that is seems to be causing. Suffice to say that somewhere out there are others who may have understood what I was getting at (and of those some may have appreciated it).

Nah, it's because he's a misogynist. He was like this before he converted.

Was he? I figured this was a recent development caused by a radical interpratation of the Qu'ran.

:eek:

A being without a penis or balls?!?! Here!? On the interwebs?

I....I........ *runs away*
would it help for you to know I look like the evil girl from The Ring and the grudge?
In fairness, some guys on the interwebs may as well not have a penis or balls. Not like they're having any use for it.
Ouch. That wasn't very nice.

would it help for you to know I look like the evil girl from The Ring and the grudge?

Oddly enough, on the Dreamcast video game adaption of the film (what a horrible disaster that game was), there was a deceased person in a mortuary who apparently suffered from "Female Testicular Disorder".

Was he? I figured this was a recent development caused by a radical interpratation of the Qu'ran.

Nope, he was like this before. The anti-semitism is new.

Oddly enough, on the Dreamcast video game adaption of the film (what a horrible disaster that game was), there was a deceased person in a mortuary who apparently suffered from "Female Testicular Disorder".

Officially, Sadako or whatever her name is had that.

Oddly enough, on the Dreamcast video game adaption of the film (what a horrible disaster that game was), there was a deceased person in a mortuary who apparently suffered from "Female Testicular Disorder".
O_o

Why do you even know this?

(And it's creepy...*flees*)

In fairness, some guys on the interwebs may as well not have a penis or balls. Not like they're having any use for it.
Of course we do! When in serious debate, we whip it out (in the safety of our own homes) and yell at the stupid wrong people, "LOOK HOW LONG MINE IS!!!onezers!!! I PWN UZ!!!!!"
would it help for you to know I look like the evil girl from The Ring and the grudge?

"Women" are evil looking beings who can exist without penises or balls?!?!?! I think I'm going to go with subservient....

Officially, Sadako or whatever her name is had that.
Yeah, her name is Sadako originally. I forgot the American name they gave her.

Though I'd like to make it clear that even though I've been told numerous times that I look like her, I do NOT have female testicular disorder or whatever you call it.

Officially, Sadako or whatever her name is had that.

I wouldn't know, because I only saw the movie once (and I came in halfway through), and I never played the horrid game. I just read a review in The Official Dreamcast Magazine that pointed out the horrifying illness.

"Women" are evil looking beings who can exist without penus(however you do the damn plural) or balls?!?!?! I think I'm going to go with subservient....

Oh, if only I could find a pic of Quagmire with that written on his face in black Sharpie.

And by the way, it's penii.

as much as a sexist I may like to pretend to be, the girls should be allowed to be free...whether it's doing housework, or getting a career. it's all about choice.

Oh, if only I could find a pic of Quagmire with that written on his face in black Sharpie.

And by the way, it's penii.

Nope, it's penises. If it were penii the singular would be penius.

Oh, if only I could find a pic of Quagmire with that written on his face in black Sharpie.

And by the way, it's penii.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penis
–noun, plural -nis·es, -nes

It's actually penises or penes.

Nope, it's penises. If it were penii the singular would be penius.

Oh. Well then, my "school" (I put quotas around that because I found out that it wasn't actually a real school) workbooks were wrong yet again... This time, it was the fault of one of my Biology (Anatomy I of II) books.

I'm so fucking glad I decided to just stop that correspondence shit. What a load.

Ouch. That wasn't very nice.

It's my job.

you said women weren't inferior in anyway, I just should that there was at least one way in which that was the case.

we are also inferior in growing facial hair.

so what?

Yarr,

Full equality is the way to go, one individual in every pair-bond should take on traditional roles however. So their kids don't end up with ADD or ADHD, HDTVDD* or AIDS.

*High-Definintion-TeleVision-Dependancy-Disorder

Really. I would have sworn that was just... I dunno... common decency?

That's the thing - conservatives have no grasp of the notion.

Full equality. Complete self-determination.

Women should not have prescribed "roles" and their right to determine their own lifestyle should in no way be impugned or limited. Period. They should not need a man to be successful or fulfilled, unless they specifically choose too. If a woman wants to raise a family then more power to her. If she wants to hold down a job while she's doing it, no one should stop her.

The word of law should not distinguish between the rights of a citizen based on gender, ethnicity, religion, facilitations, sexual orientation, or lifestyle. It is not that hard to understand. The only reason a person, any person, should be treated differently is if he or she breaks the law.

Women are equal, of course...but different. I think that a womans first place, is as a mother. As long as she is there for her child, I have no problem with that woman working, or voting or anything else that a man does.

Equal but different.

I fail to see why so much effort is put into defining gender roles.

I fail to see why so much effort is put into defining gender roles.

bcaues it ensures that one gender remains superior to the other

Women are equal, of course...but different. I think that a womans first place, is as a mother. As long as she is there for her child, I have no problem with that woman working, or voting or anything else that a man does.

Equal but different.

a woman's first place is as a mother? and if she ISNT a mother?

isnt it a PARENTS place to be there for their children? how is it more a woman thing than a man thing?

a woman's first place is as a mother? and if she ISNT a mother?

isnt it a PARENTS place to be there for their children? how is it more a woman thing than a man thing?

Well if she doenst have any kids then obviously she is not obligated to be with her child, duh.:p If there is no one for her to mother, then I could care less where she works, or whatever......but I strongly support families and increasing birth rates.....so I would like woman to have families. Of course I cannot force them too.

Yes I'd love for both parents to be there for the children/child, but for the family to survive, they need money, in which case the father has to work. Mothers tend to have more intamite relationships with their young, where fathers dont....so it seems "better" for the mother to spend more time with the kid than the father to. Of course, ideally, both would be great.

Women are equal, of course...but different. I think that a womans first place, is as a mother. As long as she is there for her child, I have no problem with that woman working, or voting or anything else that a man does.

Equal but different.

Obviously if she has a child, her first place should probably be as a mother...just like a man's first place is as a father if he has a child.

Well if she doenst have any kids then obviously she is not obligated to be with her child, duh.:p If there is no one for her to mother, then I could care less where she works, or whatever......but I strongly support families and increasing birth rates.....so I would like woman to have families. Of course I cannot force them too.

Yes I'd love for both parents to be there for the children/child, but for the family to survive, they need money, in which case the father has to work. Mothers tend to have more intamite relationships with their young, where fathers dont....so it seems "better" for the mother to spend more time with the kid than the father to. Of course, ideally, both would be great.

what does being a mother have to do with holding an outside job? once a child is born it no longer needs its mother 24/7

what does being a mother have to do with holding an outside job? once a child is born it no longer needs its mother 24/7
The child should have its mother around for the "child" years of its life. Obviously teenagers dont need mommy around all the time.

The child should have its mother around for the "child" years of its life. Obviously teenagers dont need mommy around all the time.

of course it should. what does that have to do with holding an outside job?

Whatever they like. I'd posit that most women would choose to live a traditional lifestyle if they were not subject to feminist bullying over it, though.Perhaps you should have a medication change. Your current dose is obviously insufficient. How else could you seriously posit such a thing?

What do you think women's role in society should be? A more traditional role or more of the new age feminist thing? poll coming.

Define what traditions you are referring to. Among my people, women were equal to men...THAT is our tradition. We had a division of labour, but that did not engender inequality by any means. So, what do I think a woman's role in society should be? Definately traditional...Cree traditions.

Whatever they like. I'd posit that most women would choose to live a traditional lifestyle if they were not subject to feminist bullying over it, though.

Feminism promotes the ability of women to CHOOSE. There is no choice into being forced into gender stereotypes. If a woman wants to be subservient to men, or to a man (or to a woman, or a three legged table, whatever), that is fine, if in fact she has been given, truly given, the choice to do so. Gender empowerment is all about choices, choices which are routinely taken away from both men and women in societies all around the world. So, count yourself a feminist, if bullying is what you are against.

Feminism promotes the ability of women to CHOOSE. Maybe that is the definition but in reality most women who call themsleves feminist look down and ridicule me for being a slave to a man and staying home and taking care of my children. I agree with The Atlantian islands, why have children if you are just going to ship them off every day for someone else to raise? If my husband lost his job or died than I would be forced to work but I made the choice not too and the feminists hate that.

Maybe that is the definition but in reality most women who call themsleves feminist look down and ridicule me for being a slave to a man and staying home and taking care of my children. I agree with The Atlantian islands, why have children if you are just going to ship them off every day for someone else to raise? If my husband lost his job or died than I would be forced to work but I made the choice not too and the feminists hate that.

Shouldn't a feminist be a person who thinks being a housewife is a valued career.

Sorry you get chastized for it.

Maybe that is the definition but in reality most women who call themsleves feminist look down and ridicule me for being a slave to a man and staying home and taking care of my children. I agree with The Atlantian islands, why have children if you are just going to ship them off every day for someone else to raise? If my husband lost his job or died than I would be forced to work but I made the choice not too and the feminists hate that.
Those people are not real feminists. Real feminists would support your decision to be a stay at home mother given that it is really what you want to do and you are not forced into it.

I am a woman and I think it would be wonderful if I could just take the traditional way out. I would love to stay home and cook, clean, and take care of the children but I do not have that option anymore which is sad

Maybe that is the definition but in reality most women who call themsleves feminist look down and ridicule me for being a slave to a man and staying home and taking care of my children. I agree with The Atlantian islands, why have children if you are just going to ship them off every day for someone else to raise? If my husband lost his job or died than I would be forced to work but I made the choice not too and the feminists hate that.

i dont know how old you are but you may notice that cutting each other down is a major failing of women. in the same way that mothers who hold jobs diss you for staying home, you just dissed women who hold jobs for "shipping their children off". maybe YOU need to give other women a break as much as they need to do the same to you.

i dont know how old you are but you may notice that cutting each other down is a major failing of women. in the same way that mothers who hold jobs diss you for staying home, you just dissed women who hold jobs for "shipping their children off". maybe YOU need to give other women a break as much as they need to do the same to you.

Oh ya, I've often felt that women are cruel like that. Like there is some big competition between all women.

Maybe that is the definition but in reality most women who call themsleves feminist look down and ridicule me for being a slave to a man and staying home and taking care of my children. I'm amazed at your ability to meet 'most feminists' in the comfort of your home. Truly. And are you in fact, a slave to your man? Careful now, slave has a number of connotations you'll want to consider before you answer that, and believe me when I say, some of them are quite attractive to me personally.

If doing what you do is your choice, power to you woman. If you felt you had no other option, that this was what was expected of you and damn anything else you might have wanted, then I'd be sad. But don't fall into the trap of believing that what a few radicals say, boosted, amplified and shouted out by their detractors as 'FEMINISIM IS' actually represents what most feminists support.


I agree with The Atlantian islands, why have children if you are just going to ship them off every day for someone else to raise? If my husband lost his job or died than I would be forced to work but I made the choice not too and the feminists hate that.
Sounds to me, you hate women who don't do as you do. Is that accurate? Are you disgusted with me because I have my children in a dayhome while I study, or work? I think women who stay home with their kids are awesome, but it's not necessary for every woman to do it. Choice. I'm fine with your choice. Are you fine with what others choose? If not...perhaps the ones making judgement here are not the people you are pointing at.

I am a woman and I think it would be wonderful if I could just take the traditional way out. I would love to stay home and cook, clean, and take care of the children but I do not have that option anymore which is sad

First of all "traditional way out"? What the hell does that mean? What kind of weird image have you internalised about what mothers do in the home? It's not a frickin' lounge-all-day-in-your-curlers-watching-soap-operas deal. It's hard word, it's non-stop hard work. Way out? Please.

And second...you don't 'have the option'? Really? Funny, I know plenty of stay-at-home moms even younger than I, and plenty of men for whom that is the ideal. Seems to me you're looking in the wrong places.

If, however, you simply want to sit on your ass and be a 'kept woman', then you ned to become a money-grubbing trophy wife...totally different scenario.

Oh ya, I've often felt that women are cruel like that. Like there is some big competition between all women.

when we can get past the feeling that another woman's choice is a commentary on our own choices, we will have come a very long way.

What happened to the option for women who want to stay at home in the "traditional" way, but have a Mexican do the housework and watch the kids while they go to lunch with their girlfriends at the mall every day? That seems to be the preferred option for women where I'm from. :p

Well, going with Orthodox Jewish thought, the woman's job is to raise the kids and run the house. The man's job is to earn a living and support his family.

Now, go to many Jewish households, and you will find this arrangement. You will also find that the wife is the undisputed authority.

That said, modern society is somewhat different. I will not enforce my beliefs on others.

That said, modern society is somewhat different. I will not enforce my beliefs on others.
And that's all I ask.

Those people are not real feminists. Real feminists would support your decision to be a stay at home mother given that it is really what you want to do and you are not forced into it.

Not if they're the kind of feminists who believe that negative cultural influences are responsible for women taking the "traditional" route. If you look at it from that angle, and assume that women only choose to be homemakers due to a lifetime of pressure put on them by a male-centric culture, then it becomes necessary to ostracize women who make the wrong choice. "Radical" measures can be justified due to the overwhelming influence of the "traditional" system.

Note that I don't necessarily support that opinion, but I've heard it argued that way by a feminist professor of mine. Not sure how prevalent that mode of thought is, but it seemed to convince many female students in attendance.

Maybe that is the definition but in reality most women who call themsleves feminist look down and ridicule me for being a slave to a man and staying home and taking care of my children. I agree with The Atlantian islands, why have children if you are just going to ship them off every day for someone else to raise? If my husband lost his job or died than I would be forced to work but I made the choice not too and the feminists hate that.

In my experience, there is antagonism between some women in the work-force, and some stay-at-home moms, for the simple reason that the working women are not sure why the stay-at-home mom chose to stay-at-home.

Where I live, a lot of the stay-at-home moms do so because they are told that is a woman's position, and it is a cultural norm. The women who enter the work force can sometimes then be very frustrated at other women who simply 'accept' that role without question.

After all - blindly accepting the gender roles forced upon you is a threat to equality. Every woman who does just go with it because it is 'expected' is making it harder for those who struggle to achieve equal recognition.

On the other hand, feminists are usually very supportive of women that choose to be stay-at-home moms.

Not if they're the kind of feminists who believe that negative cultural influences are responsible for women taking the "traditional" route. If you look at it from that angle, and assume that women only choose to be homemakers due to a lifetime of pressure put on them by a male-centric culture, then it becomes necessary to ostracize women who make the wrong choice. "Radical" measures can be justified due to the overwhelming influence of the "traditional" system.

Note that I don't necessarily support that opinion, but I've heard it argued that way by a feminist professor of mine. Not sure how prevalent that mode of thought is, but it seemed to convince many female students in attendance.
Here, that may be true 20 years ago, but now, rarely any woman is forced to become stay-at-home wives unless her religion dictates it, and she has a choice whether she wishes to stay with the religion or not. I'm not saying that there are no ulta-conservative families who forced their daughters to grow up to be housewives, but they are rare cases these days.

Also, while the social pressure is still there, there is also a social pressure for men to work and make lots of money and appear "manly" overall. Honestly, I would say males got the short end of the social stick, since independent women who work and support themselves are applauded while stay-at-home dads are labelled wimps.

Here, that may be true 20 years ago, but now, rarely any woman is forced to become stay-at-home wives unless her religion dictates it, and she has a choice whether she wishes to stay with the religion or not. I'm not saying that there are no ulta-conservative families who forced their daughters to grow up to be housewives, but they are rare cases these days.


You obviously don't live where I live.


Also, while the social pressure is still there, there is also a social pressure for men to work and make lots of money and appear "manly" overall. Honestly, I would say males got the short end of the social stick, since independent women who work and support themselves are applauded while stay-at-home dads are labelled wimps.

Yes, poor men... earning more, and getting better benefits packages. More likely to get promotions, and with a greater chance of getting hired in the first place.

Society is so stacked against them...

Yes, poor men... earning more, and getting better benefits packages. More likely to get promotions, and with a greater chance of getting hired in the first place.

Society is so stacked against them...

You can't deny that men aren't exactly encouraged to be stay at home dads. And it's not only for economic reasons.

You obviously don't live where I live.
No, but my city has a reputation for being left-wing and progressive, so that might be why.
Yes, poor men... earning more, and getting better benefits packages. More likely to get promotions, and with a greater chance of getting hired in the first place.

Society is so stacked against them...
Employing sarcasm so early?

I wasn't saying men are less respected in society. In fact, the glass ceiling is quite frustrating. However, in the case of crossing boundaries of "traditional" gender roles, men are more likely to be looked down upon than women.

I remember one time I got a mid-level management position at a store. My supervisor told me that I have control of most of the people that worked there but never to break the glass ceiling. One day though I was walking with my coffee minding my own business when I walked into the room where the glass ceiling was the floor and I was too heavy so I broke it (I almost fell off!). However, when I finally got out I remembered another time when my sister kicked me because I told her I liked my dog more than her because at least it payed back the money it borrowed from me in the form of dog huges. Then I remembered that the first story that I just told never really happened but was loosely based on a dream I had a few days ago that followed a similar line of events.

...Wait, what am I doing here?

*looks akwardly at the other participants and slowly steps out of the thread*.

I remember one time I got a mid-level management position at a store. My supervisor told me that I have control of most of the people that worked there but never to break the glass ceiling. One day though I was walking with my coffee minding my own business when I walked into the room where the glass ceiling was the floor and I was too heavy so I broke it (I almost fell off!). However, when I finally got out I remembered another time when my sister kicked me because I told her I liked my dog more than her because at least it payed back the money it borrowed from me in the form of dog huges. Then I remembered that the first story that I just told never really happened but was loosely based on a dream I had a few days ago that followed a similar line of events.

...Wait, what am I doing here?

*looks akwardly at the other participants and slowly steps out of the thread*.


Thank you, come again. :)

You can't deny that men aren't exactly encouraged to be stay at home dads. And it's not only for economic reasons.Very true.
I think if more did it could only change things for the better. Doubtless efforts would be made to allow parents to stay at home more and return to work more easily. Things like flex-time and in-office daycare would become the norm.

What do you think women's role in society should be? A more traditional role or more of the new age feminist thing? poll coming.

Whatever that particular woman wants to adopt as a role. There should be no prescribed roles whatsoever.

A womens role in society should be too live and let live, and too pursue thier aspirations in security.

the only pertinence of gender is in having sex: and even there its largely a matter of personal taste.

there are problems currently with how different genders think. these are not endimic to gender itself but consiquent enculturation.

and it is precisely in the context of enculturation that the real difficultys and challanges lie.

difficulties and challanges only exerbated by chauvanistic beliefs and all to familiar and generaly unfounded assumptions.

there are of course slightly different life cycle needs within specificly the context of child bearing. but that's really the begining and ending of anything outside of what people have in their heads.

sexual repression is a cause of social aggressiveness, here again exerbated by chauvanistic beliefs, economic fanatacism and idiology.

i think the whole approach of law to sexual relations is, while understandable perhapse, in the context of prevailing assumptions and beliefs, otherwise backward headed and unhealthy for society and the individual both.

i do fully understand and acknowledge of course, that in order for that to be rectified in a manor that does not cause even more suffering in the proccess, there needs to be a deeper, more rational, more objective, cultural understanding.

=^^=
.../\...

I support the choice of the women, whatever she may want to do with her life. I absolutely object to some of the laws oppresing women in, say, Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, feminists are usually very supportive of women that choose to be stay-at-home moms.

not around here

Bake me a pie!!!

The role of individual humans in society should have nothing whatsoever to do with their gender. Defining an individual's role based on their gender or biological sex is as stupid as defining it by their skin color or the length of their middle toe.

The role of individual humans in society should have nothing whatsoever to do with their gender. Defining an individual's role based on their gender or biological sex is as stupid as defining it by their skin color or the length of their middle toe.

Hear, hear.

Women can do whatever they want. Long past are the days of men complete control on women.

sex reciprocals

sex reciprocals

So, you're a virgin, then?

So, you're a virgin, then?

:p I have a friend whose ex used to refer to her as his c*** holster.

she thought he was being cute.......some girls are stupid.

So, you're a virgin, then?

I wanted to cause outrage, evidently I have failed

:p I have a friend whose ex used to refer to her as his c*** holster.

she thought he was being cute.......some girls are stupid.

That's insane

That's insane

yeah, she wasn't allowed to talk to me anymore because I "put ideas in her head" like "people shouldn't hit you" and "you have the right to go to the bathroom without permission"

yeah, she wasn't allowed to talk to me anymore because I "put ideas in her head" like "people shouldn't hit you" and "you have the right to go to the bathroom without permission"

:eek: Oh, dear, Smunkee. That's gone from insane, as Nadkor said, to depressingly sad. There ought to be a law.

It's already been said, but here's my two cents:

Any woman or man should take on whatever role they feel comfortable with and can live with. If someone wants to be a homemaker and can afford to do so, great! If that same person prefers to pursue a career, with or without children, great! Gender shouldn't be a factor.

This also means, in my book, that both should be able to choose more repressive roles. As long as it is a personal choice and is not forced upon them, a woman who wishes to be submissive to her husband should not be derided for it. That is her choice. A woman who truly wishes to wear hijab or niqab, even if many see such clothing as a way to oppress women, should be able to do so. A man who doesn't want to go into the room where his children are born because "it isn't a man's place" should discuss that with the mother of his children and they should make that decision. A man who doesn't feel comfortable voicing his emotions may have difficulty in relationships because of it, but he shouldn't be told that he is somehow wrong. And so on....

I think women should absolutely have the freedom to decide, just as men do.

Having said that, the greatest threat to this is modern feminism.

Yes, I said it.

Some women choose, completely on their own, to be homemakers. They opt to stay at home and nurture the children, etc. I see no problem with that. It's their choice. Who objects to that choice and gets in their face to tell them how wrong they're living? Feminists.

My fiancee and I were listening to a radio show last year about a woman who wrote a book on the subject, comdemning all women who choose to stay at home as being some kind of brainwashed, cowed little females, as if the simple act of choosing that path was evidence enough that they weren't truly deciding for themselves. My fiancee was angry because to her, that was a very patronizing attitude for this author to take. "Is she saying I'm not CAPABLE of deciding for myself?" was her response. And that, to me says it all. That author's point was a sexist one. The suggestion that women are so weak that the only explanation for them to choose to be a stay at home mom must be male cultural dominance.

I think women should absolutely have the freedom to decide, just as men do.

Having said that, the greatest threat to this is modern feminism.

Yes, I said it.

Some women choose, completely on their own, to be homemakers. They opt to stay at home and nurture the children, etc. I see no problem with that. It's their choice. Who objects to that choice and gets in their face to tell them how wrong they're living? Feminists.

No, we don't. There are a few radicals who call themselves feminists, but their ideas are the antithesis to feminism.

My fiancee and I were listening to a radio show last year about a woman who wrote a book on the subject, comdemning all women who choose to stay at home as being some kind of brainwashed, cowed little females, as if the simple act of choosing that path was evidence enough that they weren't truly deciding for themselves. My fiancee was angry because to her, that was a very patronizing attitude for this author to take. "Is she saying I'm not CAPABLE of deciding for myself?" was her response. And that, to me says it all. That author's point was a sexist one. The suggestion that women are so weak that the only explanation for them to choose to be a stay at home mom must be male cultural dominance.

Indeed. And if this woman called herself a feminist, she was akin to a person who calls themselves a Christian and then says, "Everything that Christ said was a crock of shit. We should all hate each other and treat each other like dirt," trying to pass that off as the Christian message.

Anyone who tries to shove someone into a role based on their gender, whether it be into or out of a "traditional" role, is not expressing feminism. These people do not, never have, and never will represent the majority of those who call themselves feminists.

I think women should absolutely have the freedom to decide, just as men do.

Having said that, the greatest threat to this is modern feminism.

Yes, I said it.

Some women choose, completely on their own, to be homemakers. They opt to stay at home and nurture the children, etc. I see no problem with that. It's their choice. Who objects to that choice and gets in their face to tell them how wrong they're living? Feminists.

My fiancee and I were listening to a radio show last year about a woman who wrote a book on the subject, comdemning all women who choose to stay at home as being some kind of brainwashed, cowed little females, as if the simple act of choosing that path was evidence enough that they weren't truly deciding for themselves. My fiancee was angry because to her, that was a very patronizing attitude for this author to take. "Is she saying I'm not CAPABLE of deciding for myself?" was her response. And that, to me says it all. That author's point was a sexist one. The suggestion that women are so weak that the only explanation for them to choose to be a stay at home mom must be male cultural dominance.

Yes, it's very patronizing for that author to condemn women who wish to be homemakers. It's also very patronizing for you to condemn "modern feminism" because you disagree. If you'd care to amend that to "some of the fringe groups of modern feminism," that would be fine, because that's basically what you're describing. After all, there are people who say silly things all through the political spectrum.

yeah, she wasn't allowed to talk to me anymore because I "put ideas in her head" like "people shouldn't hit you" and "you have the right to go to the bathroom without permission"

i hate men like, my mom was with some one like that when i young, thats why im bite mess up in thinking

What do you think women's role in society should be? Total slaves to Men, subserviant to every desire and wish, not questiong and totally committed to pleasing their Masters.
but only if the woman chooses to do so, and only when the woman grants permission to the man to do so, and for the duration the woman specifies, and the man must respect that the woman can change her mind at any time and obey her wishes on those and any other matter.





:D

:eek: Oh, dear, Smunkee. That's gone from insane, as Nadkor said, to depressingly sad. There ought to be a law.

For one thing, many things that are "holstered" are not attached to the person's body. We shouldn't tempt his girlfriend.

For one thing, many things that are "holstered" are not attached to the person's body. We shouldn't tempt his girlfriend.

Perhaps not, but if she has any relatives, male or female, who have any honor and integrity, they should take a horsewhip to that man.

For one thing, many things that are "holstered" are not attached to the person's body. We shouldn't tempt his girlfriend.and even if they were attached, it can be DETACHED... as Mr Bobbit found out the hard way... ;)

Maybe thats one of the things his GF might learn from Smunkee... how to use the shears! :eek:

Perhaps not, but if she has any relatives, male or female, who have any honor and integrity, they should take a horsewhip to that man.

I must say, perhaps they thought she deserved it. If someone's that stupid, they might deserve it.

Seriously, I know people who are going out but insult each other.

and even if they were attached, it can be DETACHED... as Mr Bobbit found out the hard way... ;)

Maybe thats one of the things his GF might learn from Smunkee... how to use the shears! :eek:

No doubt. And yet, I suspect she'd be the last person to any of that to him. I'm sure, from her point of view, he loves her, it's just that sometimes he gets angry, it's not really his fault, if she paid better attention to things he wouldn't get so upset. As for having to ask permission before going to the bathroom, why, that's just a silly little thing, if it keeps him happy, that's fine, because, after all, he does love her and he means well, he just loses his temper now and then, everybody does that ...

I must say, perhaps they thought she deserved it. If someone's that stupid, they might deserve it.

Seriously, I know people who are going out but insult each other.

No one deserves to be treated that way, no one. Stupid, genius, no one deserves that.

Yeah, you'll find people in relationships who seem to do nothing but snipe at each other. eventually they'll break up or figure it out. What Smunkee seems to be describing sickens me.

The problem as I see it is that in our society we have made the traditional role of women dishonorable. We esteem the role of 'the bread winner' to be the superior and more honorable position, and we make the role of women subservent and less important.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Abraham Lincoln put it best when he said "Everything I am or ever hope to be, I owe to my angel mother".

Children are the future, when a woman puts her children first in her life she holds the future in her hands, and her children (if they are wise) will bless her name into eternity for it. Any fool can get a job and financially support a family, though it is necessary and honorable for a man to do so (however when he gets home from work he should not feel that his duty to his family fulfilled), but women posses a unique nurturing instinct and a natural emotional bond with their offspring, I have yet to see a fussing infant that will choose their father, or any one else for that matter, over their mother (provided she is a healthy person and doesn't neglect the child).

I am not in favor of using societal pressure to compel women to assume traditional roles. I believe women should have equal oppertunities for education and employment, and should be paid equal wages and have opportunities for advancement in their chosen careers equal with men in their fields. I have no problems with women working outside the home, so long as their families do not suffer for want of attention thereby; and I would say the same of men, if your career takes so much of your attention and time that you are a stranger to your children, your life is out of balance and your priorities need to be adjusted. I would also say this, a mother's chief-most role is to nurture and teach her children, she is not ment merely to be a dish washer, laundress, and housekeeper to a slovenly man who would rather not do these things for himself; that man who makes his wife to feel like a slave in her own home will one day stand condemned before God for it, if he does not repent and begin to treat her with love and compassion, and to carry his share of famillial responsibilities.

In summation, women are uniquely capeable of fulfilling the role of the primary nurturer of their children. The father should do all in his power to enable his wife to be a mother, rather than a bread winner, and he is obligated to help with the children and house work as much as he is able. The traditional roles of men and women are both honorable, and neither the man nor the woman ought to feel themselves superior or inferior to the other. Children are our future, there can be no more honorable role a woman can take on than being a mother to her children, for in so doing she has a more profound influence on the world in which we live than the most powerful politician or the wealthiest CEO will ever have.

No one deserves to be treated that way, no one. Stupid, genius, no one deserves that.

Oh, I disagree. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing Ann Coulter treated that way. Though only the insulting part. I would be disturbed by the concept Ann Coulter had sex.

Oh, I disagree. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing Ann Coulter treated that way. Though only the insulting part. I would be disturbed by the concept Ann Coulter had sex.

No, no, the best punishment for Ann Coulter would be for her to lose her audience.

No doubt. And yet, I suspect she'd be the last person to any of that to him. I'm sure, from her point of view, he loves her, it's just that sometimes he gets angry, it's not really his fault, if she paid better attention to things he wouldn't get so upset. As for having to ask permission before going to the bathroom, why, that's just a silly little thing, if it keeps him happy, that's fine, because, after all, he does love her and he means well, he just loses his temper now and then, everybody does that ...

sounds just like her, she did break up with him when he went to jail but within a month had another just like him, they seem to be in endless supply here. the new one is afraid of me though......I still can't talk to her, but he tried to bully me and.......it didn't work out so well for him.

This is really an individual choice thing. Although I put myself in the second category of the poll (equal but taking on traditional rolls) this is the choice I made for my marriage. I wanted a woman who had the same values that I have and that is what I went for. Now I know a guy who married a democrat and she bosses him around and it seems really wierd to myself and my fellow conservative friends but hey that is what he chose for his wife so it really is his business.

I suspect though that women in more traditional roles is better for the health and welfare of society as a whole. However, I would not want my views of the proper family structure imposed upon people like it is done in Iran and other big government type nations.

The problem as I see it is that in our society we have made the traditional role of women dishonorable. We esteem the role of 'the bread winner' to be the superior and more honorable position, and we make the role of women subservent and less important.

This is simply a fact of life in a patriarchal society. Men are viewed as superior. Thus, the work that men do is seen as more honorable. Men who do "women's work" are dishonored, while women who can do "men's work" are somehow elevated.

These types of viewpoints are exactly what feminists must work against.

Children are the future, when a woman puts her children first in her life she holds the future in her hands, and her children (if they are wise) will bless her name into eternity for it. Any fool can get a job and financially support a family, though it is necessary and honorable for a man to do so (however when he gets home from work he should not feel that his duty to his family fulfilled), but women posses a unique nurturing instinct and a natural emotional bond with their offspring, I have yet to see a fussing infant that will choose their father, or any one else for that matter, over their mother (provided she is a healthy person and doesn't neglect the child).

The mother has the food, so that makes sense. I have, however, seen children who will choose their father over their mother because he is more nurturing, because they relate to him better, because they simply feel closer to him - for many reasons.

Of course, I've seen a screaming infant choose someone that wasn't even his parent to calm him down, so even the food thing might not be it. It might just have to do with the attitude of the parent in question.

In summation, women are uniquely capeable of fulfilling the role of the primary nurturer of their children. The father should do all in his power to enable his wife to be a mother, rather than a bread winner, and he is obligated to help with the children and house work as much as he is able. The traditional roles of men and women are both honorable, and neither the man nor the woman ought to feel themselves superior or inferior to the other. Children are our future, there can be no more honorable role a woman can take on than being a mother to her children, for in so doing she has a more profound influence on the world in which we live than the most powerful politician or the wealthiest CEO will ever have.

You are perpetuating unsupported stereotypes. Women most often take on this role. They may, statistically, be more likely to be well-suited for this role. But there is no reason to believe that all women are well-suited or that all men are not. There is absolutely no reason to believe that "women are uniquely capeable of fulfilling the role of the primary nurturer of their children." It simply isn't true. Some women are better than some men at this and vice versa. I've seen families where the father took care of most of the childcare and was actually a much more nurturing personality than the mother. Was there something wrong with this family? Not at all. Each took on the roles for which they were best suited, without assuming traditional gender roles simply because of what type of genitalia they had.

What do you think women's role in society should be? A more traditional role or more of the new age feminist thing? poll coming.
I will choose free will. However, I think that families where one parent stays at home with the children is a healthier family. It doesn't matter to me whether it's the man, or the woman though.

Now I know a guy who married a democrat and she bosses him around and it seems really wierd to myself and my fellow conservative friends but hey that is what he chose for his wife so it really is his business.

What have political views got to do with this?? Do you Americans let politics permeate every aspect of your lives?

No doubt. And yet, I suspect she'd be the last person to any of that to him. I'm sure, from her point of view, he loves her, it's just that sometimes he gets angry, it's not really his fault, if she paid better attention to things he wouldn't get so upset. As for having to ask permission before going to the bathroom, why, that's just a silly little thing, if it keeps him happy, that's fine, because, after all, he does love her and he means well, he just loses his temper now and then, everybody does that ...
and abuse does tend to push people to areas that they normally wouldn't go.

What have political views got to do with this?? Do you Americans let politics permeate every aspect of your lives?

*sigh* Some do, I guess. And of course, no woman who was in her right mind and had a correct view of herself and her place in the family and society would ever vote Democratic. :rolleyes:

I love when people go about traditional role. And saying its not natural for woman
Well as far as I know none of them takes a spear and go hunt dinner that day.
and not natural? I don't know any of them who sleep in the tree and eat their meat raw either

It is sad that people are still debating what women should or should not be doing. I have never seen a thread debating the way men dress, work, raise children, act in a relationship, etc. unless it's related to what the women in their lives are doing. I will be happy when peoples' "roles" are not connected to our gender at all.

I have yet to see a fussing infant that will choose their father (...) over their mother (provided she is a healthy person and doesn't neglect the child

Maybe that's because most fathers didn't take, until some ten years ago, an active (and constructive) role in their children's education?

It is sad that people are still debating what women should or should not be doing. I have never seen a thread debating the way men dress, work, raise children, act in a relationship, etc. unless it's related to what the women in their lives are doing. I will be happy when peoples' "roles" are not connected to our gender at all.

Quite right. But then ... what would people talk about on this Forum? Oh, wait, evolution, creationism, left vs right ... whew.

sex reciprocals

So, you're a virgin, then?

reciprocal doesnt mean receptacal. i dont have a clue what a sex reciprocal might be so im holding out hope that it might be something good.

I think women should absolutely have the freedom to decide, just as men do.

Having said that, the greatest threat to this is modern feminism.

Yes, I said it.

Some women choose, completely on their own, to be homemakers. They opt to stay at home and nurture the children, etc. I see no problem with that. It's their choice. Who objects to that choice and gets in their face to tell them how wrong they're living? Feminists.

My fiancee and I were listening to a radio show last year about a woman who wrote a book on the subject, comdemning all women who choose to stay at home as being some kind of brainwashed, cowed little females, as if the simple act of choosing that path was evidence enough that they weren't truly deciding for themselves. My fiancee was angry because to her, that was a very patronizing attitude for this author to take. "Is she saying I'm not CAPABLE of deciding for myself?" was her response. And that, to me says it all. That author's point was a sexist one. The suggestion that women are so weak that the only explanation for them to choose to be a stay at home mom must be male cultural dominance.

so you heard a radio show about a book. do you know what one? do you know if its recent? do you know the author? was the author on the show or was the radio guy interpreting the book for her?

sure there were books written in the 60s like betty friedan's the feminine mystique that talked that way but that was when women really were taught that their only role in life was wife and mother. i dont much visit the feminist book aisle anymore but im clueless as to why anyone might bother to write such a book today. where would the market for it be?

The mother has the food, so that makes sense. I have, however, seen children who will choose their father over their mother because he is more nurturing, because they relate to him better, because they simply feel closer to him - for many reasons.

Of course, I've seen a screaming infant choose someone that wasn't even his parent to calm him down, so even the food thing might not be it. It might just have to do with the attitude of the parent in question.

one of my kids likes my husband much more than me, she has since birth, at 3 days old she tried to nurse on him.......she was disappointed he didn't have any milk. :(

I have noticed as she gets older that they seem to be on the same wavelength, and the other one is more like me.

as far as the attitude, kids sense fear and frustration, when a baby has been crying for hours on end, someone new who isn't frustrated yet, will calm them 90% of the time.

It is sad that people are still debating what women should or should not be doing. I have never seen a thread debating the way men dress, work, raise children, act in a relationship, etc. unless it's related to what the women in their lives are doing. I will be happy when peoples' "roles" are not connected to our gender at all.

excellent point!

so you heard a radio show about a book. do you know what one? do you know if its recent? do you know the author? was the author on the show or was the radio guy interpreting the book for her?

sure there were books written in the 60s like betty friedan's the feminine mystique that talked that way but that was when women really were taught that their only role in life was wife and mother. i dont much visit the feminist book aisle anymore but im clueless as to why anyone might bother to write such a book today. where would the market for it be?

Oh, there'd be a small market, I'm sure. You can pretty much get anything published these days, and if it's wrapped up as academic work, even better. Mein Kampf had steady, if small sales, at first. Again, there are lots of fringes out there, and this author sounds like a member of one of them.

one of my kids likes my husband much more than me, she has since birth, at 3 days old she tried to nurse on him.......she was disappointed he didn't have any milk. :(

I have noticed as she gets older that they seem to be on the same wavelength, and the other one is more like me.

as far as the attitude, kids sense fear and frustration, when a baby has been crying for hours on end, someone new who isn't frustrated yet, will calm them 90% of the time.at that age (3 days) they would try to nurse on anything that would fit in their mouth... like my pinky... (one of my neices tried at that age. :p )

but I agree on the empathy part.

at that age (3 days) they would try to nurse on anything that would fit in their mouth... like my pinky... (one of my neices tried at that age. :p )

but I agree on the empathy part.

ah, she still wants daddy when she is sick, or hurt, or happy, or excited, she demands "daddy time" where they go out together, while the other is apathetic about it, but really enjoys spending time with me.

I don't take it personally, I like him too.

I get upset when people assume that I am a bad mom because she likes him better, of course the other one likes me better, but nobody assumes him a bad dad.

so you heard a radio show about a book. do you know what one? do you know if its recent? do you know the author? was the author on the show or was the radio guy interpreting the book for her?

sure there were books written in the 60s like betty friedan's the feminine mystique that talked that way but that was when women really were taught that their only role in life was wife and mother. i dont much visit the feminist book aisle anymore but im clueless as to why anyone might bother to write such a book today. where would the market for it be?

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10659

this article got emailed to me a lot a while back, apparently people took offense, mostly the stay at home mom type people.

Would you support a woman whose deepest wish it is to be a mother and rear children? This doesn't necessarily mean she is subervant to a man, quite the opposite she can also be the one with the pants on in the relationship, depends all on personalities.
Not at all. I know several such women.

I'd actually like to raise issue with the idea of a "traditional role" for women.

What tradition? The middle and upper class one that existed since the Victorian age of women sitting around all day doing nothing, or the 'lower' class one that has existed for hundreds of years of the women working, because the family needed all the income they could get?

Would you support a woman whose deepest wish it is to be a mother and rear children? This doesn't necessarily mean she is subervant to a man, quite the opposite she can also be the one with the pants on in the relationship, depends all on personalities.

One thing I found disturbing in some feminist is, that despite saying women should be free to choose what they will, they often scorn women who choose to have children instead of a career. Doesn't that contradict with allowing a woman to "choose" her future?

Me personally, I take the view a woman should be free to choose what she wants to become and not be criticised for it. If she chooses to have a career and never have children she shouldn't be slandered against (higher taxed out of the social economic reasons yes; like men without children), same that women who choose to have a family and raise children shouldn't be slandered against.

Not at all. I know several such women.

Of course. The point is that women - people - should be able to do what the want to do in life, without feeling as if they "must" do it, or that some other avenue is not open to them because "it's a man's job" or "that's woman's work."

As several people have said, it shouldn't matter what kind of genitals you have.

Oh, and it's "subservient," folks.

I get upset when people assume that I am a bad mom because she likes him better, of course the other one likes me better, but nobody assumes him a bad dad.

I think these days such subconscious reactions are more the focus for feminists.

I can see why women would get upset by such. I also see how people say such things not knowing what it is implying.

In that sense there is a continual need for feminists to remind people to watch out from making such judgements. That may explain why there is a small steady sale in feminist literature.

What have political views got to do with this?? Do you Americans let politics permeate every aspect of your lives?

Well ok let me explain. One of my group of friends are all republicans. All but one are either living with or married to traditional women who either do not participate in politics or are Republicans. Now one of them is married to a democrat woman and she bosses him and controls him and he is pretty much her slave. She is a feminist. Feminists are probably without many exceptions Democrats.

ah, she still wants daddy when she is sick, or hurt, or happy, or excited, she demands "daddy time" where they go out together, while the other is apathetic about it, but really enjoys spending time with me.

I don't take it personally, I like him too.

I get upset when people assume that I am a bad mom because she likes him better, of course the other one likes me better, but nobody assumes him a bad dad.

some children are closer to their fathers then their mothers... now as long as you dont have a Stewie Griffin type (someone who is actively trying to kill one of their parents) then it's not a case of bad anything. (and even a Stewie Griffin type child isn't an indication of bad parenting. :p)

at least the "burden" of raising two children is split equally (or should be) between both of you and not weighing more on you. :)

Well ok let me explain. One of my group of friends are all republicans. All but one are either living with or married to traditional women who either do not participate in politics or are Republicans. Now one of them is married to a democrat woman and she bosses him and controls him and he is pretty much her slave. She is a feminist. Feminists are probably without many exceptions Democrats.

Well, yeah. Most democrats have silly ideas about "equality". But really, she's a nutso. She gives us all a bad name.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10659

this article got emailed to me a lot a while back, apparently people took offense, mostly the stay at home mom type people.

i was hoping the link would lead me to the book mentioned. its way too long for me to be bothered to read.

articles appear on a regular basis. its part of that criticizing other women thing that we do all too often. we have a deep seated feeling that if another woman makes a different choice from ours that it is a criticism of our choices.

so a woman who is focused on building an important career worries that another woman's choice to focus on her family is implying that career building is wrong. and vice versa. then we fight with each other instead of realizing that the best way is for everyone to make their own choice and that there is no one right choice for everyone.

Well ok let me explain. One of my group of friends are all republicans. All but one are either living with or married to traditional women who either do not participate in politics or are Republicans. Now one of them is married to a democrat woman and she bosses him and controls him and he is pretty much her slave. She is a feminist. Feminists are probably without many exceptions Democrats.

Well, yeah. Most democrats have silly ideas about "equality". But really, she's a nutso. She gives us all a bad name.

Maybe he likes it. Have you thought of that? Maybe they have a perfectly fine relationship and are deliriously in love. :rolleyes:

Maybe he likes it. Have you thought of that? Maybe they have a perfectly fine relationship and are deliriously in love. :rolleyes:

Either that, or the sex is awesome. Not sure.

Either that, or the sex is awesome. Not sure.

Exactly. Could be he keeps it strapped to his leg, y'know? Who are we to judge - but it's so much fun, isn't it?

No, no, the best punishment for Ann Coulter would be for her to lose her audience.

Either that, or to make it so whenever she is about to make a mean spirited remark unsupported by fact, her mouth or fingers or whatever she's using to communicate this message gets paraylyzed. Wouldn't it be hilarious for Ann Coulter to be forced to write a book with facts in it?

i was hoping the link would lead me to the book mentioned. its way too long for me to be bothered to read.

articles appear on a regular basis. its part of that criticizing other women thing that we do all too often. we have a deep seated feeling that if another woman makes a different choice from ours that it is a criticism of our choices.

so a woman who is focused on building an important career worries that another woman's choice to focus on her family is implying that career building is wrong. and vice versa. then we fight with each other instead of realizing that the best way is for everyone to make their own choice and that there is no one right choice for everyone.

the basic point of the article is that women who get college degrees and then choose to stay home when they have children haven't made an intelligent choice to do so, but are actually just responding to cultural pressure.

I think she wrote a book too.....to that effect.

I'd actually like to raise issue with the idea of a "traditional role" for women.

What tradition? The middle and upper class one that existed since the Victorian age of women sitting around all day doing nothing, or the 'lower' class one that has existed for hundreds of years of the women working, because the family needed all the income they could get?

oh you know the only woman that matters is the upper middle class harvard law school graduate whose choice is between making partner in her new york law firm or staying at home with the kids and doing volunteer charity work.

women whose choice is "if i stay home with the new baby and we apply for food stamps can we get by without my income as a checker at walmart?" dont matter at all.

the basic point of the article is that women who get college degrees and then choose to stay home when they have children haven't made an intelligent choice to do so, but are actually just responding to cultural pressure.

I think she wrote a book too.....to that effect.

she might have. i remember the survey results and that she did have a very career oriented view of the important things in life. i sort of wanted to smack her for her smug "i know better than they do" attitude.

Maybe he likes it. Have you thought of that? Maybe they have a perfectly fine relationship and are deliriously in love. :rolleyes:

Well I imagine that he must like it and be in love with her.

Either that, or to make it so whenever she is about to make a mean spirited remark unsupported by fact, her mouth or fingers or whatever she's using to communicate this message gets paraylyzed. Wouldn't it be hilarious for Ann Coulter to be forced to write a book with facts in it?

That would be capital punishment for her. Cruel and unusual. Funny, though, to think of. Perhaps she should be allowed to keep doing what she does, only each time she speaks, she has to read a disclaimer detailing her privileged upbringing in Connecticut as the daughter of wealthy parents, and mention to any working people in the audience that her father was instrumental in the Reagan Administration's union-busting.

she might have. i remember the survey results and that she did have a very career oriented view of the important things in life. i sort of wanted to smack her for her smug "i know better than they do" attitude.

I want to smack a lot of people for that.

That would be capital punishment for her. Cruel and unusual. Funny, though, to think of. Perhaps she should be allowed to keep doing what she does, only each time she speaks, she has to read a disclaimer detailing her privileged upbringing in Connecticut as the daughter of wealthy parents, and mention to any working people in the audience that her father was instrumental in the Reagan Administration's union-busting.

That and the quote she made wondering if giving women the right to vote was a good idea. Her justification: because they tend to vote Democratic instead of Republican.

That and the quote she made wondering if giving women the right to vote was a good idea. Her justification: because they tend to vote Democratic instead of Republican.

Which calls her gender into question, doesn't it? Ah, me, this all belongs over on the "us vs them" thread. Our Ann's such a good target, though, I might miss her, in a perverse way, were she to vanish.

Feminists are probably without many exceptions Democrats.

That's an interesting stereotype for which I've seen no evidence whatsoever. Feminists may be unlikely to be the moralistic, lots of government interference, type of Republican that has emerged in recent years, but this hardly means that they are unlikely to be Republican. Contrary to popular belief, the moralistic types are not the majority.

Personally, I think most Democrats and most Republicans (not to mention other parties) are full of it. Considering the focus on the individual that is a major part of feminism, feminists might actually be more likely to be independent voters.

Well ok let me explain. One of my group of friends are all republicans. All but one are either living with or married to traditional women who either do not participate in politics or are Republicans. Now one of them is married to a democrat woman and she bosses him and controls him and he is pretty much her slave. She is a feminist. Feminists are probably without many exceptions Democrats.

She is not a feminist.

She is a bitch.

There is a difference.

She is not a feminist.

She is a bitch.

There is a difference.

Cruder way of saying what I said.

I voted for complete equality. No-one should give a shit about whether an occupation is "masculine" or "feminine", "traditional" or "new", because to do so is ridiculous over-generalisation.

Take medical proffesions. With the exception of Midwifery, it is, in European and Euro-origin cultures, a traditionally masculine thing. But in much or Russia, surgeons and physiscists have been traditionally female for longer than I can be sure of.

As for "traditional" and "new", what he means is "Traditional in X culture" (Islamic cultures, I would assume). Few people seem to know that clerical positions such as secretarial work were masculine until the world wars: entirely non-physical and not the most vital of jobs, the men all got called up and it was one of the first roles taken on by women. Now, it's a feminine thing.

As such, the absolute equality of the genders is pretty much a pre-requisit for any real equality of cultures, which is prety much a pre-requisit for us to stop shooting at each other.

(It should be noted that some self-proclaimed "cultures" are not worthy of equality, but I don't think any are still around. Many that formerly were have had a shave and a haircut)

You woudl have to admit most men are stronger than most women, no?

Actually, that depends on how you're defining "strong." For example, is the ability to endure pain "strength"? Or is "strength" entirely and solely defined by one's ability to lift heavy objects using one's upper body?

No one has ever denied that there are biological differences between men and women. However, how can anyone rationally determine that being better, on average, at dunking basketballs is intrinsically superior to being better, on average, at doing the splits? How can one rationally determine that having penises is intrinsically superior to having vaginas, or vice versa? Anyone who tries to simplify the many, many little differences between the sexes into a conclusion that one is superior to the other is, quite frankly, an idiot.

As for the actual topic of this thread, one's gender should never determine one's role in life, any more than one's eye color should. If someone, male or female, wants to stay at home baking cookies with their kids, that's great. If someone else, male or female, prefers to be a corporate CEO, that's also great. Simple as that.

I’m all for equality, but it must work both ways…

I had a discussion with a girl in my class (this is some 10 years or more ago, but I still remember it vividly). She was a hardcore feminist and had, yet again, begun ranting about how unfair the world was and how she would probably end up making less money than her husband. I asked her if she was willing to do as a man? After all, as I pointed out, those men how rose to power were often men who worked 70+ hours a week and consequently spent a lot of time away from their home, wife and kids. Was she ready to make that sacrifice? Well, she said, as a mother I need to take care of my children and such…

That, in my opinion, is the big problem with feminism – they want their cake and to eat it too. They want money and a good career, but they also want kids and a perfect home. Well, they can’t have both of it.
Of course, that problem could be solved it the husband could stay at home and take care of the kids without being looked down upon. But feminists, at least those that I have talked to / read articles by, don’t think about that.

Perhaps we need a male movement? Men allowed into the kitchen! Women, go to work!

And finally, equality means that both genders have exactly the same opportunities and obligations. Feminists talk a lot of what they want to do – but not so much about the sacrifices they want to make for it. How about this one: I’ll consent to gender equality the day women can be drafted alongside men – after all, if they’re though enough to make it to the top the corporate ladder then they are also tough enough to handle a year as a soldier…

Either that, or to make it so whenever she is about to make a mean spirited remark unsupported by fact, her mouth or fingers or whatever she's using to communicate this message gets paraylyzed. Wouldn't it be hilarious for Ann Coulter to be forced to write a book with facts in it?
Isn't that like that Jim Carrey movie?

Isn't that like that Jim Carrey movie?

Yeah, kind of. Except instead of lying, it's unsupported insults.

I’m all for equality, but it must work both ways…

Indeed. And anyone who is actually working for equality realizes this as well.

I had a discussion with a girl in my class (this is some 10 years or more ago, but I still remember it vividly). She was a hardcore feminist and had, yet again, begun ranting about how unfair the world was and how she would probably end up making less money than her husband. I asked her if she was willing to do as a man? After all, as I pointed out, those men how rose to power were often men who worked 70+ hours a week and consequently spent a lot of time away from their home, wife and kids. Was she ready to make that sacrifice? Well, she said, as a mother I need to take care of my children and such…

You're talking about men who have risen up the corporate ladder. She was most likely talking about the fact that, spending her 40 hours a week just like most workers, she would still likely be paid less than her male counterparts.

Neither men nor women often sacrifice the entire rest of their lives to work 70+ hours a week and climb the coporate ladder. And neither men nor women who have children should do so. If that is what you want, male or female, don't have children.

That, in my opinion, is the big problem with feminism – they want their cake and to eat it too. They want money and a good career, but they also want kids and a perfect home. Well, they can’t have both of it.

And men don't want both? Why can a person not have money and good career and also have a comfortable home and raise children? If this is impossible to do, doesn't that suggest that something is wrong with society?

Of course, that problem could be solved it the husband could stay at home and take care of the kids without being looked down upon. But feminists, at least those that I have talked to / read articles by, don’t think about that.

Funny. Nearly every feminist I have talked to has advocated the idea that a man who wishes to be a homemaker should be able to do so without ridicule.

And finally, equality means that both genders have exactly the same opportunities and obligations. Feminists talk a lot of what they want to do – but not so much about the sacrifices they want to make for it. How about this one: I’ll consent to gender equality the day women can be drafted alongside men – after all, if they’re though enough to make it to the top the corporate ladder then they are also tough enough to handle a year as a soldier…

If there is going to be a draft, women absolutely should be included. They also shouldn't be kept out of the higher-paid (albeit generally more dangerous) positions in the armed forces or denied promotions because they don't have penises.

The only caveat I would add is that, if the draft were instated, there should be allowances made for couples with children. If one parent has already been drafted, the second should be exempt from the draft, at least until the first parent has been officially discharged (or the child is legally an adult).

To the OP

Am I to assume by "equal" you are referring to value?

Because, I certainly believe that women and men are equal in value, just not in authority.

And men don't want both? Why can a person not have money and good career and also have a comfortable home and raise children? If this is impossible to do, doesn't that suggest that something is wrong with society?

I never said that men didn’t. It’s just that there isn’t really a male-movement that fights for home-dads…

Funny. Nearly every feminist I have talked to has advocated the idea that a man who wishes to be a homemaker should be able to do so without ridicule.

Really? Then there might be hope for the feminist movement after all. Most of those I’ve talked to have been rabid-foaming-from-the-mouth-“we-hate-males” types.

If there is going to be a draft, women absolutely should be included. They also shouldn't be kept out of the higher-paid (albeit generally more dangerous) positions in the armed forces or denied promotions because they don't have penises.

Here in Denmark we already have a draft. But guess what – only males are drafted.

having certan roles is helpful. I don't at all think that they should be determined at birth, but by choice...but eliminating a concept like "home-maker" entirely is stupid. I like the native american version. I don't recall which tribes did it, but if a child showed signs of leaning towards another gender, they were put in a big circle with a male implement (like a bow and arrow) and a female impliment (like a root/herb digging stick) and whichever one they chose would be their gender from then on. I know for sure that had I been given such a choice I'd not be living as a male right now. it's not a big enough deal to want to put up with people's shit over being transgendered, but I'd certainly prefer traditional female roles. well, I take that back, I actually rather like third gender roles. temple and palace functionaries, and entertainers aren't that bad. more interesting than the other options, thats for sure.

I was very tempted to say men subserviant to women ('cause I'm into that sort of thing) But I descided to be serious for this one.

So I was wondering whether to make a new thread about this, but I just thought I'd just be flamed back to the stone age, so I'll plonk it here, seeing as this thread is mostly about feminism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524299.html

A new study shows that women bosses discimintate against other women when considering them for promotion.

Personally I've only had 1 male and 1 female manager in my time at work and the female one played out exactly as the article describes, but its only anecdotal evidence an' all.

How easy is it for a woman to be equal to a man and have a good career when she faces discrimination from women?

Actually, that depends on how you're defining "strong." For example, is the ability to endure pain "strength"? Or is "strength" entirely and solely defined by one's ability to lift heavy objects using one's upper body?

No one has ever denied that there are biological differences between men and women. However, how can anyone rationally determine that being better, on average, at dunking basketballs is intrinsically superior to being better, on average, at doing the splits? How can one rationally determine that having penises is intrinsically superior to having vaginas, or vice versa? Anyone who tries to simplify the many, many little differences between the sexes into a conclusion that one is superior to the other is, quite frankly, an idiot.
Indeed.

It is, frankly, stupid to put things in terms like, "Are men stronger than women, on average?" When we are talking about the roles that INDIVIDUALS play in a society, such questions are a waste of time. If being strong is what matters for a particular role, then why are people so determined to make GENDER the standard for that role?! Why not say, "Strength is needed for X role," and let the strongest people (male or female) take on that role?

If a man who is not sufficiently strong enough wants to fulfill that role, is the fact that he has a penis going to somehow make him strong enough by association? If he's simply not strong enough to perform a given task, is it really going to work for him to point out that men are, on average, stronger than women? Will that make him somehow able to perform that task better than a woman who is actually strong enough to do it?

Indeed.

It is, frankly, stupid to put things in terms like, "Are men stronger than women, on average?" When we are talking about the roles that INDIVIDUALS play in a society, such questions are a waste of time. If being strong is what matters for a particular role, then why are people so determined to make GENDER the standard for that role?! Why not say, "Strength is needed for X role," and let the strongest people (male or female) take on that role?

If a man who is not sufficiently strong enough wants to fulfill that role, is the fact that he has a penis going to somehow make him strong enough by association? If he's simply not strong enough to perform a given task, is it really going to work for him to point out that men are, on average, stronger than women? Will that make him somehow able to perform that task better than a woman who is actually strong enough to do it?

I whole heartedly agree with you. The exact same thing happened in the "Women in the Military" thread. When the sexists start to relise how indefensible their argument is, they cling to avergages and percentages. They'll all start fleeing the thread any minute now.

I whole heartedly agree with you. The exact same thing happened in the "Women in the Military" thread. When the sexists start to relise how indefensible their argument is, they cling to avergages and percentages. They'll all start fleeing the thread any minute now.

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Nova Boozia. Forty percent of people know that.

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Nova Boozia. Forty percent of people know that.

Source?

Ah, "Source?", the foolproof skeptic answer to every average and percentage!

I whole heartedly agree with you. The exact same thing happened in the "Women in the Military" thread. When the sexists start to relise how indefensible their argument is, they cling to avergages and percentages. They'll all start fleeing the thread any minute now.
There's also an element of greatness-by-association.

A particular man may be painfully aware that he is not strong enough to perform a given task. In our culture, it is particularly shameful for a man to show weakness. (Women, on the other hand, are practically defined as being weak, physically and emotionally.) However, he can attempt to regain some status by associating himself with Men as a class. Men, he says, are stronger than women, the implication being that even men who are not strong should still be considered more qualified for a given task than any women, regardless of strength.

I think that's just as bullshit as trying to claim that white people, on average, are better at a given task, and therefore white people should be assumed to be more qualified for that task across the board.

Let individuals succeed on their own merits.

I never said that men didn’t. It’s just that there isn’t really a male-movement that fights for home-dads…

Actually, the feminist movement has been doing that for many years now. Feminists encourage the acceptance of men who choose to take on equal responsibility for domestic work and child-rearing, and for men who choose to be primary care-givers to their children.


Really? Then there might be hope for the feminist movement after all. Most of those I’ve talked to have been rabid-foaming-from-the-mouth-“we-hate-males” types.

For the ten-billionth time:

If you encounter a person who hates males or who wants to punish/penalize people based on their sex, THAT PERSON IS NOT A FEMINIST. By definition.

A feminist believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. A person who wants to screw over men because they are male is an ANTI-FEMINIST.

Kindly do not blame feminists for what their opponents are doing.


Here in Denmark we already have a draft. But guess what – only males are drafted.
Yes, and here in America we also have a sexist draft. (Along with a pay gap based on sex, gender inequity in every level of government, every media outlet, every industry, and every branch of commerce...)

If you are upset about sexist draft laws, why don't you yell at the male majority who have instituted it? Isn't it a bit silly to blame women for laws that were passed by an overwhelming male majority, and legal/cultural traditions that have been established by male majority?

They should fill whatever role pleases them and they are capable of fulfilling. Gender is not the criterion - ability is.

There's also an element of greatness-by-association.

A particular man may be painfully aware that he is not strong enough to perform a given task. In our culture, it is particularly shameful for a man to show weakness. (Women, on the other hand, are practically defined as being weak, physically and emotionally.) However, he can attempt to regain some status by associating himself with Men as a class. Men, he says, are stronger than women, the implication being that even men who are not strong should still be considered more qualified for a given task than any women, regardless of strength.

I think that's just as bullshit as trying to claim that white people, on average, are better at a given task, and therefore white people should be assumed to be more qualified for that task across the board.

Let individuals succeed on their own merits.

Good point, and of course there's the universal bully mentality, that to look down on one group makes another look up on you. Anyone can be the target, but I've never actually seen anyone state this as a reason for sexism.

I never said that men didn’t. It’s just that there isn’t really a male-movement that fights for home-dads…

You don't need a "male-movement." There are male feminists, and they wish for the same things that female feminists wish for - gender equality. The idea of men being able to take on "traditional" feminine roles is just as much an issue for feminism as the opposite.

Really? Then there might be hope for the feminist movement after all. Most of those I’ve talked to have been rabid-foaming-from-the-mouth-“we-hate-males” types.

Most of the women you've talked to in your life are probably feminists. In fact, most of the men you've talked to in your life are probably feminists as well. They may not make a big deal out of it or even self-identify as such, but most people you talk to these days expect equal treatment, regardless of gender.

Many people self-identify as feminists when they are, in fact, not advocating any feminist ideals. There certainly are those out there who think women should be treated better than men, or that they should have equal opportunities with less responsibility, or any number of such ideas. These are the antithesis of feminism.

Here in Denmark we already have a draft. But guess what – only males are drafted.

And that is wrong.

having certan roles is helpful. I don't at all think that they should be determined at birth, but by choice...but eliminating a concept like "home-maker" entirely is stupid. I like the native american version. I don't recall which tribes did it, but if a child showed signs of leaning towards another gender, they were put in a big circle with a male implement (like a bow and arrow) and a female impliment (like a root/herb digging stick) and whichever one they chose would be their gender from then on. I know for sure that had I been given such a choice I'd not be living as a male right now. it's not a big enough deal to want to put up with people's shit over being transgendered, but I'd certainly prefer traditional female roles. well, I take that back, I actually rather like third gender roles. temple and palace functionaries, and entertainers aren't that bad. more interesting than the other options, thats for sure.

But why do you need "male" and "female" roles to begin with? What if the child likes the bow and arrow when he's young, but wants to cook when he's older? Why should he be railroaded into any particular gender role if it isn't what truly fits him? Maybe he likes to gather food and hunt. Maybe he likes to hunt and then cook his own food. Is that a problem?

You can't deny that men aren't exactly encouraged to be stay at home dads. And it's not only for economic reasons.

I can easily deny that. I have never encountered any adverse commentary when I was a stay-at-home dad, nor any opposition to the idea that I might stay at home.

Financial concerns are the only reason I work, rather than my wife.

Employing sarcasm so early?

I wasn't saying men are less respected in society. In fact, the glass ceiling is quite frustrating. However, in the case of crossing boundaries of "traditional" gender roles, men are more likely to be looked down upon than women.

I don't agree. In some circles, a man might have to stomach some ribbing from the 'manly-men', but if you hang around with dumbasses you can hardly complain when they act like dumbasses.

So - guys might get their feelings hurt a little... but women actually have real problems.

I don't agree. In some circles, a man might have to stomach some ribbing from the 'manly-men', but if you hang around with dumbasses you can hardly complain when they act like dumbasses.

Yeah, just a hint lads, but if all your friends are giving you shit for being a stay-at-home Daddy, it might be time to move out of the frat house.

If you encounter a person who hates males or who wants to punish/penalize people based on their sex, THAT PERSON IS NOT A FEMINIST. By definition.

A feminist believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. A person who wants to screw over men because they are male is an ANTI-FEMINIST.

Kindly do not blame feminists for what their opponents are doing.


Most of the women you've talked to in your life are probably feminists. In fact, most of the men you've talked to in your life are probably feminists as well. They may not make a big deal out of it or even self-identify as such, but most people you talk to these days expect equal treatment, regardless of gender.

Many people self-identify as feminists when they are, in fact, not advocating any feminist ideals. There certainly are those out there who think women should be treated better than men, or that they should have equal opportunities with less responsibility, or any number of such ideas. These are the antithesis of feminism.


I think the problem is that the feminist movement has won such an overwhelming victory that they don’t know what to do with it. Yes, it should be about equality and nothing more – but it seems that it’s not enough anymore. Those who fought for equality once have now gone silent – simply because they got what they wanted. Those feminist, or should I rather say: those who call themselves feminists, these days are a different, and far more hardcore, breed. And they are very much anti-male – males keep them as sex-slaves, men prevent them from realising their carrier, men view them as breeding machines and so on.

Of course, thes is based purely on my experience with those women I’ve know and who has claimed to be feminists.

And I must say that I’m glad to find that the original feminist movement is still alive.



If you are upset about sexist draft laws, why don't you yell at the male majority who have instituted it? Isn't it a bit silly to blame women for laws that were passed by an overwhelming male majority, and legal/cultural traditions that have been established by male majority?

Oh, believe me – I do. I speak out against the draft whenever I can. And I’m not blaming the women for making the male draft. What I am blaming them for, is that they do not want to be drafted themselves. They want equal opportunities, but when I point out that they must also accept equal responsibilities then (as in getting drafted alongside the men), all I get is a long list of excuses as to why women shouldn't be drafted. And that what’s upsetting me.


But why do you need "male" and "female" roles to begin with? What if the child likes the bow and arrow when he's young, but wants to cook when he's older? Why should he be railroaded into any particular gender role if it isn't what truly fits him? Maybe he likes to gather food and hunt. Maybe he likes to hunt and then cook his own food. Is that a problem?

Well, there are some things that one of the sexes is naturally better at - having children, for example. Having a child might keep a woman away from her career for a couple of years. Is that an evil male conspiracy? No, it’s the simple fact that men can neither give birth to the child, nor feed it when it’s been born (at least not the natural way). That is, of course, not an excuse for the man to just dump all of it on the woman – he should also spent time at home to help take care of the child, and he should also get up in the middle of the night to help change diapers and bottle-feed the child. But the family needs money to survive, and if the woman is staying at home to take care of the child, then it falls to the man to be away from home and work. It’s just the way it has to be…

In the same way, even though I criticise females for not being drafted alongside the males, it must be said that men generally makes better soldiers. A well trained man is bigger, stronger and more aggressive than his female counterpart. Interestingly, I’ve heard of a study that actually conclude that while men might be bigger and stronger, then women were generally tougher and better able to deal with fatigue and pain. But that a bit OT…

The point isn’t that men can’t take care of their children, nor that women can’t be soldiers. It’s just that there are some things that men are naturally better at, and there are some things that women are better at. And the gender roles reflect that…

I think the problem is that the feminist movement has won such an overwhelming victory that they don’t know what to do with it. Yes, it should be about equality and nothing more – but it seems that it’s not enough anymore. Those who fought for equality once have now gone silent – simply because they got what they wanted. Those feminist, or should I rather say: those who call themselves feminists, these days are a different, and far more hardcore, breed. And they are very much anti-male – males keep them as sex-slaves, men prevent them from realising their carrier, men view them as breeding machines and so on.

Of course, thes is based purely on my experience with those women I’ve know and who has claimed to be feminists.

And I must say that I’m glad to find that the original feminist movement is still alive.




Oh, believe me – I do. I speak out against the draft whenever I can. And I’m not blaming the women for making the male draft. What I am blaming them for, is that they do not want to be drafted themselves. They want equal opportunities, but when I point out that they must also accept equal responsibilities then (as in getting drafted alongside the men), all I get is a long list of excuses as to why women shouldn't be drafted. And that what’s upsetting me.



Well, there are some things that one of the sexes is naturally better at - having children, for example. Having a child might keep a woman away from her career for a couple of years. Is that an evil male conspiracy? No, it’s the simple fact that men can neither give birth to the child, nor feed it when it’s been born (at least not the natural way). That is, of course, not an excuse for the man to just dump all of it on the woman – he should also spent time at home to help take care of the child, and he should also get up in the middle of the night to help change diapers and bottle-feed the child. But the family needs money to survive, and if the woman is staying at home to take care of the child, then it falls to the man to be away from home and work. It’s just the way it has to be…

In the same way, even though I criticise females for not being drafted alongside the males, it must be said that men generally makes better soldiers. A well trained man is bigger, stronger and more aggressive than his female counterpart. Interestingly, I’ve heard of a study that actually conclude that while men might be bigger and stronger, then women were generally tougher and better able to deal with fatigue and pain. But that a bit OT…

The point isn’t that men can’t take care of their children, nor that women can’t be soldiers. It’s just that there are some things that men are naturally better at, and there are some things that women are better at. And the gender roles reflect that…

Soldier wise there are other reasons for keeping to a male only combat force. Rightly or Wrongly most men are suckers for a "damsel in distress" and a male soldier faced with an injured female companion is likely to take a greater risk in rescuing the fallen comrade and may jeapordise the safety of the entire unit. This is not good in a combat situtation.

The other reason is quite simply genetics. Females are more important than Males. 10 Females and 1 Male produces a more viable gene pool than 10 Males and 1 Female (not to mention the stress on the poor Female).

What is forgotten in chauvinism are the reasons for differentiation in the first place.

Women and men can never be treated in the same way principally because of one fundamental difference between them: women give birth.
When a woman has a child, there is no way that she can simply carry on doing her job as if nothing was happening. Without even considering the needs of the child, she would probably need to have at least 2 weeks off work to give birth.
Then someone needs to care for the baby. The mother does seem to be the obvious parent to do this - her body is designed to enable her to feed the baby, although there is nothing to stop the child's father taking on this role.
But what of toddlers? Many parents now place there children in nurseries from a very young age, so that they can both work. I believe that, while this not unethical, young children benefit from having their parents about, at least some of the time. By this stage, though, there is no reason why the mother should do this rather than the father.

In Germany in the 1930s (under Hitler), women were not only encouraged, but often forced, to stay at home. While I do not agree with the idea of forcing people to leave their jobs, I also disagree with those who claim that the system treated women as second-class citizens. Indeed, much propaganda glorified the role of mother and homemaker - Hitler wanted the population to increase, and so women were highly important.

In short, women should be able to choose their path, and none should be considered "better" than another, and employers should make it easier for them to take a break from work to care for their families.

Soldier wise there are other reasons for keeping to a male only combat force. Rightly or Wrongly most men are suckers for a "damsel in distress" and a male soldier faced with an injured female companion is likely to take a greater risk in rescuing the fallen comrade and may jeapordise the safety of the entire unit. This is not good in a combat situtation.

The other reason is quite simply genetics. Females are more important than Males. 10 Females and 1 Male produces a more viable gene pool than 10 Males and 1 Female (not to mention the stress on the poor Female).

What is forgotten in chauvinism are the reasons for differentiation in the first place.

As I have said before in a differant thread, a male soldier doing that for a female soldier or for a close friend or similar to the detriment of the unit would be, quite frankly, stupid. It's a regretable fact, but a soldier has to be ever so slightly de-humanised as they pass through training. If we can't shake a tendency to help a friend or female rather than a squad or platoon, we aren't working with soldier material.

As to physical differances, yeah, sure, a soldier has to lug a lot of weight around. Some heavy weapons are just that: heavy. However, as other have said (although it applies less to a draft than a volunteer force), we should test individuals, not cling to averages. But has everyone forgotten the existence of the navy? The air force? The logistics corps? Artillery? Even armour only becomes physically taxing when something has gone wrong. While I, for one, advocate complete equality in all arms, in a conscript force it should still be possible to assign females to non-physical arms, and indeed to assign females who reach physical minima to the infantry.

Of course, except in extreme cases, I'm anti-draft. But in those cases, the whole point is to get everyone who can lift a gun, drive a tank, or push a damn pen into the field. So leaving out around half the population is purpose-defeating.

Now, as to genetics, I'm not so sure about draft, but with a volunteer force but we're looking at 1-3% of the population in the services at any one time. At any gender ratio, the genepool of a balanced society is not going to notice that. Especially not in a modern war, when most of the troops will be coming home again.

Do whatever they want.
Coming from a single mother and seeing her become CEO of a national organisation, it become somewhat clear.

Women and men can never be treated in the same way principally because of one fundamental difference between them: women give birth.

Equal =/= Same.

Next?

Soldier wise there are other reasons for keeping to a male only combat force. Rightly or Wrongly most men are suckers for a "damsel in distress" and a male soldier faced with an injured female companion is likely to take a greater risk in rescuing the fallen comrade and may jeapordise the safety of the entire unit. This is not good in a combat situtation.

I would love to see some actual research backing this up. I mentioned this theory to a (male) friend of mine who is in the Army, and he nearly wet himself laughing.


The other reason is quite simply genetics. Females are more important than Males. 10 Females and 1 Male produces a more viable gene pool than 10 Males and 1 Female (not to mention the stress on the poor Female).

First of all, it's insulting as hell to assume that any female or male WANTS to reproduce biologically. Lots of us do not, and we're still just as valuable and important as the breeding members of society.

Second, and closely related, to assume that an individual's value to the human species is contingent upon their personal reproductive capacity is ignorant in the extreme. The reproductive success of our species as a whole depends quite strongly on individuals who are NOT currently reproducing, and on individuals who will not ever reproduce. To say that the relative importance of individuals is based on their personal capacity for reproduction simply reflects an ignorance of how human reproductive success actually works.


What is forgotten in chauvinism are the reasons for differentiation in the first place.
Differentiation? Fine. Discrimination? Not so much. Bullshit theories that actually aren't grounded in empirical reality, but rather in people's preconceived notions of how genders must work? Really damn well annoying and a waste of time.

These bullshit theories exist to enforce inequality. Sorry, but that's how it is, and it will save everybody a whole lot of time if we all can just admit that off the bat. The very fact that you have to equate differentiation and discrimination to make your point is lovely evidence of this.

I would love to see some actual research backing this up. I mentioned this theory to a (male) friend of mine who is in the Army, and he nearly wet himself laughing.I know the US military has done some research on this. Unfortunately it's been years since I read about it, so all I can remember is that mixed-gender infantry unites were more efficient that single-gender units. The Wiki might have something on it.These bullshit theories exist to enforce inequality.QFT.

Brickistan, feminism is most definitly alive in all of scandinavia, Denmark included. The Danish organisation FAR, which is the primary male-equality special interest org in the country, has very close ties with the various feminist organisations in the country, and owes it's existence to those organisations. Several corporations, businesses & political parties in the country, recognise the inequal representation in their own structures & have adopted various types of affirmative action schemes to compensate. This particular way of doing things, is more widespread now than it ever has been before.

Some of the major concerns for the feminist orgs in Denmark at present, is inequal pay for equal labour, the lack of legal rights for fathers (it's just a few years ago that males finally got proper paternity leave in the country), and the increasing inequality in higher education (where males are starting to become underrepresented).

Minor issues are too many to mention here, but includes the male-only draft.

Being equal to my partner makes me want to cook, clean and "serve" him. If he expected that of me, I would never do it, but because he respects me, I choose to pamper him like a 50s housewife. :fluffle:

Is this... "wrong"?

Is this... "wrong"?If it's right for you, it's right for you.

Being equal to my partner makes me want to cook, clean and "serve" him. If he expected that of me, I would never do it, but because he respects me, I choose to pamper him like a 50s housewife. :fluffle:

Is this... "wrong"?

What's wrong is your double post. :p

Total slaves to Men, subserviant to every desire and wish, not questiong and totally committed to pleasing their Masters.

Only in the bedroom. ;)

Women and men can never be treated in the same way principally because of one fundamental difference between them: women give birth.
When a woman has a child, there is no way that she can simply carry on doing her job as if nothing was happening. Without even considering the needs of the child, she would probably need to have at least 2 weeks off work to give birth.


so THERE's 2 or 4 weeks of the 80 years of a woman's life when she needs to be treated differently from a man. although the birth of a child does tend to be a big event in a man's life too and its hard for him to simply carry on as if nothing has happened.

thats why developed countries have parental leave, not just maternity leave.


Then someone needs to care for the baby. The mother does seem to be the obvious parent to do this - her body is designed to enable her to feed the baby, although there is nothing to stop the child's father taking on this role.
But what of toddlers? Many parents now place there children in nurseries from a very young age, so that they can both work. I believe that, while this not unethical, young children benefit from having their parents about, at least some of the time. By this stage, though, there is no reason why the mother should do this rather than the father.


even when a child spends the day in childcare away from the home, s/he still spends most of her with parents. they are still "about".


In short, women should be able to choose their path, and none should be considered "better" than another, and employers should make it easier for them to take a break from work to care for their families.


so true. even though we all have responsibilities that might keep us from our hearts desire at least for a while.