NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so for the two weeks running up to Valentines Day, I've been listening to 107.9 which is a Radio Talk station, but instead of politics it talks about normal life. Well, the two weeks before Valentines they've been talking about romantic ideas, gift, etc. You know the whole lovey dovey crap that I don't really care about.

So, one of the topic was Chore-play, which is where the man does some unexpected house work and apparently the woman is going to put out for him (yea right).

So I noticed that when they talk about chore-play or anything related to the husband and wife relationship, the wife always talk about "training" her husband or how they got their husband "trained". Hell even some of the men admitted that they are "trained".

What the Hell is this? Since when did we need to be trained? I mean excuse me but I'd like to think that I can keep a nice and tidy house without having to be "trained" to do it. God knows I don't live in a rat infested hell hole. This seems to be going on for awhile where women talk this way about their husband. Excuse me but if I ever have a wife talk about her "training" me, I'd walk out that door and ask for a divorce. Because I am not a dog, I'm not a child and I expect an equal relationship where neither side has to "train" the other side.

I'd like to see what happens if a man decides that his wife needs "training" or he "trained" his wife. I bet you 5 Euros (let face it the Dollar lost it value) that if that was even uttered once, the radio station would get a rash of calls from female wanting to chew the man out for even talking about his wife that way. But since it's a wife talking about her husband, they all laugh and I die alittle inside.

What do you guys think?

So, one of the topic was Chore-play, which is where the man does some unexpected house work and apparently the woman is going to put out for him (yea right).

Hey, a man willing to wash dishes is incredibly sexy. It beats the "hey, woman, get me a beer and a sandwich!" theory.

What do you guys think?
That you are going to die a little more inside by the end of this thread.

Ok, so for the two weeks running up to Valentines Day, I've been listening to 107.9 which is a Radio Talk station, but instead of politics it talks about normal life. Well, the two weeks before Valentines they've been talking about romantic ideas, gift, etc. You know the whole lovey dovey crap that I don't really care about.

So, one of the topic was Chore-play, which is where the man does some unexpected house work and apparently the woman is going to put out for him (yea right).

So I noticed that when they talk about chore-play or anything related to the husband and wife relationship, the wife always talk about "training" her husband or how they got their husband "trained". Hell even some of the men admitted that they are "trained".

What the Hell is this? Since when did we need to be trained? I mean excuse me but I'd like to think that I can keep a nice and tidy house without having to be "trained" to do it. God knows I don't live in a rat infested hell hole. This seems to be going on for awhile where women talk this way about their husband. Excuse me but if I ever have a wife talk about her "training" me, I'd walk out that door and ask for a divorce. Because I am not a dog, I'm not a child and I expect an equal relationship where neither side has to "train" the other side.

I'd like to see what happens if a man decides that his wife needs "training" or he "trained" his wife. I bet you 5 Euros (let face it the Dollar lost it value) that if that was even uttered once, the radio station would get a rash of calls from female wanting to chew the man out for even talking about his wife that way. But since it's a wife talking about her husband, they all laugh and I die alittle inside.

What do you guys think?

That you're getting way to worked up about this.

That you are going to die a little more inside by the end of this thread.

At this point I'm pretty much dead lol :p

That you're getting way to worked up about this.

So you don't think it's insulting that wives are talking about their husband like they're children or pets?

Betty: "Oh I just trained George to use the newspaper, he's such a good boy."

That's not demeaning?

Ok, so for the two weeks running up to Valentines Day, I've been listening to 107.9 which is a Radio Talk station, but instead of politics it talks about normal life. Well, the two weeks before Valentines they've been talking about romantic ideas, gift, etc. You know the whole lovey dovey crap that I don't really care about.

So, one of the topic was Chore-play, which is where the man does some unexpected house work and apparently the woman is going to put out for him (yea right).

So I noticed that when they talk about chore-play or anything related to the husband and wife relationship, the wife always talk about "training" her husband or how they got their husband "trained". Hell even some of the men admitted that they are "trained".

What the Hell is this? Since when did we need to be trained? I mean excuse me but I'd like to think that I can keep a nice and tidy house without having to be "trained" to do it. God knows I don't live in a rat infested hell hole. This seems to be going on for awhile where women talk this way about their husband. Excuse me but if I ever have a wife talk about her "training" me, I'd walk out that door and ask for a divorce. Because I am not a dog, I'm not a child and I expect an equal relationship where neither side has to "train" the other side.

I'd like to see what happens if a man decides that his wife needs "training" or he "trained" his wife. I bet you 5 Euros (let face it the Dollar lost it value) that if that was even uttered once, the radio station would get a rash of calls from female wanting to chew the man out for even talking about his wife that way. But since it's a wife talking about her husband, they all laugh and I die alittle inside.

What do you guys think?So you were born with an inherit knowledge of house cleaning? Why are you wasting all this money on school? Become a fucking maid.

Fight fire with fire. The best way to overcome sexism is to be as sexist and sexy as possible. How do you think racism is countered? By tolerance? No. By tougher racism. When will you people learn?

So you don't think it's insulting that wives are talking about their husband like they're children or pets?
Not really
Betty: "Oh I just trained George to use the newspaper, he's such a good boy."

That's not demeaning?

That is, but then you typed it up to be demeaning...

So you don't think it's insulting that wives are talking about their husband like they're children or pets?

Betty: "Oh I just trained George to use the newspaper, he's such a good boy."

That's not demeaning?

It is demeaning, and not a little sexist. I see much of the "feminine mystique" (claims that husbands can be trained, that wives are the ones who really run the family) as the inventions of either men to excuse the political inferiority of women or women who wanted to find a silver lining out of say, being barred from voting. Either way, it's delusional, and doesn't help anyone.

That being said, it's not your wife. I'd ignore it.

This shouldn't be happening in a world where Chore Wars exists :D

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070720.jpg

So you were born with an inherit knowledge of house cleaning? Why are you wasting all this money on school? Become a fucking maid.

Oooh.
Sexy. ;)

That, sadly, most guys do need to be trained that their version of 'Good enough' isn't for her.

And that, yes, you are getting too worked up about it.

That's not demeaning?

Demeaning can still be fun. If you get my demeaning.

I don't think he's getting too worked up about it. Cleanliness shouldn't be treated like an inborn trait, because it's something people have to learn. No woman or man is born with a natural clean instinct, everyone needs to be trained at some point. Even if men do rule the world, lot of the media stereotypes about men are offensive. I never see any father figures on tv who are like my father. They're usually fat, socially clueless jerks who are never good at cooking, or smart or competent at anything.

My dad has always been the neat freak of the family. It's really annoying because any time I drop something he goes berserk. This is because he was raised with alcoholic parents so he learned to do all the cleaning since nobody else would do it.

As long as I have her trained to put out she can pretty much train me to do anything. Feed me and sex me up and that is all I need...I am easily domesticated.

What I dislike more is the whole concept of 'chore-play'. It's demeaning to both sexes. It promotes the idea that a woman should only have sex if the man has done something for her before-hand.

Heaven forbid the idea she just might want to have sex because she enjoys it!

As long as I have her trained to put out she can pretty much train me to do anything. Feed me and sex me up and that is all I need...I am easily domesticated.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

Depends how you're using it. Sounds like the talk show host had some kind of behaviorist bent.

It wasn't just the host, it was also the female callers.

What I dislike more is the whole concept of 'chore-play'. It's demeaning to both sexes. It promotes the idea that a woman should only have sex if the man has done something for her before-hand.

Heaven forbid the idea she just might want to have sex because she enjoys it!

:eek:

Wimminz enjoying sex now? We can't be having that now! Everybody knows that sex is something only men enjoy, and that wimminz only have sex because they submit to men, their rightful masters! (Just like the Bible says.)

I don't agree with the use of the word "trained", either. Isn't "taught" a good enough word?

That, sadly, most guys do need to be trained that their version of 'Good enough' isn't for her.

Some of us had mothers, at least the ones *not* in prison. :p I was well acquainted with vacuum, mop and bucket by age 5.

Although I suppose it's all pretty sloppy if you're used to the Japanese (they basically invented "anal," didn't they?) :p

I don't agree with the use of the word "trained", either. Isn't "taught" a good enough word?

Depends how you're using it. Sounds like the talk show host had some kind of behaviorist bent.

It wasn't just the host, it was also the female callers.

They might've just been using the host's terminology, if they weren't psych majors. Although I think something like 2/3 of women over 22 have psych degrees. :p Not a real statistic of course, but the few classes I took were at least 3/4 women.

:eek:

Wimminz enjoying sex now? We can't be having that now! Everybody knows that sex is something only men enjoy, and that wimminz only have sex because they submit to men, their rightful masters! (Just like the Bible says.)

That, or they're whorez. Don't forget that option!

the moment our car is out of sight she starts dousing anything we've touched with bleach.:eek: It's Ruffy at the petting zoo all over again! :eek:

Some of us had mothers, at least the ones *not* in prison. :p I was well acquainted with vacuum, mop and bucket by age 5.

Although I suppose it's all pretty sloppy if you're used to the Japanese (they basically invented "anal," didn't they?) :p

Only if they invented my grandmother. I firmly believe that the moment our car is out of sight she starts dousing anything we've touched with bleach.

the Japanese (they basically invented "anal," didn't they?) :pAgain, i plead Ruffy.

So women can be trained too, and women would be okay with the use of that word?

I dare you to call up a nationally syndicated radio show and say that you "trained" your wife to do something.

And so the hypocrisies lies exposed to the sexes, yet because it is so pervasive it is not questioned. Woman typically try to overexert their superiority to the man, who not too many years ago did the same thing to them.

You call it sexism? I call it irony. Then again, history is like that. Once both or all sides of an issue experience both sides of the oppression coin, then they can discuss the removal of it as equals.

in before rant on feminazis

Depends how you're using it. Sounds like the talk show host had some kind of behaviorist bent.So women can be trained too, and women would be okay with the use of that word?

So women can be trained too, and women would be okay with the use of that word?

Eh. Sure, that's something a behaviorist would say, but probably within the confines of an academic journal, and not in public. :p

I'm "feminist", and I completely disagree with "training" ANYONE! Feminism = gender equality. Feminazi = sexist who thinks women are better than men.

Ah. I appear to have been misinterpreted. That should have read 'in before rant about feminazis'.

I would also argue that Feminazi = ridiculous buzzword coined as a strawman of the feminist movement.

Men aren't dogs!
I think there's room for argument here (thinks of pix on Sexiest thread) :p

Ok, so for the two weeks running up to Valentines Day, I've been listening to 107.9 which is a Radio Talk station, but instead of politics it talks about normal life. Well, the two weeks before Valentines they've been talking about romantic ideas, gift, etc. You know the whole lovey dovey crap that I don't really care about.

So, one of the topic was Chore-play, which is where the man does some unexpected house work and apparently the woman is going to put out for him (yea right).

So I noticed that when they talk about chore-play or anything related to the husband and wife relationship, the wife always talk about "training" her husband or how they got their husband "trained". Hell even some of the men admitted that they are "trained".

What the Hell is this? Since when did we need to be trained? I mean excuse me but I'd like to think that I can keep a nice and tidy house without having to be "trained" to do it. God knows I don't live in a rat infested hell hole. This seems to be going on for awhile where women talk this way about their husband. Excuse me but if I ever have a wife talk about her "training" me, I'd walk out that door and ask for a divorce. Because I am not a dog, I'm not a child and I expect an equal relationship where neither side has to "train" the other side.

I'd like to see what happens if a man decides that his wife needs "training" or he "trained" his wife. I bet you 5 Euros (let face it the Dollar lost it value) that if that was even uttered once, the radio station would get a rash of calls from female wanting to chew the man out for even talking about his wife that way. But since it's a wife talking about her husband, they all laugh and I die alittle inside.

What do you guys think?

I think it's utter bullshit, and it's sexist too. If you love someone you don't "train" them. Men (and women) aren't dogs!

You can always encourage someone to do housework, or show them how, or ask them nicely to do their share, but it's not "training", it's about sharing your life together, and sharing the workload, no matter how mundane it is.

in before feminazis rant

I'm "feminist", and I completely disagree with "training" ANYONE! Feminism = gender equality. Feminazi = sexist who thinks women are better than men.

Ok, first off I would like to ask why, in almost all threads you start, you come across as a wannabe-macho guy.Ok, so for the two weeks running up to Valentines Day, I've been listening to 107.9 which is a Radio Talk station, but instead of politics it talks about normal life. Well, the two weeks before Valentines they've been talking about romantic ideas, gift, etc. You know the whole lovey dovey crap that I don't really care about. If you don't care about the "lovey-dovey crap", then why did you listen to it? Would be easy to turn the station off.

So, one of the topic was Chore-play, which is where the man does some unexpected house work and apparently the woman is going to put out for him (yea right). Actually sounds like a fun game to play. But I doubt it would be "unexpected"...you know..like whatever the man cleans..the woman will use a part of what he cleans as a "prop"..hmm..interesting:D What the Hell is this? Since when did we need to be trained? When it became apparent you can't put the toilet seat back down.:p Excuse me but if I ever have a wife talk about her "training" me, I'd walk out that door and ask for a divorce. Good for HER. Because if a man/woman walks out the door automatically just because of THAT,they are not someone who was committed in the first place. Because I am not a dog, I'm not a child and I expect an equal relationship where neither side has to "train" the other side.Oh COME ON! It is just another word for "teach". It is also a common word used in that context when people are saying it in jest.Betty: "Oh I just trained George to use the newspaper, he's such a good boy."Oh now you are DELIBERATELY making that insulting with that part about the newspaper.
What do you guys think?That you need to find a new hobby.

Ok, first off I would like to ask why, in almost all threads you start, you come across as a wannabe-macho guy.

Because I'm just that awesome baby! :D

If you don't care about the "lovey-dovey crap", then why did you listen to it? Would be easy to turn the station off.

Because it was either this or love songs.

Actually sounds like a fun game to play. But I doubt it would be "unexpected"...you know..like whatever the man cleans..the woman will use a part of what he cleans as a "prop"..hmm..interesting:D

Well they actually said that the man has to do the chore first, and then they get the goodie.

When it became apparent you can't put the toilet seat back down.:p

I assume you got hands, and I assume you got eyes, I think I can also resonably assume that you can turn on a light switch. Ta da!

Good for HER. Because if a man/woman walks out the door automatically just because of THAT,they are not someone who was committed in the first place.

Yea, I doubt the women will find it so amusing if I use the same language back to her. She'd probably complain about me trying to "control" her. Blatant double standards.

Oh COME ON! It is just another word for "teach". It is also a common word used in that context when people are saying it in jest.

"Help" would be a better word, as in "I'm helping George clean the kitchen" or "Me and George are going to help each other with the house work."

Oh now you are DELIBERATELY making that insulting with that part about the newspaper.

Yea, but it isn't too far from what they've actually been saying.

That you need to find a new hobby.

I would be flying but for the past ten days I'd been on medication that made me sleepy, and I didn't want to be flying while drowsy.

I think it's utter bullshit, and it's sexist too. If you love someone you don't "train" them. Men (and women) aren't dogs!

You can always encourage someone to do housework, or show them how, or ask them nicely to do their share, but it's not "training", it's about sharing your life together, and sharing the workload, no matter how mundane it is.

Yay a woman who see's it my way! Whooo! :D

Yay a woman who see's it my way! Whooo! :DAn extremely HOT, intelligent and talented woman, i might add.

An extremely HOT, intelligent and talented woman, i might add.

*combs hair and check breath* :D :p

*combs hair and check breath* :D :p
o.0
Is THAT how you're supposed to do it? I always did it in the wrong order.

o.0
Is THAT how you're supposed to do it? I always did it in the wrong order.

I laughed. How do you comb breath anyways?

I laughed. How do you comb breath anyways?Starts with the tongue and nosehairs.

Men are natural organizers and cleaners. If you look at a woodshop, or a mechanic's shop, or anything like that, you'll see what I mean. Cleanliness and safety take precedent to all other tasks. It's just that men have very different ideas of what clean is from women. I say that clean is when I know where everything is, and everything functions better than normal because of the environment. For instance, I keep my computer dust-free, and my desk clear.

Excuse me....Train me?!

Train me?!

Train me?!

Train You! You training train.

Train me?!

Train me?!

Train You! You training train.
*notes pimp attire as well as spittlespray*

What do you guys think?

My wife and myself use this sort of terminolgy all the time, between us, as consenting adults. I play the mysoginist, she gets to slap at me. We know, and the kids know it is all playfull, that neither of us really mean it. So I'll ask how many wifes that say they have 'trained' their husbands, actualy mean it, or are they just engaging in playful banter?

"Oh, let's forget the widespread inferior position of women worldwide, the inequalities they face in their careers, the court, the household and all that! MY GOD, they get to use the term "trained"!! Now we really have to do something and sort out this inequality!!"


:rolleyes:

Get some perspective.

Yeah, I think the word training is a bit demeaning.
The fact that that 1 in 4 women in the UK will experience rape or attempted rape, and that 1 in 4 women in the UK will be in an abusive relationship is absolutely shocking.

I don't believe in reverse inequality, but we are nowhere near women being equal to men. Of course it's valid to voice complaints either way, but when you only make a fuss when it's effecting you, and are blind to everything else, I call BS about your concern for equality.

Actually sounds like a fun game to play. But I doubt it would be "unexpected"...you know..like whatever the man cleans..the woman will use a part of what he cleans as a "prop"..hmm..interesting:D
I for one will never ever ever wash the cheese grater or nutcracker at your place.

When it became apparent you can't put the toilet seat back down.:p.
We'll put it down when you learn to put it up. that's fair, isn't it?

"Oh, let's forget the widespread inferior position of women worldwide, the inequalities they face in their careers, the court, the household and all that! MY GOD, they get to use the term "trained"!! Now we really have to do something and sort out this inequality!!"


:rolleyes:

Get some perspective.

Yeah, I think the word training is a bit demeaning.
The fact that that 1 in 4 women in the UK will experience rape or attempted rape, and that 1 in 4 women in the UK will be in an abusive relationship is absolutely shocking.
I don't believe in reverse inequality, but we are nowhere near women being equal to men. Of course it's valid to voice complaints either way, but when you only make a fuss when it's effecting you, and are blind to everything else, I call BS about your concern for equality.

A souce please, on those statistics you mentioned.

What do you guys think?
I think it's yet another example of how patriarchy hurts men, too.

Patriarchy sez: "Womenz do the chores! Menz do not do the chores!" On the upside, men get to be told that it's only fitting for a woman to do all their chores for them. On the downside, the reasoning is that men are too fucking stupid to be able to vacuum or do laundry. For some strange reason, the much-vaunted "spacial skills" of the male species seem to disappear as soon as the "space" needs to be cleaned.

It's also ridiculously unfair to women, if you think about it. Why should a woman be expected to "train" her partner to do his chores? He's presumably an adult human of at least semi-normal functioning, yet he needs to be "trained" to clean up after himself? Since when? Why should a woman have to exert effort to get her partner to pull his own weight?

Short version: all the bunk about "training" men is insulting, to both men AND women. It is profoundly anti-feminist, so please don't anybody start with any crap about how feminism encourages this kind of shit. A feminist wouldn't be dating a lazy slob who refused to do his chores in the first place. :D

A souce please, on those statistics you mentioned.

Various related stats below. I think I may have been wrong about 1/4 women in the UK being raped. I think that's 1/5, and then 1/3 worldwide.

http://endabuse.org/resources/facts/

Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.5
Approximately one in five female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner.24
Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.26
One in five (21 percent) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.32
Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives.33

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10309

At least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime, according to a study based on 50 surveys from around the world
One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute
One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime


http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/home.asp

1 in 4 women in the UK will experience an act of domestic violence at some point in her lifetime (Mirrlees-Black, Domestic Violence: Findings from a new British Crime Survey: Self-completion Questionnaire, England & Wales, 1999).
Approximately 80,000 women suffer rape and attempted rape every year (Walby and Allen, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey, 2004).
Almost half of all women in the UK experience domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking (Home Office)

Ok, so for the two weeks running up to Valentines Day, I've been listening to 107.9 which is a Radio Talk station, but instead of politics it talks about normal life. Well, the two weeks before Valentines they've been talking about romantic ideas, gift, etc. You know the whole lovey dovey crap that I don't really care about.

So, one of the topic was Chore-play, which is where the man does some unexpected house work and apparently the woman is going to put out for him (yea right).

So I noticed that when they talk about chore-play or anything related to the husband and wife relationship, the wife always talk about "training" her husband or how they got their husband "trained". Hell even some of the men admitted that they are "trained".

What the Hell is this? Since when did we need to be trained? I mean excuse me but I'd like to think that I can keep a nice and tidy house without having to be "trained" to do it. God knows I don't live in a rat infested hell hole. This seems to be going on for awhile where women talk this way about their husband. Excuse me but if I ever have a wife talk about her "training" me, I'd walk out that door and ask for a divorce. Because I am not a dog, I'm not a child and I expect an equal relationship where neither side has to "train" the other side.

I'd like to see what happens if a man decides that his wife needs "training" or he "trained" his wife. I bet you 5 Euros (let face it the Dollar lost it value) that if that was even uttered once, the radio station would get a rash of calls from female wanting to chew the man out for even talking about his wife that way. But since it's a wife talking about her husband, they all laugh and I die alittle inside.

What do you guys think?



I agree with you, we should not be 'training' each other. I don't know where you are but my hubby came home before Valentine's day and he had heard the same show. I growled at him, because I despise him in "my" kitchen. He makes a mess and only creates more work for me in the long run. It pissed me off that some idiot radio nut said that is what men should be doing. :mad:

As I told my hubby, I want you in the kitchen just about as much as you want me reorganizing and 'cleaning' up your workbench. :rolleyes:

I agree with you 100% that 'training' a man is an idiotic idea and I for one like my 'domain' and want my man to stay the hell away from it. Unless I ask for help. :p If a woman thinks she can really train a man, she is an idiot anyway. You can't train men in the least. Women's number one fallacy is that they can change a man. :headbang:

I did realize my hubby was trying to find a special something to do for me for Valentine's day, so I chilled. I suggested he actually get the Christmas tree out of the house, since it has been stripped of it's decorations for over a month now. :( We went to Medieval Times instead. ;)

Because I'm just that awesome baby! :DYeah ok.Because it was either this or love songs.Don't think you tried hard enough. Well they actually said that the man has to do the chore first, and then they get the goodie.Yes I read that. I meant as in using something from the roomI assume you got hands, and I assume you got eyes, I think I can also resonably assume that you can turn on a light switch. Ta da!Well I guess I can't reasonably assume that you can take a joke. This might be your problem. But hey, I'll play...I should be able to reasonably assume that a guy wouldn't be THAT lazy as to not be able to just stick their thumb out while flushing (hoping they flush) to flip the seat down.
Yea, I doubt the women will find it so amusing if I use the same language back to her. She'd probably complain about me trying to "control" her. Blatant double standards.Er...I am doubtful that women even say it on a regular basis...seriously. From what you wrote, if she says it ONCE you will walk out. That just shows that you don't want to communicate with her on how that makes you feel.

I for one will never ever ever wash the cheese grater or nutcracker at your place.Aww..and I SO wanted to spank someone with a cheese grater.:(:p

Aww..and I SO wanted to spank someone with a cheese grater.:(:p
spanking I could put up with. I was more thinking of it being used in front, not behind.

Some of us had mothers, at least the ones *not* in prison. :p I was well acquainted with vacuum, mop and bucket by age 5.
I'd agree except that I've been to friends' houses and apartments and, well, I KNOW they had mothers and I also KNOW that their general idea of cleaning was that a bare patch of table was enough.

Sadly I was the same... and my apartment got a lot cleaner once my wife (The girlfriend) moved in.

Although I suppose it's all pretty sloppy if you're used to the Japanese (they basically invented "anal," didn't they?) :p
You have NO idea!

Various related stats below. I think I may have been wrong about 1/4 women in the UK being raped. I think that's 1/5, and then 1/3 worldwide.

http://endabuse.org/resources/facts/

Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.5
Approximately one in five female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner.24
Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.26
One in five (21 percent) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.32
Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives.33

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10309

At least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime, according to a study based on 50 surveys from around the world
One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute
One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime


http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/home.asp

1 in 4 women in the UK will experience an act of domestic violence at some point in her lifetime (Mirrlees-Black, Domestic Violence: Findings from a new British Crime Survey: Self-completion Questionnaire, England & Wales, 1999).
Approximately 80,000 women suffer rape and attempted rape every year (Walby and Allen, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey, 2004).
Almost half of all women in the UK experience domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking (Home Office)


And this justifies asshat behavior in the other direction how?

"Women are abused and degraded at the hands of certain asshole men. I know! Let's do something assholish and completely unrelated in return! That'll even the scales!"

Instead of justifying asshat sexist behavior against men, why not try to do something about some of the existing problems, most of which are grounded in stupidity and not encouraged by those in charge? For starters...I myself am doing my part to contain domestic violence and rape by not committing either. As for encouraging others to follow such an example...well, I'm no damn good at that.

Justifying stupidity with previous stupidity is to say that two wrongs make a right, regardless of the scale of said stupidity.

And this justifies asshat behavior in the other direction how?

"Women are abused and degraded at the hands of certain asshole men. I know! Let's do something assholish and completely unrelated in return! That'll even the scales!"

Instead of justifying asshat sexist behavior against men, why not try to do something about some of the existing problems, most of which are grounded in stupidity and not encouraged by those in charge? For starters...I myself am doing my part to contain domestic violence and rape by not committing either. As for encouraging others to follow such an example...well, I'm no damn good at that.

Justifying stupidity with previous stupidity is to say that two wrongs make a right, regardless of the scale of said stupidity.

And how did I attempt to justify anything? I don't agree with what the radio host/callers were saying, and don't support that behaviour.
I was simply making the point that there are far worse inequalities, and if you show no interest in them, you shouldn't have the right to complain about inequalities simply when they effect you.

I don't believe in reverse inequality, but we are nowhere near women being equal to men. Of course it's valid to voice complaints either way, but when you only make a fuss when it's effecting you, and are blind to everything else, I call BS about your concern for equality.

I just get pissed off at people who selectively talk about equality when for their own benefit, but don't give a damn about it when it's effecting other people. (And if you think I'm drawing large conclusions from one post, I know Wilgrove as a poster and he consistently shows this attitude.)

I just get pissed off at people who selectively talk about equality when for their own benefit, but don't give a damn about it when it's effecting other people. (And if you think I'm drawing large conclusions from one post, I know Wilgrove as a poster and he consistently shows this attitude.)

Oh yes, because I just enjoy beating and raping women. Hell the only reason that I can't keep a relationship going is that the women I date can't take a slap to the face or a savage vaginal raping. :rolleyes:

Get the fuck out and shut the fuck up. You know NOTHING about me and I will not have my name soiled by the likes of you.

chill dude.

No, I will not. I will not be made into a male chauvinist pig because I decide to call on some of the bullshit that women do to men, and that doesn't mean that I don't call on the bullshit that men do to women, so no I won't "chill".

Oh yes, because I just enjoy beating and raping women. Hell the only reason that I can't keep a relationship going is that the women I date can't take a slap to the face or a savage vaginal raping. :rolleyes:

Get the fuck out and shut the fuck up. You know NOTHING about me and I will not have my name soiled by the likes of you.

chill dude.

Er, I don't want to get too caught up on one side of the argument, but... Look at it this way, it is true that men have been stereotyped... Unfortunately, those stereotypes are usually true. But does that really give anyone the right to stereotype them?

As for the woman 'training' the man to do the cleaning... Well, I don't care who is doing the training, cause either you learn to do it yourself, don't do it at all, or get trained by someone who does it more often. But I know for a fact that not all women are cleanly maids that take care of the house 24/7. But it shouldn't be sexist at all... I mean, if a man cleans for his family, then he could just as easily teach his neighbor (be it woman or man) to clean just as well.

Gah, what am I doing posting this anyway? I feel like a moron entering an argument XP

But there ARE worse sexist comments out there made by men and women alike to each other. This is relatively small compared to something like 'I Love New York', in which the woman wants a man she can CONTROL. But that's a different topic altogether (that love should be equal and not controlling)

I play the mysoginist, she gets to slap at me. We know, and the kids know it is all playfull, that neither of us really mean it.
Yeah, this can't possibly lead to awkward situations in the future.

As far as I know though, you tend to talk dismissively and insultingly of feminists.

Proof please?

Oh yes, because I just enjoy beating and raping women. Hell the only reason that I can't keep a relationship going is that the women I date can't take a slap to the face or a savage vaginal raping. :rolleyes:

Get the fuck out and shut the fuck up. You know NOTHING about me and I will not have my name soiled by the likes of you.
When did I say that you enjoy beating or raping women?? If that's what you got from what I said, I'm very sorry, but that's quite a leap to make.

I'm simply saying that, from my observations of your posting, you've never seemed to be that supportive of feminist causes.
I've never heard you complain about inequalities against women, yet you complain about this minor inequality against men.
You tend to dismiss feminism as unnecessary.

If any of that is untrue, and actually you would call yourself a feminist and care deeply about the widespread injustices against women, I deeply apologise. As far as I know though, you tend to talk dismissively and insultingly of feminists.

Yeah, this can't possibly lead to awkward situations in the future.

Correct. Although I think I smell sarcasm! Explain your self.

When did I say that you enjoy beating or raping women?? If that's what you got from what I said, I'm very sorry, but that's quite a leap to make.

I'm simply saying that, from my observations of your posting, you've never seemed to be that supportive of feminist causes.
I've never heard you complain about inequalities against women, yet you complain about this minor inequality against men.
You tend to dismiss feminism as unnecessary.

If any of that is untrue, and actually you would call yourself a feminist and care deeply about the widespread injustices against women, I deeply apologise. As far as I know though, you tend to talk dismissively and insultingly of feminists.
I'll second that, I think Glitz put it quite well.

I'll second that, I think Glitz put it quite well.
Thanks.
I was starting to get paranoid that I had the wrong poster, but I am pretty damn sure those are the attitudes he's always expressed. He's never been outright mysognistic or anything, as far as I know, but (as with the vast majority of people) doesn't seem to care much about the existing inferior position of women.

Ok, just to make sure there's no more confusion, I shall now present

Wilgrove's OFFICIAL stance on Women's right in the USA.


I believe that women should be paid equal to men for equal amount of work. If a woman and a man both work 8 hours, doing the same job, they should get paid equally.
I believe that women should have the same rights, the same amount of freedom and liberty as men.
I advocate an equal relationship between men and women. No one should be superior to the other.
Wilgrove has never told any of his girlfriend what to do, he has always asked, and asked to be treated with the same respect in return.
Women should have the same protection under the law as men.
Women should have the same rights to privacy as men, this does include abortions. Let's not get into Wilgrove's official stance on abortion.
Any men who rape or abuse women, physically, emotionally or sexually should be punished for it by the courts.
Wilgrove does not see women as the "weaker" sex. He knows lots of strong women.
Wilgrove still practices Chivalry.


That is Wilgrove's OFFICIAL Stance on Women's rights in the USA.

Surely Chivalry is sexist as it came from the idea of women as weaker...
(I'm male, and practice chivalry)

Men and women are not the same. Their brains are slightly different so they do better at certain tasks than the opposite gender (e.g. multitasking).

As for "training", only servants need training. If any woman sees a man as needing treatment given to servants then she should be divorced. Now we're "Equal" lets stop treating the other gender as servants. Servants should be treated as such.

This is from personal experience:

I tell my boyfriend when he does or doesn't do something, which bugs me, and tell him how I would like to see him make an effort to change. Normally, this leads to a discussion between us about our person views on the matter, and in the end a compromise is settled on. That is behavioural conditioning, and in a sense, training. He knows that if he does a small extra thing at no cost to himself, it would make me much happier, therefore he does it. The same goes the opposite way, and in a sense, we train each other to not get on each other's nerves and make our relationship better. I don't see there being anything wrong with the concept, other than maybe the usage of the word "train", which carries a patronizing connotation. I agree with many before me that you are WAY overreacting. So what? I train my boyfriend, and he trains me. Without this training, we would've annoyed each other to death already.

. You know NOTHING about me and I will not have my name soiled by the likes of you.

What? A Woman?

.....

Seriously though, if your not going to chill out, at least get some perspective. Glitzyness was correct in pointing out that when gender equality is being discussed. Women get a far rawer deal then men.

Boo fucking hoo, you heard a woman on the radio suggesting that men be trained and sex be used as a weapon. If all you have to worry about is being demeaned then count yourself lucky I suppose.

I have an interesting question then...

If "training" is degrading as people here seem to think it is, then perhaps we should stop using it in an academic sense, ie: "vocation training". Or on-the-job-training...

Or perhaps this is just an over-reaction because training doesn't always constitute something negative. It has to do with being taught how to do something. It's just a euphemism.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, especially when you're breaking a partner's bad habit (this was briefly covered earlier). You have to condition them to act a certain way, so in effect, you train them.

This does have a negative feel to it when it's unnecessary. Lets just remember it's a word and then take that word out of Wilgrove's OP and replace it with a word with the same meaning and see how much the context changes.

If men tried that we'd be killed and our severed heads impaled on spikes on London Bridge.

40 years ago women were opressed a bit.

Today men are opressed.
How are men oppressed?

If men tried that we'd be killed and our severed heads impaled on spikes on London Bridge.

40 years ago women were opressed a bit.

Today men are opressed.

You're funny.

If men tried that we'd be killed and our severed heads impaled on spikes on London Bridge.

40 years ago women were opressed a bit.

Today men are opressed.

Any reference my wife makes to 'training' me is done affectionately and as a joke. I freely admit she likes to keep a neater house than I would do left to my own devices, but I tend to do slightly more of the house work because I work shorter hours and am therefore home before she is - it makes sense for me to put a load of laundry on when I get home - not because I've been trained.

However, writing as a man who has shared accommodation with women - whether platonically or romantically - for some years, I do think that there's one area where men do need to be 'trained': putting the toilet seat down.

Until you've shared living space with a woman, you can't understand just why this one bothers women so much; and lads, a word of advice: just learn to put the seat down afterwards. It doesn't hurt you or inconvenience you, and this one small compromise does wonders for domestic harmony.

There is a sociological perspective that says the oppressors end up oppressed by their own system. Take for example, traditional role of men and women. I think it's fair to say that males were the more repressive gender, this is true. however from a sociologicla perspective, by enforcing these oppressive roles, it had the effect of disallowing those who, even in the "oppressive" side of things, were not able to break those roles.

So while women were forced to stay at home, this cast men in the position of the "breadwinners". But what of the men who actually wanted to stay home with the kids? They were stuck in their gender roles just as much as the women were...

That being said, this nonsense that "men are oppressed" now, I doubt has the sophistication to consider such a position.

If men tried that we'd be killed and our severed heads impaled on spikes on London Bridge.

40 years ago women were opressed a bit.

Today men are opressed.

Actually women were very much oppressed 40 years ago.
A better argument would be that because the education system in the UK is better suited towards women now which explains their better grades.
Because men are typically better at physical learning and activity than women, (e.g. tend to have larger bodies) whereas women tend to learn better by talking and looking, so education is perfect for them, also there tends to be more female primary teachers than men, so that might have an effect. Of course there's plenty of exceptions to this, but i think it still counts.

Or even say that because women have stronger networks of friends they can cope with things better than men?
That the workplace has seen a reduction in heavy industry and manual labour, both jobs men used to do well, now it's office work where women tend to be more productive in.
Of course this doesn't justify horrific behaviour, but it might go some way to explain it.
I'm sure there's better arguments than that but that's what i've picked up from reading various news sources in sociology.

There is a sociological perspective that says the oppressors end up oppressed by their own system. Take for example, traditional role of men and women. I think it's fair to say that males were the more repressive gender, this is true. however from a sociologicla perspective, by enforcing these oppressive roles, it had the effect of disallowing those who, even in the "oppressive" side of things, were not able to break those roles.

So while women were forced to stay at home, this cast men in the position of the "breadwinners". But what of the men who actually wanted to stay home with the kids? They were stuck in their gender roles just as much as the women were...

That being said, this nonsense that "men are oppressed" now, I doubt has the sophistication to consider such a position.

Doesn't these things usually swing like a pendium through the ages? This is an honest question and no I'm not trying to say that I'm being oppressed. Hell as a white male in the United States, I got it made.

Doesn't these things usually swing like a pendium through the ages? This is an honest question and no I'm not trying to say that I'm being oppressed. Hell as a white male in the United States, I got it made.

if the pendulum swings can you show me where in history, with the exception of a few isolated societies, has it ever been the other way?

There is a sociological perspective that says the oppressors end up oppressed by their own system. Take for example, traditional role of men and women. I think it's fair to say that males were the more repressive gender, this is true. however from a sociologicla perspective, by enforcing these oppressive roles, it had the effect of disallowing those who, even in the "oppressive" side of things, were not able to break those roles.

So while women were forced to stay at home, this cast men in the position of the "breadwinners". But what of the men who actually wanted to stay home with the kids? They were stuck in their gender roles just as much as the women were...

That being said, this nonsense that "men are oppressed" now, I doubt has the sophistication to consider such a position.
I don't neccessarily think that it's the repressive role which is limiting. It's the fact that there are gender roles and stereotypes itself which limits what a person is allowed to or can do. In the end, it doesn't matter if a role is repressive or submissive, it's still a role, and that doesn't allow a lot of people to do what they truly want.

if the pendulum swings can you show me where in history, with the exception of a few isolated societies, has it ever been the other way?

Well beside the few isolated incidents of where women had the power to rule over a country, Cleopatra and Queen Elizabeth comes to mind, then I'd say that the Pendulum is pretty much near the middle right now. However, since the Feminism movement in the 60's and 70's I have seen a power struggle between the sexs as they try to equal each other out.

Oh yes, because I just enjoy beating and raping women. Hell the only reason that I can't keep a relationship going is that the women I date can't take a slap to the face or a savage vaginal raping. :rolleyes:

Get the fuck out and shut the fuck up. You know NOTHING about me and I will not have my name soiled by the likes of you.

Chill out NOW. That's not at all what was said to you.

That said, you do post a noticeable number of threads in which you complain of how women treat men, you ridicule women and your perception of how they carry on their relationships with men, and growl about how you won't tolerate the least little 'slight' to your manhood or perception of manhood. You can see, I hope, why people are a little irritated by your attitude?

Well beside the few isolated incidents of where women had the power to rule over a country, Cleopatra and Queen Elizabeth comes to mind, then I'd say that the Pendulum is pretty much near the middle right now. However, since the Feminism movement in the 60's and 70's I have seen a power struggle between the sexs as they try to equal each other out.

Ah but therein lies the problem. Queen Elizabeth and Cleopatra weren't examples of "women rule" they were, if anything, abhorations in the society. Elizabeth and her sister Mary were monarchs not because they were women, but because there were no men i the line of succession after the Third Succession Act

Chill out NOW. That's not at all what was said to you.

That said, you do post a noticeable number of threads in which you complain of how women treat men, you ridicule women and your perception of how they carry on their relationships with men, and growl about how you won't tolerate the least little 'slight' to your manhood or perception of manhood. You can see, I hope, why people are a little irritated by your attitude?

Obviously, no he can't Kat :(

Well beside the few isolated incidents of where women had the power to rule over a country, Cleopatra and Queen Elizabeth comes to mind, then I'd say that the Pendulum is pretty much near the middle right now. However, since the Feminism movement in the 60's and 70's I have seen a power struggle between the sexs as they try to equal each other out.
But that is not at all what you suggested in your previous post. For the pendulum analogy to work, there would've had to been times in history when the male-female dominance roles have been switched, which there hasn't been. We're not just talking rulers, but society in general. While Queen Elizabeth was ruling, women were still considered submissive to men. Your analogy itself didn't make sense, and I think that's what Neo Art was getting at.
Chill out NOW. That's not at all what was said to you.

That said, you do post a noticeable number of threads in which you complain of how women treat men, you ridicule women and your perception of how they carry on their relationships with men, and growl about how you won't tolerate the least little 'slight' to your manhood or perception of manhood. You can see, I hope, why people are a little irritated by your attitude?
*worships Kat*

That said, you do post a noticeable number of threads in which you complain of how women treat men, you ridicule women and your perception of how they carry on their relationships with men, and growl about how you won't tolerate the least little 'slight' to your manhood or perception of manhood. You can see, I hope, why people are a little irritated by your attitude?

I only post my observation and my personal reaction to the observation. I have never said that women shouldn't be treated equal to men and I have never advocated one sex dominance above the other. I have advocated that each sex respect each other (and it's true I do need to learn some respect myself). I find that between the sexes, there seem to be a lack of respect, and that goes both way.

As for my "macho man" attitude that I have, well all I can say to that effect is that I try to put out a strong face, in here, in my personal life and to the public eye. I may have gone overboard but I still need to be seen as a strong individual.

I apologize about my earlier outburst and I apologize to Glitzyness and anyone else who was offended by said outburst.

Ah but therein lies the problem. Queen Elizabeth and Cleopatra weren't examples of "women rule" they were, if anything, abhorations in the society. Elizabeth and her sister Mary were monarchs not because they were women, but because there were no men i the line of succession after the Third Succession Act

Margret Thatcher?
or er Condeleeza Rice, or Hillary Clinton?
Yeah those don't seem to be very good examples. I failed.
I'd go with the idea that women are still under-represented in Political circles, and the very rich circles too. Although it has improved, not by enough. And alot of studies also support the idea that women don't make the main decisions in a male/female relationship, and still do more of the domestic work. Of course there are many other types of family (lone-parent, reconstituted, Extended family) to be considered, and you could say that some women actually like their relationship, to do the chores etc while the man works.

Margret Thatcher?
or er Condeleeza Rice, or Hillary Clinton?
Yeah those don't seem to be very good examples. I failed.

You demonstrated well enough that we are more closely approaching an "equal" state than we have in the past. As you say, women are still under represented in politics. Hillary Clinton might be our first woman president. Thatcher was the first, and only female Prime Minister of Britain.

Are the examples that we're approaching equality? Approaching, but not yet achieved? yes, sure. But that's not what wilgrove said. He stated that the pendulum "swings" over time. His exact words were:

Doesn't these things [gender dominance of a society] usually swing like a pendium through the ages?

For a pendulum to 'swing" back and forth, it's not sufficient to show instances in which women were in power, but rather to show the "other side" of the pendulum, instances of society where societies were dominated by women. Clinton Thatcher and Rice may be good examples of the "male dominance" of our society slowly phasing out to a state of equality, and in that your examples are fine. But it's not an example of Wilgrove's claim that the pendulum "swings", because you'd have to show not only societies that had women rulers (which is not a sign of women dominance in and of itself) but actual societies that were managed, ruled, and dominated by women. Which with the exception of a few smaller societies at a tribal level, I can think of none.

or, to put it as Ladamesansmerci put it:

For the pendulum analogy to work, there would've had to been times in history when the male-female dominance roles have been switched, which there hasn't been. We're not just talking rulers, but society in general. While Queen Elizabeth was ruling, women were still considered submissive to men. Your analogy itself didn't make sense, and I think that's what Neo Art was getting at.

or, to put it another way, the mere presence of a woman ruler doesn't mean that women, at large, are not subjugated by the male driven society over all.

How are men oppressed?

They are oppressed because they can't tell the bitch to get into the kitchen and make him a sandwich because she'll up and leave if he does. *nods*

It really boils down to control. Men have lost the right to control women, which at this stage amounts to oppression. They had a 'right' taken away, though women aren't weeping over that one.

They are oppressed because they can't tell the bitch to get into the kitchen and make him a sandwich because she'll up and leave if he does. *nods*

It really boils down to control. Men have lost the right to control women, which at this stage amounts to oppression. They had a 'right' taken away, though women aren't weeping over that one.

OI!one one one.
I like making my own sandwiches, the only sandwiches other people make for me are ones i buy.

Seems to make sense, a reversal of the 'traditional' role the male.
But what will they do now? This is a pretty bad time to be a guy. (of course i suppose World War One could be a worse example).

Thatcher was the first, and only female Prime Minister of Britain.

Superficial evidence to the contrary, many of us who lived through the Thatcher years seriously doubt whether Britain has ever had a female Prime Minister.

[sorry - couldn't resist; probably a dangerous thread to be making that sort of joke]

Superficial evidence to the contrary, many of us who lived through the Thatcher years seriously doubt whether Britain has ever had a female Prime Minister.

[sorry - couldn't resist; probably a dangerous thread to be making that sort of joke]

Well, Lady Thatcher is a very..um...handsom woman

Well, Lady Thatcher is a very..um...handsom woman

Baroness Thatcher ;)


Though you do bring up an interesting point. I am slightly too young to try and say this is a personal observation. But I have heard from a number of people that say she definately got more masculine in her demenour and speech the closer she got to power and the longer she held it.


TBH though, I haven't set aside the time to see for myself.

Cleaning?

Heck, I was brought up to clean after myself and not be a lazy bastage(intentional typo). If your gonna be in a relationship, at least help out with some things and not sit around all day and do nothing. And if you think about it, if you get off work and your wife/girlfriend is at work and you start cleaning, the more you do the more you work out. Sometimes hard chores keep you fit, like helping with the garden for example. Or doing some odd construction on the house.

Basically it all depends on your preference. Whether you help out or choose to make someone else do it, I don't think it can't be argued that a man doing household chores is insane. Cleaning, odd fix'em-up'ers, and the occasional mechanical work on the motor-driven yard equipment and automobiles, really keeps you fit and retains those skills you learned long ago.

At least thats what I think. I could be wrong, or not. Either way I don't think its horrible to clean up after yourself and occasionally your wife/girlfriend.

No, I will not. I will not be made into a male chauvinist pig because I decide to call on some of the bullshit that women do to men, and that doesn't mean that I don't call on the bullshit that men do to women, so no I won't "chill".
The thing is, my friend, this particular bullshit isn't simply something women to do men. It's something that is done TO both men and women. It is bullshit that harms men AND women. Yes, the men are being insulted by being "trained," but don't forget that the women are being insulted at the same time.

In the "training" scenario, women are 1) not allowed to want sex for themselves, 2) expected to spend their time and energy "training" an adult man, 3) assumed to want to be in a relationship with the kind of idiot who requires this "training," and 4) assumed to be "naturally" better at doing all the shit jobs that nobody likes to do but which must get done anyhow, which generally leads to the whining conclusion that women should just shut up and do the work instead of nagging the poor helpless menfolk.

Don't portray this as poor poor men being picked on by meanie women. It's about BOTH men and women being degraded by sexist, patriarchal bullshit.

Feminism fights against this kind of crap all the time. I'll be happy to accept your thanks, on behalf of feminism, for the great strides we have made in reducing the prevalence of these myths in modern culture. I'd also be happy to bring you on board to help us with our ongoing efforts to make yet greater strides in de-crappifying the crappy sexist crap that remains.

Actually women were very much oppressed 40 years ago.
A better argument would be that because the education system in the UK is better suited towards women now which explains their better grades.
Because men are typically better at physical learning and activity than women, (e.g. tend to have larger bodies) whereas women tend to learn better by talking and looking, so education is perfect for them, also there tends to be more female primary teachers than men, so that might have an effect. Of course there's plenty of exceptions to this, but i think it still counts.

I find this bullshit more hilarious each time I read it.

The modern education system was designed back when girls weren't even allowed to go to school. The strict, "sit still and shut up" structure of schools was far MORE common back when schools were for boys only. Indeed, the more progressive, active, and interactive learning models have only become popular since coeducation became the norm. Back when schools were for boys only, the leading myth was that girls couldn't possibly handle the strictness and the structure, what with their soft feminine brains.

When girls are being out-performed by boys, the reason is always female inferiority. When girls are out-performing boys, the reason is always that the poor boys are the victims of oppression. It's so cute.


Or even say that because women have stronger networks of friends they can cope with things better than men?

Or, alternatively, women are just too catty and petty and emotional, while men are cool and rational and capable. Whichever bullshit sexist stereotype you want to use to prop up your pet theory at the moment.


That the workplace has seen a reduction in heavy industry and manual labour, both jobs men used to do well, now it's office work where women tend to be more productive in.

I hate to break it to you, but women have always contributed heavily when it comes to manual labor. Please don't buy into the evo-devo lies about how menfolks hunted while womenfolks sat around the fire braiding each others' hair.

Also, I know we're not supposed to count all the MANUAL LABOR of maintaining a home, because that's just women work and doesn't count, but...well, fuckit. Yes it does count. In the USA, to this day, it is typical for women to spend 70% more time engaged in routine UNPAID manual labor, compared to men. It's just that women's manual labor is ignored or dismissed, while male manual labor is noted (and usually paid for).

The amussing thing out this topic is that someone feels that the whole "training men" thing is sexism towards men. Yes, its stupid and any woman who believes men need to be trained is a moron, but the funny thing is, men cultivate and perpetuate this idea on a regular basis.


The media always portrays men as wild and free, untamed by the trappings of domestication, and that "teh ebil uppity womenz" are out to tame them and make them less free.


So, yes, there is sexism here, but its not against men.

The amussing thing out this topic is that someone feels that the whole "training men" thing is sexism towards men. Yes, its stupid and any woman who believes men need to be trained is a moron, but the funny thing is, men cultivate and perpetuate this idea on a regular basis.

Yeah, idiotic patriarchal gender roles have a habit of being perpetuated. You're making a very broad, and almost sexist, generalization there. "Men" don't do anything, we don't share a hive mind.


The media always portrays men as wild and free, untamed by the trappings of domestication, and that "teh ebil uppity womenz" are out to tame them and make them less free.

Or they're portrayed as stupid, inept, and completly and utterly helpless in domestic situations. Oh, and completely and utterly controlled by their penises.


So, yes, there is sexism here, but its not against men.

No, it's not just against men. We both suffer under the old, patriarchal gender roles. This is no exception.

Wilgrove's OFFICIAL stance on Women's right in the USA.

-snip-

Good to know. But I hope you realise those are all things that society has not achieved?

I have an interesting question then...

If "training" is degrading as people here seem to think it is, then perhaps we should stop using it in an academic sense, ie: "vocation training". Or on-the-job-training...

Or perhaps this is just an over-reaction because training doesn't always constitute something negative. It has to do with being taught how to do something. It's just a euphemism.
Perhaps it feels demeaning because in training to do with a career, it's fair to assume the person training you is superior to you in the skills being taught and status of the company etc. Whereas here, assuming superiority and a higher status is unfair.
Just a thought.

If men tried that we'd be killed and our severed heads impaled on spikes on London Bridge.

40 years ago women were opressed a bit.

Today men are opressed.
Ah, how lovely it must be to live in such a naive world where a few unfair terms = oppression....

Until you've shared living space with a woman, you can't understand just why this one bothers women so much; and lads, a word of advice: just learn to put the seat down afterwards. It doesn't hurt you or inconvenience you, and this one small compromise does wonders for domestic harmony.
Personally, as a woman, I can't understand why it bothers anyone so much :p

So while women were forced to stay at home, this cast men in the position of the "breadwinners". But what of the men who actually wanted to stay home with the kids? They were stuck in their gender roles just as much as the women were...

Very true.
I think I agree with Ladame when she says (far more eloquently) that trying to enforce any strict nonseniscal roles for people will never be beneficial.

-snip-
Thanks.

I apologize about my earlier outburst and I apologize to Glitzyness and anyone else who was offended by said outburst.
No big deal.

When girls are being out-performed by boys, the reason is always female inferiority. When girls are out-performing boys, the reason is always that the poor boys are the victims of oppression. It's so cute.
That's always annoyed me, that one.

I hate to break it to you, but women have always contributed heavily when it comes to manual labor. Please don't buy into the evo-devo lies about how menfolks hunted while womenfolks sat around the fire braiding each others' hair.

Also, I know we're not supposed to count all the MANUAL LABOR of maintaining a home, because that's just women work and doesn't count, but...well, fuckit. Yes it does count. In the USA, to this day, it is typical for women to spend 70% more time engaged in routine UNPAID manual labor, compared to men. It's just that women's manual labor is ignored or dismissed, while male manual labor is noted (and usually paid for).
Interesting to look at after WWII, when women contributed heavily to manual labour needed for the war, there was a kind of panic and society went into overdrive trying to emphasise femininity (especially in advertising). Couldn't possibly have people realising that women were just as capable and efficient at "mens jobs" as men, if not better!!

The media always portrays men as wild and free, untamed by the trappings of domestication, and that "teh ebil uppity womenz" are out to tame them and make them less free.
You know what I really hate? The whole "whipped" thing that's used any time a women has a say in the relationship, or any time a guy shows respect and consideration for his partner. "You're letting your woman out of the house, and letting her actually have opinions??"

Or they're portrayed as stupid, inept, and completly and utterly helpless in domestic situations. Oh, and completely and utterly controlled by their penises.
Of course, that's incredibly insulting, and I don't get why many men like to perpetuate that (in the same way I don't get why some females like to perpetuate the bimbo stereotype).
But, then again, the stereotype is often used to the mens benefit and the womens detriment: women end up doing the household stuff, and men have been continually excused from rape and sexual harrasment, while women have had to put up with it. The stereotype also seems to be dismissed when it suits men e.g. men get control over the finances, and women can be blamed for being the temptress.

So, while I sympathise with all the men who hate these stereotypes, I can't sympathise too much because, even though they're insulting, they've been practically very beneficial for men.

Of course, that's incredibly insulting, and I don't get why many men like to perpetuate that (in the same way I don't get why some females like to perpetuate the bimbo stereotype).

Perhaps because that's what the media conditions us to believe?


But, then again, the stereotype is often used to the mens benefit and the womens detriment: women end up doing the household stuff, and men have been continually excused from rape and sexual harrasment, while women have had to put up with it. The stereotype also seems to be dismissed when it suits men e.g. men get control over the finances, and women can be blamed for being the temptress.

So, while I sympathise with all the men who hate these stereotypes, I can't sympathise too much because, even though they're insulting, they've been practically very beneficial for men.

No arguments here. I just hate that these things seem to just get dismissed from the larger picture, usually with either "What are you complaining about?" or "How dare you complain at all!" Sexist stereotypes are sexist stereotypes, whether or not they've been twisted to benefit one gender. Yes, it's not as bad as what women have had to put up with, but that doesn't make it right. Axing these stereotypes serves double-duty: guys like me that hate them no longer have to suffer them and guys that use them no longer get to hide behind them.

How are men oppressed?

Why, by being expected to do the washing up occasionally, of course.

And being asked to put their clothes into the hamper instead of dropping them wherever they happen to be.

And asking them to be courteous enough to lower the toilet seat after they've raised it.

All very oppressive, no?

There is a sociological perspective that says the oppressors end up oppressed by their own system. Take for example, traditional role of men and women. I think it's fair to say that males were the more repressive gender, this is true. however from a sociologicla perspective, by enforcing these oppressive roles, it had the effect of disallowing those who, even in the "oppressive" side of things, were not able to break those roles.

So while women were forced to stay at home, this cast men in the position of the "breadwinners". But what of the men who actually wanted to stay home with the kids? They were stuck in their gender roles just as much as the women were...

That being said, this nonsense that "men are oppressed" now, I doubt has the sophistication to consider such a position.

TBH I don't care who stays home and who works -- but if, for the sake of the argument, I am the "breadwinner" and my hypothetical husband is the "househusband", I would hope that the grocery shopping would be done, the wash, and that the house does not look like a complete disaster -- especially centered around the Lazyboy. I don't feel it would be equitable for one to work while the other watches football or plays video games all day.

That said, yes, if one is a housewife, the same should happen. When the working partner gets home, the home should not be a federal disaster area, and the home-upkeep job should be done.

If both partners work, then both are responsible for splitting the chores.

TBH I don't care who stays home and who works -- but if, for the sake of the argument, I am the "breadwinner" and my hypothetical husband is the "househusband", I would hope that the grocery shopping would be done, the wash, and that the house does not look like a complete disaster -- especially centered around the Lazyboy. I don't feel it would be equitable for one to work while the other watches football or plays video games all day.

That said, yes, if one is a housewife, the same should happen. When the working partner gets home, the home should not be a federal disaster area, and the home-upkeep job should be done.

If both partners work, then both are responsible for splitting the chores.

That's the way I look at it too. If you're going to assume the role, actually do the work. If neither want to assume the housekeeper role, well then you're both kinda stuck with it.

I only post my observation and my personal reaction to the observation. I have never said that women shouldn't be treated equal to men and I have never advocated one sex dominance above the other. I have advocated that each sex respect each other (and it's true I do need to learn some respect myself). I find that between the sexes, there seem to be a lack of respect, and that goes both way.

As for my "macho man" attitude that I have, well all I can say to that effect is that I try to put out a strong face, in here, in my personal life and to the public eye. I may have gone overboard but I still need to be seen as a strong individual.

I apologize about my earlier outburst and I apologize to Glitzyness and anyone else who was offended by said outburst.

This may be a bit personal, but I am saying it from the perspective of someone who's been on the planet a fair amount of time...

There is a difference between strength of character and putting on a facade of "macho." There are plenty of men right here on this forum who don't feel the need to prove that they are worthy of respect by acting tough. Acting tough does not equate to necessarily being respected or well liked -- as a matter of fact, in many cases I would observe it has actually done quite the opposite.

In general (and this is not aimed at you specifically, just a general observation about a style of posting I see on site), speaking disparagingly about group A, no matter who or what group A may be, doesn't make group B look better by default. Only by demonstrating qualities that society finds admirable can group B distinguish itself.

Pity it's so hard to get servants these days. Once this argument would have been very limited and people would have just said "oh, well, if they don't have servants they must pay the price", hoity toitily and strode / rode off.

Perhaps because that's what the media conditions us to believe?
But when it's so clearly insulting, why believe it?
I don't understand people :P

No arguments here. I just hate that these things seem to just get dismissed from the larger picture, usually with either "What are you complaining about?" or "How dare you complain at all!" Sexist stereotypes are sexist stereotypes, whether or not they've been twisted to benefit one gender. Yes, it's not as bad as what women have had to put up with, but that doesn't make it right. Axing these stereotypes serves double-duty: guys like me that hate them no longer have to suffer them and guys that use them no longer get to hide behind them.
Agree completely. These stereotypes are usually beneficial for a few powerful people, and that's why they're continued, but the majority of people suffer due to them, in big or small ways.
I only get annoyed when guys complain about this kinda stuff, but dismiss the crap women have to put up with. Of course, it doesn't make the point any less valid. Just makes me like them less :P

But when it's so clearly insulting, why believe it?
I don't understand people :P

Makes my head hurt too...


Agree completely. These stereotypes are usually beneficial for a few powerful people, and that's why they're continued, but the majority of people suffer due to them, in big or small ways.
I only get annoyed when guys complain about this kinda stuff, but dismiss the crap women have to put up with. Of course, it doesn't make the point any less valid. Just makes me like them less :P

And they said the genders would never be able to understand one another ;)

Makes my head hurt too...

And they said the genders would never be able to understand one another ;)
As I said, understanding most people is pretty damn hard I think!
Gender, age, background..... regardless of all that, everyone's confusing in their own special way :p

Pity it's so hard to get servants these days. Once this argument would have been very limited and people would have just said "oh, well, if they don't have servants they must pay the price", hoity toitily and strode / rode off.

Because everyone, of course, was upper class and could afford servants. It's only with this darned equality... thing that people can't afford them....

Oh wait... that's right, you need poor/working class people to BE the servants, so not everyone had them in the good old days!

Servants are not at all hard to get: you merely have to have the wherewithal to pay them. A good friend of mine as been the cook/nanny for a doctor's family for about ten years; I know more than a few people who hire a 'cleaning girl' to tidy up the place. The service industry is alive and well.

Because everyone, of course, was upper class and could afford servants. It's only with this darned equality... thing that people can't afford them....

Oh wait... that's right, you need poor/working class people to BE the servants, so not everyone had them in the good old days!

Servants are not at all hard to get: you merely have to have the wherewithal to pay them. A good friend of mine as been the cook/nanny for a doctor's family for about ten years; I know more than a few people who hire a 'cleaning girl' to tidy up the place.

I was actually mocking the olden days a bit there. That said, until the Great War (what was so Great?), the whole middle class by and large had servants, and many poorer families had help (or children).

Also A life in service was easeir than other forms of earning a living.

The only training I ever accepted was how to crash a car without killing yourself. My brother taught me that.

But that is not at all what you suggested in your previous post. For the pendulum analogy to work, there would've had to been times in history when the male-female dominance roles have been switched, which there hasn't been. We're not just talking rulers, but society in general. While Queen Elizabeth was ruling, women were still considered submissive to men. Your analogy itself didn't make sense, and I think that's what Neo Art was getting at.

*worships Kat*

*joins*

Baroness Thatcher ;)


Though you do bring up an interesting point. I am slightly too young to try and say this is a personal observation. But I have heard from a number of people that say she definately got more masculine in her demenour and speech the closer she got to power and the longer she held it.


TBH though, I haven't set aside the time to see for myself.

I wouldn't be surprised. Even Hillary (who was never exactly Betty Crocker to start) has become even more... well, "masculine", for lack of a better word, since her husband stepped out of the spotlight and she stepped in. It's not much of a surprise that history records Elizabeth I as having been an extremely rigid, tight-fisted ruler. There's little room for compassion, humor or compromise when a woman leads--everyone's waiting for the first sign of "weakness" that they can pounce on.

So you don't think it's insulting that wives are talking about their husband like they're children or pets?

Betty: "Oh I just trained George to use the newspaper, he's such a good boy."

That's not demeaning?

It is rather demeaning, but I'm going to ensure that won't happen to me, so I don't really care.

The amussing thing out this topic is that someone feels that the whole "training men" thing is sexism towards men. Yes, its stupid and any woman who believes men need to be trained is a moron, but the funny thing is, men cultivate and perpetuate this idea on a regular basis.


The media always portrays men as wild and free, untamed by the trappings of domestication, and that "teh ebil uppity womenz" are out to tame them and make them less free.


So, yes, there is sexism here, but its not against men.
For my entire life my parents have had a cartoon pinned up in the kitchen. It depicts a man who is banging a can of food against the counter over and over, while a can opener sits less than a foot away. His wife, passing by the kitchen, is glancing in with a slightly raised eyebrow.

The caption reads, "The less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do."

I think this perfectly sums up this whole "men must be trained" myth. Yeah, sure, it's insulting to be portrayed as helpless and stupid...but it sure comes in handy when you want to shirk your responsibilities.

TRAINING is an unfortunate term.

but married couples (and any adults living together) do need to figure out how they want their home to be run.

if a woman has strict standards of how she wants....oh i dont know....laundry... to be done she needs to find a way to communicate that to her husband. too often she gets angry that he ....doesnt seperate the whites from the colors....without ever discussing that idea with him.

so she can "train" him to do the laundry "correctly", she can do it all herself, or she can discuss it with him and come to a mutual decision on the best way to do laundry. in any case, if it pisses her off, she needs to deal with it.

sexual favors shouldnt come into it at all. but if she is pissed, she isnt going to be in much of a mood for sex.

feel free to change up the pronouns it goes for men as well as women and for all sorts of couples.

Yay a woman who see's it my way! Whooo! :D

Haha. Is that a rarity?

An extremely HOT, intelligent and talented woman, i might add.

*blush*

You think I'm smart?

:)

Ah. I appear to have been misinterpreted. That should have read 'in before rant about feminazis'.

I would also argue that Feminazi = ridiculous buzzword coined as a strawman of the feminist movement.

Oh.

TRAINING is an unfortunate term.

but married couples (and any adults living together) do need to figure out how they want their home to be run.

if a woman has strict standards of how she wants....oh i dont know....laundry... to be done she needs to find a way to communicate that to her husband. too often she gets angry that he ....doesnt seperate the whites from the colors....without ever discussing that idea with him.

so she can "train" him to do the laundry "correctly", she can do it all herself, or she can discuss it with him and come to a mutual decision on the best way to do laundry. in any case, if it pisses her off, she needs to deal with it.

sexual favors shouldnt come into it at all. but if she is pissed, she isnt going to be in much of a mood for sex.

feel free to change up the pronouns it goes for men as well as women and for all sorts of couples.

I think the term "training" goes past "training" him to do the laundry. I think women who want to "train" their men, want them to be someone they're not.

So, I suppose if someone's using the word "train" to refer to the laundry, they've accidently chosen the wrong word. However, if someone legitimitely wants to "train" their spouse, they've chosen the correct term, but it's the wrong thing to do.

They are oppressed because they can't tell the bitch to get into the kitchen and make him a sandwich because she'll up and leave if he does. *nods*

It really boils down to control. Men have lost the right to control women, which at this stage amounts to oppression. They had a 'right' taken away, though women aren't weeping over that one.

What?

I must've missed something in the thread...but... what?

Men never had the right to control women, they just assumed they did. No one has the right to control another person.

I make my man sandwhiches because I love him. If he said "bitch, make me a sandwhich", I wouldn't make it for him, and I'm pretty sure if I said "asshole, make me dinner" he wouldn't make it for me either.

I think the term "training" goes past "training" him to do the laundry. I think women who want to "train" their men, want them to be someone they're not.

So, I suppose if someone's using the word "train" to refer to the laundry, they've accidently chosen the wrong word. However, if someone legitimitely wants to "train" their spouse, they've chosen the correct term, but it's the wrong thing to do.

that is certainly true for some women.

and what a mistake it is to think that you can change a man. its not going to work and its disrespectful to the man you think you love. (and do you really love him if you cant accept him as he is?)

What?

I must've missed something in the thread...but... what?

Men never had the right to control women, they just assumed they did. No one has the right to control another person.

I make my man sandwhiches because I love him. If he said "bitch, make me a sandwhich", I wouldn't make it for him, and I'm pretty sure if I said "asshole, make me dinner" he wouldn't make it for me either.

I think he was being sarcastic.

*blush*

You think I'm smart?

:)

Certainly :)
Of course, most people think i'm a root floop, even if they do occasionally respect my opinion. :p

Of course, most people think i'm a root floop, even if they do occasionally respect my opinion. :p

I think you're adorable. :fluffle:

I think you're adorable. :fluffle:
*blushes*
Either you've known me too long, or not anywhere near long enough :p
*bows* I bow a lot. *wink*

Certainly :)
Of course, most people think i'm a root floop, even if they do occasionally respect my opinion. :p

That is such a nice thing to say!
I'd rather be called smart than pretty any day. :)

That is such a nice thing to say!
I'd rather be called smart than pretty any day. :)
Why not both?

See, i've read posts of yours before you had pix up for the Sexiest NSer, so i think it's a fair assessment. :)

Why not both?

See, i've read posts of yours before you had pix up for the Sexiest NSer, so i think it's a fair assessment. :)

Thank you. :D

The amussing thing out this topic is that someone feels that the whole "training men" thing is sexism towards men. Yes, its stupid and any woman who believes men need to be trained is a moron, but the funny thing is, men cultivate and perpetuate this idea on a regular basis.


The media always portrays men as wild and free, untamed by the trappings of domestication, and that "teh ebil uppity womenz" are out to tame them and make them less free.


So, yes, there is sexism here, but its not against men.

The media. The media. Why does everyone always blame the media? Can't people make their own decisions any more?

The idea of "training" a man is sexist against men.

The idea that women are "uppity" is sexist against women.

Case closed.

Thank you. :DIt obviously enhances interaction with you (to be quite sure) i.e., hubba-hubba. :)

I've had one pic of me that i recall posted here, which was immediately (generally) assumed to be a different poster (perhaps at the intent of that poster), and Ruffy did the rest.
I leave enough strange impressions on the psyche as it is, i think, that people don't really need a sincere pic of me anyway. :)

I find this bullshit more hilarious each time I read it.

The modern education system was designed back when girls weren't even allowed to go to school. The strict, "sit still and shut up" structure of schools was far MORE common back when schools were for boys only. Indeed, the more progressive, active, and interactive learning models have only become popular since coeducation became the norm. Back when schools were for boys only, the leading myth was that girls couldn't possibly handle the strictness and the structure, what with their soft feminine brains.

When girls are being out-performed by boys, the reason is always female inferiority. When girls are out-performing boys, the reason is always that the poor boys are the victims of oppression. It's so cute.


Or, alternatively, women are just too catty and petty and emotional, while men are cool and rational and capable. Whichever bullshit sexist stereotype you want to use to prop up your pet theory at the moment.


I hate to break it to you, but women have always contributed heavily when it comes to manual labor. Please don't buy into the evo-devo lies about how menfolks hunted while womenfolks sat around the fire braiding each others' hair.

Also, I know we're not supposed to count all the MANUAL LABOR of maintaining a home, because that's just women work and doesn't count, but...well, fuckit. Yes it does count. In the USA, to this day, it is typical for women to spend 70% more time engaged in routine UNPAID manual labor, compared to men. It's just that women's manual labor is ignored or dismissed, while male manual labor is noted (and usually paid for).

Got a source for those statistics?
I didn't say that argument was perfect.
And quit swearing and arrogant attitude, it doesn't help reading what you're trying to say.

When i said manual labour, i meant the paid jobs in heavy industry which were typically (yes unfair) had lots of men in them. It is true women still do more housework than men, but not all relationships are straight male/female in traditional roles.

What do you guys think?

I think you should just give up and turn gay. Instead of doing chores to get laid, you just say you want to get laid and you're there. It's awesome.

Got a source for those statistics?
I didn't say that argument was perfect.

Evidence thus far, and in previous threads, indicates that it would be a complete and total waste of my time to provide you with statistics that you can just as easily look up for yourself.

So no.


And quit swearing and arrogant attitude, it doesn't help reading what you're trying to say.

No thanks, concern troll.


When i said manual labour, i meant the paid jobs in heavy industry which were typically (yes unfair) had lots of men in them.

Yes, if you specifically exclude all the types of manual labor that are done by women, you end up finding that men tend to do more manual labor. Congrats.


It is true women still do more housework than men, but not all relationships are straight male/female in traditional roles.
Irrelevant to my point, but that's nice.

Ok, throwing in my two cents...or my British pence...

The term 'training' in this situation is degrading IF it is meant seriously. I use this this term with my lass if she uses it with me and not one of us has a problem it is.

She jokes that she trained me to use a hoover and I joke that I trained her to cook a proper steak. We both knew how to do the task anyway, but hey it's funny.

However it pisses me off when someone uses terms like that when they mean it in a demeaning sense. One of my best friends was in a situation where his lass said something along the lines to him. Instead of throwing a fit he calmly asked her not to use that termonology again as he found it offensive - problem was resolved, so thankfully he didn't have to write a forum topic about it.

I think he was being sarcastic.
Yes I was. I also meant it as a gross exaggeration of facts. It seems to get missed most times.

Wilgrove still practices Chivalry.

To you and others who so do, why suck up to 50% of random people for no reason whatsoever, risking pissing them off in the process? Absolutely nonsensical.

To you and others who so do, why suck up to 50% of random people for no reason whatsoever, risking pissing them off in the process? Absolutely nonsensical.
Personally, I just like sensible politeness.

If you're going through a door, hold it open for the person behind you, don't let it slam in their face.
Polite, sensible, do it for anyone.

What doesn't make sense is only holding the door open if it's a women, but not a man.
What doesn't make sense is sitting in a car while you wait for the guy to come round and open the door.
:confused:
The only time either of them make sense is if the women has a floor-length dress she needs to hold up (and that's where the things come from). But that's fairly rare...

And so the hypocrisies lies exposed to the sexes, yet because it is so pervasive it is not questioned. Woman typically try to overexert their superiority to the man, who not too many years ago did the same thing to them.

You call it sexism? I call it irony. Then again, history is like that. Once both or all sides of an issue experience both sides of the oppression coin, then they can discuss the removal of it as equals.

Pfff, there are no equals. You can't quantify a person. Life is always a struggle for dominance. Doesn't mean it can't be fun sometimes, though. ;)

I think there's room for argument here (thinks of pix on Sexiest thread) :p

We aren't dogs! We never settle for just the legs. :p

Ok, first off I would like to ask why, in almost all threads you start, you come across as a wannabe-macho guy.If you don't care about the "lovey-dovey crap", then why did you listen to it? Would be easy to turn the station off.
Doesn't he, though?

When it became apparent you can't put the toilet seat back down.:p
Pfff, stereotype. :mad: Some of us do. Generally, I think women expect too much and take a personal "high ground" of assumed superiority. It's annoying and insulting.

It is just another word for "teach". [/QUOTE]

No, it isn't. It's much more loaded when you apply it to a human. You're objectifying the person as being somewhat less than human. Except maybe in the case of potty training.... But particularly when you're talking about an adult, it assumes a connotation of base inferiority.

Yeah, I think the word training is a bit demeaning.
The fact that that 1 in 4 women in the UK will experience rape or attempted rape, and that 1 in 4 women in the UK will be in an abusive relationship is absolutely shocking.

I don't believe in reverse inequality, but we are nowhere near women being equal to men. Of course it's valid to voice complaints either way, but when you only make a fuss when it's effecting you, and are blind to everything else, I call BS about your concern for equality.

Sooo... really the problem is that we need to get rid of all men (and possibly some women) in the UK to liberate the woman from a society-wide, mass abusive relationship? :p

Oh, it's quite true. You don't really know what it is until you have strong "affirmative action" policies. I mean, really, it's silly to give people money for being one race or another, for whatever reason. Not to mention diversity quotas at places of business.

I think it's yet another example of how patriarchy hurts men, too.

Patriarchy sez: "Womenz do the chores! Menz do not do the chores!" On the upside, men get to be told that it's only fitting for a woman to do all their chores for them. On the downside, the reasoning is that men are too fucking stupid to be able to vacuum or do laundry. For some strange reason, the much-vaunted "spacial skills" of the male species seem to disappear as soon as the "space" needs to be cleaned.

It's also ridiculously unfair to women, if you think about it. Why should a woman be expected to "train" her partner to do his chores? He's presumably an adult human of at least semi-normal functioning, yet he needs to be "trained" to clean up after himself? Since when? Why should a woman have to exert effort to get her partner to pull his own weight?

Short version: all the bunk about "training" men is insulting, to both men AND women. It is profoundly anti-feminist, so please don't anybody start with any crap about how feminism encourages this kind of shit. A feminist wouldn't be dating a lazy slob who refused to do his chores in the first place. :D
Unless she were pretty lax in them herself, perhaps? :p

When girls are being out-performed by boys, the reason is always female inferiority. When girls are out-performing boys, the reason is always that the poor boys are the victims of oppression. It's so cute.
Many men seem to have bought the idea of being "the mentally inferior sex", though, believing that when girls are out-performing boys, it is because of male inferiority. Though not the majority view, I've heard quite a few say that they think women are superior, suggesting that now that artificial barriers holding down womankind disappear, their inherent superiority is making itself known. They tend to either be self-proclaimed supporters of feminism or somewhat bitter with a bit of a misogynistic attitude.

They also believe that because women are better than them and instances of anti-male sexism amount to them taking their rightful place in the world, they should be strong and suck it up, because what does it matter if they can "have a good time" and get laid?

They are not only rampant sexists, but have a profoundly stupid lack of self-respect as well. And anti-feminists notice them, for though not in the majority, they stick out like a sort thumb to them. It's also one of the top issues that extreme misogynists seem to rage about.

And that concludes a bunch of random thought; I now return you to your irregularly scheduled barely-on-topic thread.

/snip
I didn't read it all because I'm lazy (:p), but a lot of stuff goes unreported, too.

I agree with you, we should not be 'training' each other. I don't know where you are but my hubby came home before Valentine's day and he had heard the same show. I growled at him, because I despise him in "my" kitchen. He makes a mess and only creates more work for me in the long run. It pissed me off that some idiot radio nut said that is what men should be doing. :mad:

As I told my hubby, I want you in the kitchen just about as much as you want me reorganizing and 'cleaning' up your workbench. :rolleyes:
This is true, but not the same for all couples, either. Some like closed domains, some like open domains, and some like maintaining just the image of open domains. It's just a matter of preferred role definition.

I agree with you 100% that 'training' a man is an idiotic idea and I for one like my 'domain' and want my man to stay the hell away from it. Unless I ask for help. :p If a woman thinks she can really train a man, she is an idiot anyway. You can't train men in the least. Women's number one fallacy is that they can change a man. :headbang:
Nor can women, really. The real trick is learning to live and change together, not change each other.

We went to Medieval Times instead. ;)
Kinky. ;)

I'd agree except that I've been to friends' houses and apartments and, well, I KNOW they had mothers and I also KNOW that their general idea of cleaning was that a bare patch of table was enough.

Sadly I was the same... and my apartment got a lot cleaner once my wife (The girlfriend) moved in.


Very, very true. At the same time, though, not all women are as OCD about "cleanliness" as the stereotype suggests. Some are just as disgusting as men are assumed to be.

Many men seem to have bought the idea of being "the mentally inferior sex", though, believing that when girls are out-performing boys, it is because of male inferiority. Though not the majority view, I've heard quite a few say that they think women are superior, suggesting that now that artificial barriers holding down womankind disappear, their inherent superiority is making itself known. They tend to either be self-proclaimed supporters of feminism or somewhat bitter with a bit of a misogynistic attitude.

I think that has something to do with the idea that there's something inherently wrong with men. We're bombarded with the statistics of rape, abuse, and other crimes that many guys just can't help but think that we somehow need to be fixed (ooh..bad pun...). And when the popular opinion of what that "fix" is is to act more like the feminine stereotype...


They also believe that because women are better than them and instances of anti-male sexism amount to them taking their rightful place in the world, they should be strong and suck it up, because what does it matter if they can "have a good time" and get laid?

It is entertaining to see how the old male stereotype has twisted itself in an attempt to preserve the "guys just want tail" image. Before it was because that's what women were for, now it's because "we're just guys."


They are not only rampant sexists, but have a profoundly stupid lack of self-respect as well.

Women are told they aren't attractive, men are told they're two beers away from violent rape. One's much more prevalent than the other, but still.


And anti-feminists notice them, for though not in the majority, they stick out like a sort thumb to them. It's also one of the top issues that extreme misogynists seem to rage about.

Well now that metrosexuality has died like the dog it is, what else are they going to bitch about?


And that concludes a bunch of random thought; I now return you to your irregularly scheduled barely-on-topic thread.

This is NSG, topicallity is generally frowned upon here. ;)

Very, very true. At the same time, though, not all women are as OCD about "cleanliness" as the stereotype suggests. Some are just as disgusting as men are assumed to be.

I see you've met my wife. :D

Get the fuck out and shut the fuck up. You know NOTHING about me and I will not have my name soiled by the likes of you.
I think you do that well enough on your own.

No, I will not. I will not be made into a male chauvinist pig because I decide to call on some of the bullshit that women do to men, and that doesn't mean that I don't call on the bullshit that men do to women, so no I won't "chill".
You do come across that way.

Er, I don't want to get too caught up on one side of the argument, but... Look at it this way, it is true that men have been stereotyped... Unfortunately, those stereotypes are usually true. But does that really give anyone the right to stereotype them?
They may be true most of the time for a group of people in a specific time in a specific place, but that never applies everywhere or forever. The problem isn't so much that stereotypes exist but that we too strongly apply them to everyone we meet, generally speaking.

When did I say that you enjoy beating or raping women?? If that's what you got from what I said, I'm very sorry, but that's quite a leap to make.

I'm simply saying that, from my observations of your posting, you've never seemed to be that supportive of feminist causes.
I've never heard you complain about inequalities against women, yet you complain about this minor inequality against men.
You tend to dismiss feminism as unnecessary.

If any of that is untrue, and actually you would call yourself a feminist and care deeply about the widespread injustices against women, I deeply apologise. As far as I know though, you tend to talk dismissively and insultingly of feminists.
Feminism as a movement ought to be unnecessary, but that is neither here nor there.

Proof please?
Have you read your posts? o.O

Ok, just to make sure there's no more confusion, I shall now present

Wilgrove's OFFICIAL stance on Women's right in the USA.


I believe that women should be paid equal to men for equal amount of work. If a woman and a man both work 8 hours, doing the same job, they should get paid equally.
I believe that women should have the same rights, the same amount of freedom and liberty as men.
I advocate an equal relationship between men and women. No one should be superior to the other.
Wilgrove has never told any of his girlfriend what to do, he has always asked, and asked to be treated with the same respect in return.
Women should have the same protection under the law as men.
Women should have the same rights to privacy as men, this does include abortions. Let's not get into Wilgrove's official stance on abortion.
Any men who rape or abuse women, physically, emotionally or sexually should be punished for it by the courts.
Wilgrove does not see women as the "weaker" sex. He knows lots of strong women.
Wilgrove still practices Chivalry.


That is Wilgrove's OFFICIAL Stance on Women's rights in the USA.
Ewwwww... "chivalry" is such an ugly word.... And you were developing such a fine cover-up before that. :p

This is from personal experience:

I tell my boyfriend when he does or doesn't do something, which bugs me, and tell him how I would like to see him make an effort to change. Normally, this leads to a discussion between us about our person views on the matter, and in the end a compromise is settled on. That is behavioural conditioning, and in a sense, training. He knows that if he does a small extra thing at no cost to himself, it would make me much happier, therefore he does it. The same goes the opposite way, and in a sense, we train each other to not get on each other's nerves and make our relationship better. I don't see there being anything wrong with the concept, other than maybe the usage of the word "train", which carries a patronizing connotation. I agree with many before me that you are WAY overreacting. So what? I train my boyfriend, and he trains me. Without this training, we would've annoyed each other to death already.

Noez! Not a dead Dame! :(

I have an interesting question then...

If "training" is degrading as people here seem to think it is, then perhaps we should stop using it in an academic sense, ie: "vocation training". Or on-the-job-training...

Or perhaps this is just an over-reaction because training doesn't always constitute something negative. It has to do with being taught how to do something. It's just a euphemism.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, especially when you're breaking a partner's bad habit (this was briefly covered earlier). You have to condition them to act a certain way, so in effect, you train them.

This does have a negative feel to it when it's unnecessary. Lets just remember it's a word and then take that word out of Wilgrove's OP and replace it with a word with the same meaning and see how much the context changes.
No, in such an instance, one really is an inferior in function to those doing the training. But when you talk of relationships, it's like saying the one being trained isn't equal to it. And considering the only real standard for a human relationship is being human, it's like saying the one needing training isn't equal to a human.
if the pendulum swings can you show me where in history, with the exception of a few isolated societies, has it ever been the other way?

What about slavery in the Roman Empire? Blacks weren't the only ones enslaved throughout history. It isn't that special just because it was relatively recently.

I only post my observation and my personal reaction to the observation. I have never said that women shouldn't be treated equal to men and I have never advocated one sex dominance above the other. I have advocated that each sex respect each other (and it's true I do need to learn some respect myself). I find that between the sexes, there seem to be a lack of respect, and that goes both way.

As for my "macho man" attitude that I have, well all I can say to that effect is that I try to put out a strong face, in here, in my personal life and to the public eye. I may have gone overboard but I still need to be seen as a strong individual.

I apologize about my earlier outburst and I apologize to Glitzyness and anyone else who was offended by said outburst.
So you being a strong individual is all an illusion? Seriously, you're overcompensating for something.
For a pendulum to 'swing" back and forth, it's not sufficient to show instances in which women were in power, but rather to show the "other side" of the pendulum, instances of society where societies were dominated by women. Clinton Thatcher and Rice may be good examples of the "male dominance" of our society slowly phasing out to a state of equality, and in that your examples are fine. But it's not an example of Wilgrove's claim that the pendulum "swings", because you'd have to show not only societies that had women rulers (which is not a sign of women dominance in and of itself) but actual societies that were managed, ruled, and dominated by women. Which with the exception of a few smaller societies at a tribal level, I can think of none.

or, to put it as Ladamesansmerci put it:



or, to put it another way, the mere presence of a woman ruler doesn't mean that women, at large, are not subjugated by the male driven society over all.
Well, what do you expect after warmongering patriarchal societies invaded an entire continent and decided to stick around?

OI!one one one.
I like making my own sandwiches, the only sandwiches other people make for me are ones i buy.

Seems to make sense, a reversal of the 'traditional' role the male.
But what will they do now? This is a pretty bad time to be a guy. (of course i suppose World War One could be a worse example).
Meh, some people just make better sandwiches. Mine kinda suck, for some reason.

It isn't really a bad time for guys. We're just spoiled on a clearly dominant role in society. Which was always a mass delusion for the poor because they never have any real power over anything.

Superficial evidence to the contrary, many of us who lived through the Thatcher years seriously doubt whether Britain has ever had a female Prime Minister.

[sorry - couldn't resist; probably a dangerous thread to be making that sort of joke]
I laughed. :p

The thing is, my friend, this particular bullshit isn't simply something women to do men. It's something that is done TO both men and women. It is bullshit that harms men AND women. Yes, the men are being insulted by being "trained," but don't forget that the women are being insulted at the same time.

In the "training" scenario, women are 1) not allowed to want sex for themselves, 2) expected to spend their time and energy "training" an adult man, 3) assumed to want to be in a relationship with the kind of idiot who requires this "training," and 4) assumed to be "naturally" better at doing all the shit jobs that nobody likes to do but which must get done anyhow, which generally leads to the whining conclusion that women should just shut up and do the work instead of nagging the poor helpless menfolk.

Don't portray this as poor poor men being picked on by meanie women. It's about BOTH men and women being degraded by sexist, patriarchal bullshit.

Feminism fights against this kind of crap all the time. I'll be happy to accept your thanks, on behalf of feminism, for the great strides we have made in reducing the prevalence of these myths in modern culture. I'd also be happy to bring you on board to help us with our ongoing efforts to make yet greater strides in de-crappifying the crappy sexist crap that remains.
All I got from this is: "feminism"="sex" :p

When girls are being out-performed by boys, the reason is always female inferiority. When girls are out-performing boys, the reason is always that the poor boys are the victims of oppression. It's so cute.
Makes you wanna pinch kiddie cheeks or something, doesn't it?

The amussing thing out this topic is that someone feels that the whole "training men" thing is sexism towards men. Yes, its stupid and any woman who believes men need to be trained is a moron, but the funny thing is, men cultivate and perpetuate this idea on a regular basis.


The media always portrays men as wild and free, untamed by the trappings of domestication, and that "teh ebil uppity womenz" are out to tame them and make them less free.


So, yes, there is sexism here, but its not against men.

That isn't men, per se. That's media. Besides, it isn't to much of a stretch to go from a clearly dominant role over women to suddenly being "free and untamable" when the former condition is in decline. After all, men can't afford to feel like they're inferior. The socially conditioned male ego doesn't allow for it; it's too crippling in its profundity.

But when it's so clearly insulting, why believe it?
I don't understand people :P


Agree completely. These stereotypes are usually beneficial for a few powerful people, and that's why they're continued, but the majority of people suffer due to them, in big or small ways.
I only get annoyed when guys complain about this kinda stuff, but dismiss the crap women have to put up with. Of course, it doesn't make the point any less valid. Just makes me like them less :P
It's simple: people are stupid. :p

Meh, worry more about men, and women worry more about women, as a general rule. Just how it works, really. It's like the whole gender is some kind of extension of the individual or something. The whole "banding together for survival" kind of thing.

As I said, understanding most people is pretty damn hard I think!
Gender, age, background..... regardless of all that, everyone's confusing in their own special way :p
Some of us more than others. :p

Because everyone, of course, was upper class and could afford servants. It's only with this darned equality... thing that people can't afford them....

Oh wait... that's right, you need poor/working class people to BE the servants, so not everyone had them in the good old days!

Servants are not at all hard to get: you merely have to have the wherewithal to pay them. A good friend of mine as been the cook/nanny for a doctor's family for about ten years; I know more than a few people who hire a 'cleaning girl' to tidy up the place. The service industry is alive and well.
Pffff, children make the best servants! Everyone knows that.

I was actually mocking the olden days a bit there. That said, until the Great War (what was so Great?), the whole middle class by and large had servants, and many poorer families had help (or children).

Also A life in service was easeir than other forms of earning a living.
Like the mills.... *shudders*

The only training I ever accepted was how to crash a car without killing yourself. My brother taught me that.
I demand you pass this knowledge on to the forum!

For my entire life my parents have had a cartoon pinned up in the kitchen. It depicts a man who is banging a can of food against the counter over and over, while a can opener sits less than a foot away. His wife, passing by the kitchen, is glancing in with a slightly raised eyebrow.

The caption reads, "The less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do."

I think this perfectly sums up this whole "men must be trained" myth. Yeah, sure, it's insulting to be portrayed as helpless and stupid...but it sure comes in handy when you want to shirk your responsibilities.

I shirk responsibility well enough without having to look terribly stupid. I'm just awesome, I guess. :p

TRAINING is an unfortunate term.

but married couples (and any adults living together) do need to figure out how they want their home to be run.

if a woman has strict standards of how she wants....oh i dont know....laundry... to be done she needs to find a way to communicate that to her husband. too often she gets angry that he ....doesnt seperate the whites from the colors....without ever discussing that idea with him.

so she can "train" him to do the laundry "correctly", she can do it all herself, or she can discuss it with him and come to a mutual decision on the best way to do laundry. in any case, if it pisses her off, she needs to deal with it.

sexual favors shouldnt come into it at all. but if she is pissed, she isnt going to be in much of a mood for sex.

feel free to change up the pronouns it goes for men as well as women and for all sorts of couples.
I disagree about the sexual favors. Sex could keep it lively and fun. There are all kinds of places a lot of people wouldn't normally think of having sex without a little housecleaning. ;)
*blush*

You think I'm smart?

:-)
He has been known to have low standards. :p

Disclaimer: This comment was not intended with any kind of seriousness in mind.

What?

I must've missed something in the thread...but... what?

Men never had the right to control women, they just assumed they did. No one has the right to control another person.

I make my man sandwhiches because I love him. If he said "bitch, make me a sandwhich", I wouldn't make it for him, and I'm pretty sure if I said "asshole, make me dinner" he wouldn't make it for me either.
It wasn't really an assumption. It was a "right" created for men. Some argue, though, that everything is a right and we restrict our rights in social contracts. Like I have the right to stab you in the eye, but I forfeit that right by being in this particular social construct. I don't by it entirely, myself, though.

that is certainly true for some women.

and what a mistake it is to think that you can change a man. its not going to work and its disrespectful to the man you think you love. (and do you really love him if you cant accept him as he is?)
One could still love someone without accepting him. The real question is can said person accept an "us" including him. Love is a peculiar emotion that really doesn't make that kind of sense.

Certainly :)
Of course, most people think i'm a root floop, even if they do occasionally respect my opinion. :P
People respect your opinions, even occasionally? :p

I think you're adorable. :fluffle:
*adds another member to Straughn's harem*

*blushes*
Either you've known me too long, or not anywhere near long enough :p
*bows* I bow a lot. *wink*
Never long enough, old friend.

That is such a nice thing to say!
I'd rather be called smart than pretty any day. :)
I'm guessing it's because you've got the latter covered pretty well. ;)

Why not both?

See, i've read posts of yours before you had pix up for the Sexiest NSer, so i think it's a fair assessment. :)
She should add a link to her sig. because I'm way too lazy to slog through an NS thread to find such a thing.

The media. The media. Why does everyone always blame the media? Can't people make their own decisions any more?
No.

Got a source for those statistics?
I didn't say that argument was perfect.
And quit swearing and arrogant attitude, it doesn't help reading what you're trying to say.

When i said manual labour, i meant the paid jobs in heavy industry which were typically (yes unfair) had lots of men in them. It is true women still do more housework than men, but not all relationships are straight male/female in traditional roles.

You clearly don't appreciate Bottle's style. :cool:

Noez! Not a dead Dame! :(
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND...FD IS BACK!!!!!


:fluffle:

Ok, throwing in my two cents...or my British pence...

The term 'training' in this situation is degrading IF it is meant seriously. I use this this term with my lass if she uses it with me and not one of us has a problem it is.

She jokes that she trained me to use a hoover and I joke that I trained her to cook a proper steak. We both knew how to do the task anyway, but hey it's funny.

However it pisses me off when someone uses terms like that when they mean it in a demeaning sense. One of my best friends was in a situation where his lass said something along the lines to him. Instead of throwing a fit he calmly asked her not to use that termonology again as he found it offensive - problem was resolved, so thankfully he didn't have to write a forum topic about it.
But NSG is the only way issues ever get resolved in the world. You should know that. :p

Personally, I just like sensible politeness.

If you're going through a door, hold it open for the person behind you, don't let it slam in their face.
Polite, sensible, do it for anyone.

What doesn't make sense is only holding the door open if it's a women, but not a man.
What doesn't make sense is sitting in a car while you wait for the guy to come round and open the door.
:confused:
The only time either of them make sense is if the women has a floor-length dress she needs to hold up (and that's where the things come from). But that's fairly rare...
QFT
Many men seem to have bought the idea of being "the mentally inferior sex", though, believing that when girls are out-performing boys, it is because of male inferiority. Though not the majority view, I've heard quite a few say that they think women are superior, suggesting that now that artificial barriers holding down womankind disappear, their inherent superiority is making itself known. They tend to either be self-proclaimed supporters of feminism or somewhat bitter with a bit of a misogynistic attitude.

They also believe that because women are better than them and instances of anti-male sexism amount to them taking their rightful place in the world, they should be strong and suck it up, because what does it matter if they can "have a good time" and get laid?

They are not only rampant sexists, but have a profoundly stupid lack of self-respect as well. And anti-feminists notice them, for though not in the majority, they stick out like a sort thumb to them. It's also one of the top issues that extreme misogynists seem to rage about.

And that concludes a bunch of random thought; I now return you to your irregularly scheduled barely-on-topic thread.
Female superiority is as much bullshit as male superiority if it is meant seriously. If it's not serious, then it could potentially be kinky. And yes, I keep mentioning that because I rather like it and ardently support it in a sexual context. :p [/true male stereotype]

I see you've met my wife. :D
Not at all. But I have met my sisters and mother. :p

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND...FD IS BACK!!!!!


:fluffle:

For today, at least. lol :fluffle:

I think that has something to do with the idea that there's something inherently wrong with men. We're bombarded with the statistics of rape, abuse, and other crimes that many guys just can't help but think that we somehow need to be fixed (ooh..bad pun...). And when the popular opinion of what that "fix" is is to act more like the feminine stereotype...
The guys who need to hear that stuff and actually realise that their behaviour is flat out wrong... don't.
And, instead, all the decent guys get an unnecessary guilt complex.



Oh, and hey FD :p enough posts? hehe

The guys who need to hear that stuff and actually realise that their behaviour is flat out wrong... don't.
And, instead, all the decent guys get an unnecessary guilt complex.

Yeah, that's about the long and short of it. Only really sinks in to the ones who know better, and can have the opposite of the desired effect on rare occasions.

But, what else are we going to do? It's yust one of the Catch-22's we have to deal with.

The guys who need to hear that stuff and actually realise that their behaviour is flat out wrong... don't.
And, instead, all the decent guys get an unnecessary guilt complex.



Oh, and hey FD :p enough posts? hehe

Well, when people keep throwing out words and numbers at people who obviously care so little they commit these things to begin with, or who are conditioned to think it's okay, it really is like flogging a dead horse, if you'll pardon the cliche (only spelled properly with the accent mark).

Nevar! :p I have quotas, ya know. *nods*

Yeah, that's about the long and short of it. Only really sinks in to the ones who know better, and can have the opposite of the desired effect on rare occasions.

But, what else are we going to do? It's yust one of the Catch-22's we have to deal with.

On more than rare occasions. A lot of decent men really do feel guilty for being male. But then, some men are like women with penises anyway.

Simple: public stoning for any rapist, male or female. :)

On more than rare occasions. A lot of decent men really do feel guilty for being male. But then, some men are like women with penises anyway.

I was talking about that guilt complex driving them towards such behavior rather than away. That's a rare occasion.

Decent guys acquiring guilt complexes because of their gender I know through personal experience is more common than not.


Simple: public stoning for any rapist, male or female. :)

Squished or thrown?

Yeah, that's about the long and short of it. Only really sinks in to the ones who know better, and can have the opposite of the desired effect on rare occasions.

But, what else are we going to do? It's yust one of the Catch-22's we have to deal with.
Well, sometimes you can help a decent but naive person see the reality of stuff. Or get someone on the cusp, shape up a bit. And I hold some hope that the rest can change their attitudes, if not through any individual pressure (however much I might like to be super-feminist-Amy! :p), then gradually, over time....

Well, sometimes you can help a decent but naive person see the reality of stuff. Or get someone on the cusp, shape up a bit.

And that's the trade-off. Some of us do get it. I just worry about the effects. It feeds the "men need fixed" stereotype and just gives the "I'm just a guy" excuse more strength.


And I hold some hope that the rest can change their attitudes, if not through any individual pressure (however much I might like to be super-feminist-Amy! :p), then gradually, over time....

...by controlled application of a 2 x 4 to the backs of their heads ;)

I like how quickly this thread breifly turned into all the guys sucking up to Amor.



Youre all pathetic I say!;)

I like how quickly this thread breifly turned into all the guys sucking up to Amor.



Youre all pathetic I say!;)

Excuse me?

I for one will never ever ever wash the cheese grater or nutcracker at your place.


We'll put it down when you learn to put it up. that's fair, isn't it?

I put the toilet seat and the cover down so that it's equally inconvenient for both men and women.

He has been known to have low standards. :p

Disclaimer: This comment was not intended with any kind of seriousness in mind.


It wasn't really an assumption. It was a "right" created for men. Some argue, though, that everything is a right and we restrict our rights in social contracts. Like I have the right to stab you in the eye, but I forfeit that right by being in this particular social construct. I don't by it entirely, myself, though.

I'm guessing it's because you've got the latter covered pretty well. ;)


She should add a link to her sig. because I'm way too lazy to slog through an NS thread to find such a thing.


No.


Sigh, quoting at 8am in the morning is too hard, so:

1. Hahaha.

2. I suppose, but in today's Western society such a "right" could not - well, at least should not - exist.

3. I suppose?

4. Hmm... no.


I like how quickly this thread breifly turned into all the guys sucking up to Amor.



Youre all pathetic I say!;)

It's not my fault. :(

I put the toilet seat and the cover down so that it's equally inconvenient for both men and women.

Damn it, that's what I want!

My man puts it down for me, but only the seat, not the lid & it drives me crazy. :p

It's not my fault. :(

:mad: Yes it is, 'cause you're so darn cute :fluffle:

It's not my fault. :(



'spose not.

I put the toilet seat and the cover down so that it's equally inconvenient for both men and women.

I do the very same.

The media. The media. Why does everyone always blame the media? Can't people make their own decisions any more?


No.



In seriousness, never underestimate the power of media. Culture 101.

I do the very same.

Egalitarianism at its finest :p

I put the toilet seat and the cover down so that it's equally inconvenient for both men and women.Winner.

Many men seem to have bought the idea of being "the mentally inferior sex", though, believing that when girls are out-performing boys, it is because of male inferiority. Though not the majority view, I've heard quite a few say that they think women are superior, suggesting that now that artificial barriers holding down womankind disappear, their inherent superiority is making itself known. They tend to either be self-proclaimed supporters of feminism or somewhat bitter with a bit of a misogynistic attitude.

Frankly, I've never met the kind of people you talk about. And I've been an active feminist for many, many years. In my entire life I think I've only met two people who actually believed that female humans are superior to male humans, and both were anti-feminist men.

The people who are most likely to claim that women are "smarter" or "better" than men are actually the same people who claim that women are "more mature" than men. The thing is, these same people somehow don't think this means women should actually be running the show or holding positions of power, they're the people who think that the "superior maturity" of women means that women should dedicate their lives to babying men. They're the people who argue that men are just so silly and immature that they can't possibly be expected to keep house or take care of their own kids. They're the people who insist that men are too crazed and foolish to be able to control their own sexual behavior, which is why women must be put in charge of regulating sex.

Historically, the story was often that women are the more "moral" sex. Men are beasts and women must tame them! Men are barbarians and women must civilize them! Now, this certainly doesn't mean that women should be allowed to lead or go to school or own property or vote or anything. That's all just beastly male stuff. No, the pure and moral women must be protected from all the beastly freedom and liberty out there, so they can direct their pure moral energy at caring for babies and husband.

It's funny when people blame feminism for these idiot stereotypes, since they're actually specifically and clearly anti-feminist, and since feminism has been the strongest force fighting AGAINST them.


They are not only rampant sexists, but have a profoundly stupid lack of self-respect as well. And anti-feminists notice them, for though not in the majority, they stick out like a sort thumb to them. It's also one of the top issues that extreme misogynists seem to rage about.

Yes, anti-feminists tend to cling to any flimsy excuse for their behavior that they can find. They also tend to find "oppression" and "anti-male sexism" in pretty much everything. They also love to blame feminists and feminism for ANTI-FEMINIST behavior (like what you are describing).

Ignore them. They are generally just bitter ex-husbands who are enraged that the bitch is getting child support payments.

No.



In seriousness, never underestimate the power of media. Culture 101.

I don't underestimate the power of the media, but I'm sick of people blaming the media without any justification.

I don't underestimate the power of the media, but I'm sick of people blaming the media without any justification.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I tend to not bother "justifying" the assertion that the media portrayal of men, women, and relationships is profoundly sexist. To me, that would be like justifying the assertion that water is wet. I also don't bother "justifying" the assertion that media portrayal impact how people behave toward one another, for the same reason.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I tend to not bother "justifying" the assertion that the media portrayal of men, women, and relationships is profoundly sexist. To me, that would be like justifying the assertion that water is wet. I also don't bother "justifying" the assertion that media portrayal impact how people behave toward one another, for the same reason.

Saying water is wet is a little different. That is a fact, but media portrayals are tangible. They change, station to station, magazine to magazine, right to left, country to country and year to year. I am not saying that the media portrayal of men or women isn't sexist, but if I were to say it, I'd add a little word called "because". People are quick to blame the media because people think that - like water's wetness - it needs no justification. Everyone is happy to blame something that has been blamed for a variety of things and constantly debated for years. I've heard this line a million times: "eating disorders are caused by the media". And while there is significant evidence that media's portrayal of women is a major contributor in creating body disatisfaction, you can't just make an outlandish claim with no justification. Instead - and I know this is getting a little off topic - you write a 1500 word essay explaining why the media is linked to eating disorders, and you study, and you learn, and you JUSTIFY your reasoning.

Saying water is wet is a little different. That is a fact, but media portrayals are tangible. They change, station to station, magazine to magazine, right to left, country to country and year to year.

And there has never been a time, in the history of broadcast, when the media wasn't overwhelmingly sexist.

If/when that time comes, I'll be sure to start qualifying my statements. Until then, I don't see the need.


I am not saying that the media portrayal of men or women isn't sexist, but if I were to say it, I'd add a little word called "because".

If I bothered to add a "because," it would have to be followed by "it's always been that way, and if you're actually thinking about criticizing this statement then you're probably so defensive and anti-feminist that the rest of our conversation would be pointless."


People are quick to blame the media because people think that - like water's wetness - it needs no justification.

I don't "blame" the media for anything other than what the media does. Which is to typically portray men, women, and relationships in deeply sexist terms.

Just like I blame a sexist person for their sexism, I blame the media for its sexism. I do this because "the media" isn't some intangible, invisible force. The media is PEOPLE making decisions about what information and programming and content to put out there. So I blame THOSE PEOPLE for the sexist choices they have made.


Everyone is happy to blame something that has been blamed for a variety of things and constantly debated for years. I've heard this line a million times: "eating disorders are caused by the media". And while there is significant evidence that media's portrayal of women is a major contributor in creating body disatisfaction, you can't just make an outlandish claim with no justification. Instead - and I know this is getting a little off topic - you write a 1500 word essay explaining why the media is linked to eating disorders, and you study, and you learn, and you JUSTIFY your reasoning.
Or you simply content yourself with the self-evident statement that media portrayals have been proven to impact body image and the incidence of eating disorders. Just like they've been proven to impact violent behavior, sexism, racism, and pretty much everything else that the media has ever addressed. Media impacts human behavior. This is a "no-duh" kind of statement.

No, I'm not going to write a 1500 word essay or personally perform studies or waste time endlessly justifying the obvious. If somebody actually wants to DEBATE whether the media is sexist, and whether those portrayals impact behavior among the public, then that person is clearly not interested in empiricism in any way. If all the evidence surrounding them every second of every day isn't enough to convince them, then nothing I say will make a difference. It would be like debating with a person who seriously believes that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Bring back Servants *chants*

Bring back Servants *chants*

A copper apiece, and straight back to jail with you! ;)

Never!

I wonder if the Butler Shortage will last?

And there has never been a time, in the history of broadcast, when the media wasn't overwhelmingly sexist.

If/when that time comes, I'll be sure to start qualifying my statements. Until then, I don't see the need.

Oh, puh-lease. Not every single thing in every single form of media is sexist.

And, if you don't feel the need to justify your statements, you're not a particularly good debater.

If I bothered to add a "because," it would have to be followed by "it's always been that way, and if you're actually thinking about criticizing this statement then you're probably so defensive and anti-feminist that the rest of our conversation would be pointless."

It's hilarious that you think that I'm attacking you. I made a broad statement about the fact that a lot of people tend to blame the media and you're taking that as a personal attack. You're the one being "defensive".

And, I am a woman, and I'm a feminist. I am a huge believer in gender equality.


I don't "blame" the media for anything other than what the media does. Which is to typically portray men, women, and relationships in deeply sexist terms.

Just like I blame a sexist person for their sexism, I blame the media for its sexism. I do this because "the media" isn't some intangible, invisible force. The media is PEOPLE making decisions about what information and programming and content to put out there. So I blame THOSE PEOPLE for the sexist choices they have made.

Do you honestly think every single member of the media is sexist? I highly doubt even you're ignorant enough to think that, so, you're incorrect in saying the media - as a whole - is sexist. Perhaps you should have begun with blaming those people for the sexist choices they made.

Or you simply content yourself with the self-evident statement that media portrayals have been proven to impact body image and the incidence of eating disorders. Just like they've been proven to impact violent behavior, sexism, racism, and pretty much everything else that the media has ever addressed. Media impacts human behavior. This is a "no-duh" kind of statement.

Yes, the media impacts human behaviour, but it's not the sole influence. I've watched television and films, and read magazines, books and newspapers my whole life, and I'm not racist, sexist and I've never shot anyone Bond-style.

No, I'm not going to write a 1500 word essay or personally perform studies or waste time endlessly justifying the obvious. If somebody actually wants to DEBATE whether the media is sexist, and whether those portrayals impact behavior among the public, then that person is clearly not interested in empiricism in any way. If all the evidence surrounding them every second of every day isn't enough to convince them, then nothing I say will make a difference. It would be like debating with a person who seriously believes that the Earth is 6000 years old.

I'm not trying to say that some of the media is NOT sexist, and I'm not trying to say that it does NOT impact behaviour. Perhaps you read my comments rather than being defensive, you would have realised that.

And, no, it's not like debating with someone who "thinks the Earth is 6000 years old". It's like debating with someone who has different views to you. It's like having an intelligent discussion.

However, "debating" with you is like arguing with a 4-year-old.