Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: Galt on Aug 18, 2005, 08:02 AM

Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 18, 2005, 08:02 AM
Men have a slight advantage with upper body strength.

This is usually in a military context.  Apparently, the implication is that women are equal in lower body strength, aggressiveness, devotion to duty and all the rest.

I don't know about the other (maybe subjective) areas, but I know that weightlifting records show that men can squat far more than women.  Men can run faster than women in terms of world records and in terms of averages.  Men win mixed marathons, in fact even to the extent that some marathons are now divided by gender, with the "winning" woman getting more prize money than a man who came in far ahead of her.

Women couldn't own property.

Sure they could, at least in the Western world.  The Domesday Book shows that women held property almost a thousand years ago.

http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/

You'll find more men there, but that's because the crude idea back then was that you either defend your land, or take someone else's land.  Mostly men did this - and then gave women the title to land (mostly royalty).  Kind of like Ivanna Trump today.

What I suspect (in fact strongly suspect since women's studies people are usually dumber than a brick - even doctoral people in this pseudo-subject) is that they are perverting the old legal concept of "coverture".  This was the old idea that when a man and woman married, the man had to be informed of the wife entering into contracts and the like.  And he also had to sign off on them.

At first, that sounds like really chauvanistic, male-pig type stuff.  And then you look closer at the corresponding laws, and you see that men were responsible for all debts of the wife.  She wasn't responsible for anything.  And people, men and women, accepted that arrangement back then.

If you friggin' think about it, if wives aren't responsible for anything, and if the man has to pay for anything his wife does, then he should be aware of what she is doing.  They're also married.  Now we've evolved to the phase in which men are mostly responsible for what their wife has done - in a divorce, for instance - but they certainly don't have any say over what she does.

I'm not sure which system is better, but I know that this has nothing to do with "women couldn't own property".

Women can multitask better.

There are real jobs in which multitasking is the ONLY job, and there is a huge amount of responsibility with each job that is multitasked.  A pilot is a good example.  Basically, he is just sitting in a chair, and has to be simultaneously aware of many events and computer screens, and has to simultaneously react to this information.

Most pilots are men.  You can Google some information on female pilots in the military, though, who were put into place despite qualification issues - and statistics vis-a-vis male pilots with regard to numbers of crashes etc.

If the issue is whether women can multitask better with idiotic tasks - like talking on the phone with Carol while watching Oprah while dusting, who friggin' cares.

No woman would lie about sexual assault.

Look around you for this one.  You may not know someone who has been falsely accused of something by a woman for personal gain or revenge, but you can almost certainly think of an example in which a woman lied or manipulated to get something.  Men do it too, certainly, but the focus on women here is because of their unique ability to lie about this area.

People - men and women - risk prison to embezzle money, they rob banks, they marry people they don't even like and "pretend" to get money, they scam insurance companies for money - they do all sorts of things.  Why WOULDN'T someone also lie if it's easy to do, the stakes are potentially great, and there are no repercussions, or only minor ones, for your attempt.  As it is today with this specific area.

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

These things seem pretty obvious.  What is really disturbing is that there is a subject at universities in which all of this crap - and much more - is spread around.  That subject is called "women's studies".  They don't examine what they are saying, they don't take historical context into consideration, they don't do anything EXCEPT spend all of their friggin' time trying to think about why women are exploited by men.  They come up with more and more subtle arguments - and more and more lies and distortions that the stupid general public may believe - while their fathers, boyfriends or husbands are working or studying something useful to pay for them to do this.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Wookie on Aug 18, 2005, 08:44 AM
Here's one,

Women have a greater emotional intelegence!

My comment: ?

Wookie
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: sethay on Aug 18, 2005, 09:09 AM
What about "The term 'Rule of thumb' came from British law which allowed men to beat their wives with a stick no thicker then their thumb."

This was taught in a total of three of my college classes by three different profs...

As people here probably already know, the term has nothing to do with that.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-rul1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rule_of_thumb
http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofwomenshistory/a/rule_of_thumb.htm (even this very pro-feminist admits it is a lie!)

I even found an article in a peer reviewed journal debunking the myth.  I brought this to the attention of my profs.  However....I doubt they will stop teaching this lie.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluegrass on Aug 18, 2005, 09:12 AM
I even heard Simon Shama bust that one out during a viewing of "history of Britain" on the hisotry channel.

I was shocked!  This guy's a reknown historian who is often credited with having written THE definitive history of the French Revolution -- yet there it was!
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 18, 2005, 09:17 AM
I had a feminist professor at university who droned on and on about that.  Sometimes I can't believe what society accepts.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluegrass on Aug 18, 2005, 09:32 AM
Sethay-

I checked out that women's history link and of course found this quote:

"Yet ... there can be no doubt that wife-beating was once common and, in most legal circles, acceptable if it didn't "go too far.""

Really?  On what she bases this, she doesn't say.  In fact, I doubt if anyone could find contemporary sources that support that wife beating was common.

In fact, I've read things that were quite contrary.  If you read enough history of which the purpose is NOT women's issues, the authors often let snippets slip through under the radar.

I've come across several references to wife beaters being the recipients of vigilante justice in lots of instances.  She of course, doesn't mention this.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 18, 2005, 09:46 AM
Another myth is that women are just slammed down in the work world

In the government, in universities and in very large corporations, there are definitely affirmative action goals in place for women.

In the area of self-employment, or starting a company, the government has set-asides for female-owned businesses.

Aside from the fact that almost no one cares whether a woman or a man started the company if he or she can get the same service or product for cheaper.

No one really cares if a woman busts her butt or a man busts his butt to start a real company with real services or products.

But all of the statistics fail to recognize that far more women than men are happy with leeching off ... men.  In other words, a large percentage of women in society are happy with a part-time job - or no job - if they are married to a man who produces everything for them.  It's not the same the other way around (with men).

So you are going to have a reduced pool of candidates - just on THAT basis, women are not going to fill 50% of the hard-core positions.  They don't want that, because they have the same lifestyle when the MAN (i.e. husband) fills the hard-core position.

That is just obvious, but it's apparently not obvious to most anyone else in society.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: sethay on Aug 18, 2005, 09:49 AM
Quote from: "bluegrass"
Sethay-

I checked out that women's history link and of course found this quote:

"Yet ... there can be no doubt that wife-beating was once common and, in most legal circles, acceptable if it didn't "go too far.""

Really?  On what she bases this, she doesn't say.  In fact, I doubt if anyone could find contemporary sources that support that wife beating was common.

In fact, I've read things that were quite contrary.  If you read enough history of which the purpose is NOT women's issues, the authors often let snippets slip through under the radar.

I've come across several references to wife beaters being the recipients of vigilante justice in lots of instances.  She of course, doesn't mention this.


Yeah, I know....I just found it interesting that even someone so deep in feminist bs still admits that the Rule of Thumb thing is a myth.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: realman on Aug 18, 2005, 09:56 AM
We also have to keep in mind much of what is said about poor treatment fo women in the past IS true... but the femmies don't mention that men underrwent treatment just as horrific if not worse.

For example, in viking culture if a wealthy property owned (male) passed on, it was customary for his comrades to all have sex with a slave girl, then the slave girl would join her master as part of the funeral pyre. Pretty lousy treatment of women, huh? Except for the fact that young amles slaves were routinely killed and hung in trees and left there to decompose. Pretty lousy treatment of men, huh?

How about viking women who were in charge of the servants, property, and workinsg of the home while their husbands were out risking life and limb and soemtimes meeting heinous fates in their efforts to bring prosperity to their family.

It's easy to amek it sound like women were so downtrodden in the past if you ignore all the ways men were killed, tortured, maimed, etc.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluegrass on Aug 18, 2005, 10:09 AM
....or the concept of men having authority over their wives and in turn taking responsibility for the acts of their wives.  Why was this?

Because during the middle ages in much of Europe, civil law contests were decided through combat.  That is, if two people had a dispute that couldn't be settled "out of court" they met on the field with weapons and fought until one was either dead or surrendered.  The belief was that God would be on the side of the righteous and grant him a slight advantage to win.  So if a man had to take responsibility for his wife's actions, it could often mean his death.  

Now if the man wasn't killed, but surrendered and was allowed to live, the common sentence was usually having his eyes put out along with castration.

The position of women in this instance was somewhat similar to the position of nobility:  very often nobles would hire professional champions to fight in their stead -- just as a woman had a husband to fight for her.

And you still see this today.  As soon as some witch kills one of her kids, the first thing everyone tries to do is hold the husband accountable.

It's really amazing how little things have changed other than the intimacy and dramatic nature of the brutality.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr. Bad on Aug 18, 2005, 10:10 AM
Quote from: "realman"
We also have to keep in mind much of what is said about poor treatment fo women in the past IS true... but the femmies don't mention that men underrwent treatment just as horrific if not worse.

For example, in viking culture if a wealthy property owned (male) passed on, it was customary for his comrades to all have sex with a slave girl, then the slave girl would join her master as part of the funeral pyre. Pretty lousy treatment of women, huh? Except for the fact that young amles slaves were routinely killed and hung in trees and left there to decompose. Pretty lousy treatment of men, huh?

How about viking women who were in charge of the servants, property, and workinsg of the home while their husbands were out risking life and limb and soemtimes meeting heinous fates in their efforts to bring prosperity to their family.

It's easy to amek it sound like women were so downtrodden in the past if you ignore all the ways men were killed, tortured, maimed, etc.


Exactly.  There was much bad treatment of both women and men, which was based overwhelmingly on class, not gender.  Feminazis have changed history in order to suit their agenda, morphing class-based abuse into "gender-based abuse."  

This is also the case with the vote, at least in the U.S.  As I've written several times before in other threads, suffrage was quite non-uniform in the colonies and early U.S., with most suffrage being based on land ownership (i.e., membership in the upper class).  And in many cases, land-owning women could vote alongside men.  Within about 10 years after the Civil War, men recieved universal suffrage, in large part as a reward for fighting the bloodiest war in history (at the time) to the preserve the Union.  About 40 years later (1919 I believe), women got universal suffrage as a reward for, well, complaining.
Title: Re: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 10:36 AM
"Men have a slight advantage with upper body strength"

"Women couldn't own property"

"Women can multitask better"

"No woman would lie about sexual assault"

Actually, I've never heard any of the four of these statements as they are written here, being major props of the feminist philosophy.  I've read articles about the average man's innate potential for greater upper body strength than the average woman; I've read about the historical gender division of property in various cultures; I've heard of studies that found that on average women outperformed men on psychological tests designed to evaluate multitasking capabilities; and...actually, I've never heard *anyone* claim that NO woman would lie about sexual assault.  JMO!
Title: Re: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 18, 2005, 11:22 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
... and...actually, I've never heard *anyone* claim that NO woman would lie about sexual assault.  JMO!


Then you never read the old MS Magazine boards   LOL ... but I agree that no *reasonable* people say that, even most feminists use the discredited Susan Brownmiller statistic of 2%.

Another typical feminist myth is that they say the FBI has this statistic on its website.  The columnist John Leo wrote about an interaction with a feminist telling him that.  He said that the FBI never said any such thing (in fact ... go to their website and try to find it).  The feminist then said it was probably from the Department of Justice (nope) or another important government website, but that was all irrelevant because he was obviously a misogynist who wanted to hold women down.

End analysis: Feminists DON'T CARE if something is true or not.  Neither do feminists in women's studies programs or classes.  Truly disgusting.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 18, 2005, 11:39 AM
Ikanneg ... I don't know what to say if you have never heard these feminist myths.  

You've never heard that women weren't allowed to own property?

I'll put it nicely and say ... that isn't even credible.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: RockyMountainMan on Aug 18, 2005, 11:55 AM
In case you missed it the first time:

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: realman on Aug 18, 2005, 12:48 PM
Um, looking at a couple of threads here...beware,  elves, gnomes, and other (unnamed) mythical creatures may be about...
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluegrass on Aug 18, 2005, 12:59 PM
Yeah I don't know if she'll be back, though.  I think she was just here to see how "hysterical" we are in our fear of women gaining equality since we're all either here because we're afraid of women or angry because we're such losers that no woman would have us.
Title: Re: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 01:05 PM
Best article I've read on the subject so far:

The Elusive Numbers on False Rape

by Dick Haws
Haws teaches journalism at Iowa State University.
Readers of The Kansas City Star were told last March that, according to police estimates, perhaps 25 percent of all rape reports nationwide are false.

But in Dallas, two months before that, the Morning News reported police findings that 6.2 percent of the 793 rapes in that city in 1995 (the most recent year available) were considered false.

And in Louisville, six months earlier, the author of an op-ed article in The Courier-Journal told readers that the percentage of rape reports that turn out to be false was the same nationally as for other major crimes - around 2 percent.

So how can one presumably simple statistic vary so widely? Because the number depends on whom you ask.

If you talk to sexual assault counselors, you'll most likely hear the low figure: that 2 percent of all accusations of sexual assault reported to law enforcement across the country are later found to be false, which, the counselors say, is the same rate as for other crimes. Of all the numbers out there, this has been cited most often, appearing in publications from The Boston Globe to the Houston Chronicle, The Christian Science Monitor, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Newsweek, and Editor & Publisher.

Sometimes the figure is attributed to a particular source ? but that's still no guarantee the numbers can't be challenged. Marcia L. Roth, the author of the 1996 op-ed article in the Louisville Courier-Journal, attributed the 2 percent rate to the 1993 book Rape, the Misunderstood Crime, by Julie Allison and Lawrence Wrightsman. But Allison and Wrightsman weren't so unequivocal. Noting that the frequency of false rape reports is difficult to assess, they didn't do their own study; instead they looked at a synthesis of research findings from a 1979 book, Understanding the Rape Victim, by Sedelle Katz and Mary Ann Mazur. Katz and Mazur, it turns out, had reviewed studies dating back to 1956 that showed the frequency of unfounded and false rape reports ranging from a low of 1 percent to a high of 25 percent. Allison and Wrightsman simply chose the study that showed 2 percent.

Another named source for the 2 percent figure has been Against Our Will, the groundbreaking book on sexual violence by Susan Brownmiller published in 1975. She was reporting on the phenomenon that in New York City, the rate of false accusations dropped "dramatically" to 2 percent as soon as the police began using policewomen instead of men to interview complainants.

Sometimes the 2 percent figure appears without any attribution. It simply floats out there, as in a 1994 article in the Houston Chronicle that cites a women's center official as the source for the false-rape-report figure of "between 2 and 3 percent." Period. And sometimes the attribution is vague but credible-sounding, like "federal statistics" or "the FBI." In 1992, The Boston Globe reported that a rape counselor stated the 2 percent rate for false reporting of rapes is the same as for false reports of other crimes - "according to the FBI."

But the FBI has been saying since 1991 that the annual rate for the false reporting of forcible sexual assault across the country has been a consistent 8 percent (through 1995, the most recent year available). That's four times higher than the average of the false-reporting rates of the other crimes tracked by the FBI in its Uniform Crime Report. The agency's guidelines define a report as false when an investigation determines that no offense occurred. A complainant's failure or refusal to cooperate in the investigation does not, by itself, lead to a finding of false report.

If you look to academe for such studies about false reports, you'll come across the unusually high percentage found by the Purdue University sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, now retired. In an examination of rape reports from 1978 to 1987 in an unnamed midwestern city of 70,000, he found that of the 109 rapes reported to the police, 45, or 41 percent, were subsequently classified as false. Kanin also got the police records of two unnamed large state universities and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false.

One explanation for such a wide range in the statistics might simply be that they come from different studies of different populations at different times. But there's also a strong political tilt to the debate. A low number would undercut a belief about rape as old as the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife: that some women, out of shame or vengeance or, more recently, the desire to circumvent restrictions on their ability to get or pay for an abortion, claim that their consensual encounters or rebuffed advances were rapes. If the number is high, on the other hand, advocates for women who have been raped worry it may also taint the credibility of the genuine victims of sexual assault.

Yet the times may be changing, and while some women still make false charges, true rape victims don't seem to be feeling the backlash. The Kansas City Star reported as much when it assessed the impact earlier this year of the false rape complaint lodged against Michael Irvin and Erik Williams of the Dallas Cowboys. "We're not having any fallout," a Dallas sexual abuse counselor told the Star in March. "Had this been twenty years ago, I would have really worried about it."

It's obvious every one of these numbers has its shortcoming. Defenders of low rates of "false reports" generally base their opinions on studies that, for the most part, are more than twenty years old. Since then, there's been a virtual revolution in the way the police and the courts respond to sexual assault.

The FBI's numbers have also been criticized on several grounds, including the bureau's assumption that all 16,765 police agencies across the country have carefully and uniformly followed its guidelines for judging a rape "unfounded." That's simply not likely.

And some of the studies are obviously limited. Kanin of Purdue warned against reading too much into his examination of the small midwestern city: "Certainly our intent is not to suggest that the 41 percent incidence found here be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the structural variables."

For the reporter, the conclusion is clear. Don't rely on one source. Talk to the local sexual assault counselors, talk to the local police, talk to the FBI, talk to the academics. Try to make some sense out of all the different numbers. And be careful.

http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 01:09 PM
"You've never heard that women weren't allowed to own property?"

I just thought it over once more carefully, and no, I never have heard anybody say that.  I *have* heard the following:

"In past times, women rarely owned property."
"In past times, if a woman owned property, it became her husband's upon their marriage."
"In past times, married women could not independently purchase property."

I'm sorry you find it hard to believe, but I def. don't have any reason to lie about it, lol.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 18, 2005, 01:13 PM
Damn, "past times" must have been nice.   8)
Title: Re: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 18, 2005, 01:22 PM
Okay, since we're going to have to be clear on word choice here...

Quote from: "Galt"
Men have a slight advantage with upper body strength.


Truth is, this one gets beat to death (pun intended) exactly how it's worded when discussing DV issues.

It's a true statement, though, and it is the case in lower body strength as well.  On average, women have about 50% upper and 75% lower body potential strenth that men have.  I'll have to find the link where I found that.

lkanneg is right, though.  We're talking about potential strength, so feminists are full of shit if they want to use that as supporting reasons for lopsided DV legislation.

Quote
No woman would lie about sexual assault.


I believe the claim is "women have no reason to lie about sexual assault," which is, of course, bullshit.
Title: Re: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 01:32 PM
If anybody says that (that women have no reason to lie about sexual assault) then they're being ridiculous.  People in general have all sorts of reasons to lie about all sorts of things, and there's hardly any reason that women and sexual assault would be any different.  Unfortunately (sigh).
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluegrass on Aug 18, 2005, 01:43 PM
Yes, but honestly I've seen countless times people claim that lying about sexual assault almost never happens.  This assertion is usually followed by a graphic description of what is entailed in a rape exam and how traumatic that it as well.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: SouthernGuy on Aug 18, 2005, 01:48 PM
"If anybody says that (that women have no reason to lie about sexual assault) then they're being ridiculous."

Yep, revenge is a powerful motivator. I broke up with a live-in girlfriend and  I said and did a few things that humiliated her over the next few days after the break-up, but trust me she deserved it. Two weeks later I was arrested for suspicion of rape. When the detectives discovered I had a airtight alibi, they said "thanks, we'll be in touch" and let me go. What did they do to Shannon? NOTHING.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 02:07 PM
Quote from: "bluegrass"
Yes, but honestly I've seen countless times people claim that lying about sexual assault almost never happens.  This assertion is usually followed by a graphic description of what is entailed in a rape exam and how traumatic that it as well.


Ew, well, I have to agree with the part about a rape exam being traumatic.  I find gynecological exams somewhat traumatic and I haven't even been raped beforehand, lol.  I am pretty sure that rape exams *are* traumatic.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 02:13 PM
We all have our own differing personal experiences...which is why I try not to make generalizations from mine--if I did, I'd have to say, "Women never make false rape reports to the authorities" because I haven't known any woman who did, but obviously it *does* happen.  Actually, interestingly enough, none of the women I've known who've been raped ever reported their *actual* rape to the authorities either.  The only incident I knew of that did get reported, only did because an outside party reported it.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 18, 2005, 03:26 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Actually, interestingly enough, none of the women I've known who've been raped ever reported their *actual* rape to the authorities either.  The only incident I knew of that did get reported, only did because an outside party reported it.


Maybe all of your "raped friends" (sounds like several) should quit drinking.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 18, 2005, 03:42 PM
Ikanneg, you missed out, and I mean you really missed out, if you weren't able to post or read on the MS Magazine boards before they were shut down.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 04:37 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Actually, interestingly enough, none of the women I've known who've been raped ever reported their *actual* rape to the authorities either.  The only incident I knew of that did get reported, only did because an outside party reported it.


"Maybe all of your "raped friends" (sounds like several) should quit drinking."

Why?  None of them have or had drinking problems.

Several...hmm, let me think.  Counting...four, that I've known of.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 04:38 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Ikanneg, you missed out, and I mean you really missed out, if you weren't able to post or read on the MS Magazine boards before they were shut down.


Why's that?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 18, 2005, 05:00 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Ikanneg ... I don't know what to say if you have never heard these feminist myths.  

You've never heard that women weren't allowed to own property?

I'll put it nicely and say ... that isn't even credible.



I agree.  These are standards. Especially the one about women never lying about rape.
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 18, 2005, 05:20 PM
Galt said:

"Men have a slight advantage with upper body strength. This is usually in a military context. Apparently, the implication is that women are equal in lower body strength, aggressiveness, devotion to duty and all the rest. "


I will address this- Feminism is predicated on the belief that men and women are functionally equal. They have spread many myths on this farce including the upper/lower body nonsense, you are absolutely right Galt.

Feminist physical myths (that are often mindless reguritated) include:

<Men are stronger but women have more endurance.> Factually incorrect. This myth seems to have been abandoned finally.

<Women have stronger stomach muscles because they get pregnant.> Both factually incorrect and absurd.

<Men are stronger in the upper body but women are stronger in the lower body.> Factually incorrect- the same mechanism by which men build muscle is the same regardless of body region. Men squat more weight then women, deadlift more weight, leg press more weight, run faster, jump higher etc.

<Men are stronger then women only because they are bigger and women are 'equal' to men when size differences are accounted for.> This myth is the latest which is replacing the earlier upper/lower nonsense. Men are stronger then women due to greater muscle mass and a far greater capacity to build muscle mass as well as a poorly understood greater neuro-muscular efficiency. The new myth wants the greater muscle mass 'discounted' in their definition. This illogic is equivalent to comparing the intelligence of humans to dogs and then subtracting IQ points off humans in proportion to the size of a human's brain versus a dog's and then concluding that humans are just big dogs.

<Female bodybuilders prove that women are physically equal to men.> Factually incorrect. Professional female bodybuilders are deformed- the result of cellular sex reversal from birth and via the use of synthetic male hormone. They do not fit into any rational definiton of a normal healthy woman. Thus they are not female and are not representative of what a female can do. Plus professional 'female' bodybuilders and powerlifters are still, even reversed as deformed men, inferior to their male counterparts.

The bottom line is normal healthy men are stronger then normal healthy women. The reason for this, which is an anathema to feminists, is because men are designed for physical prowess and women are designed for motherhood and nurturing. In otherwords a division of labor (sex roles) designed by nature.

Facts (and obvious reality) are something foreign to feminists. All that matters to them is satisying their own personal ego/identity issues and promoting a world which will hand to them whatever they want and forgive them whatever they do.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: CaptDMO on Aug 18, 2005, 08:15 PM
My new favorite myth/denial -whatever
How Fathers Can Win Child Custody (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4550.html)
A work in progress at Intellectual Conservitive (check out the list of contributing writers to the site)
When I first saw this I thought "Sheesh, what a load. This is just the same stuff woman have done for the last thirty years!"
Then I thought it makes a fine outline for fathers and those considering fatherhood- "What some women have done,what to to watch for, what to expect- if things may heading for the courtroom"
Strategies origanally prompted by divorce lawers to women-then, as word got out, through womens authors and chatty-chat at  women only gatherings (usually smaller discreet ones).

Waaaaay too many years of "antecdotal" cases in the courts and MSM showing  abuse by spiteful and greedy mothers using their children as tools in settlements -some of these schemes come straight out of hollywood!(effective in the CS industry none the less)

Within 48 hours the hyperlinks and trackbacks were appearing on the websites of "the usual suspects" and beyond. Most who have ZERO insight to the divorce/childrens legal system.

The usual "Men are scum", stereotyping of all male groups, instant "misdirection" with the all inclusive No CS/F4J/MRA/ex-revenge, and other folk that had nothing to do with it are casually tossed around by the chorus. When faced with the horrid lack of empathy, indisputable truths, and irrefutable facts, the responses ranged from the expected "Well I'll bet you....", to "You must have a....".

But, of course, what is most amusing is the instant denial, and the developmen of "A mother/woman would NEVER do this" myth. It was clear to me that "the usual suspects" believe that the same old Acceptance as truth by ceasless repetition they've learned from their screeching older sisters will still carry the day, and that endless denial in the bald face of truth will garner their ilk a "herstoric"(sic) place in the public eye.

Well, they're right,it will,
but it's no longer a  place that they'll feel so smug looking up from the bottom of.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 08:31 PM
I agree that men are genetically better designed in the physical strength department than women are.  Women do have a few innate physical advantages, but not many, and I can only think of two that actually relate to physical activity off the top of my head--lower center of gravity and greater flexibility.   However, like all tendencies, statistical likelihoods, etc., it's never wise to extend that generalization into the personal realm--you can't randomly pick a man and woman out of the general population and say, "He's stronger than she is."  When I was in the Army, my upper body strength was greater than about a third of the guys in my unit and equal to about another third, and the last third of the guys were stronger than I was.  So at that time, if someone had picked me and a guy at random from the group, they would have had somewhere between a 30-50% chance of being wrong, and a 50-70% chance of being right, if they'd said, "He's a man so he's stronger than you are."
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluetrigger on Aug 18, 2005, 08:35 PM
I think Ikanneg makes a valid point with respect to the precision of our wording.

Although I have heard all of the phrases stated the way that you put them , Ikanneg, I have also heard them phrased in the ways that the other posters have put them, too.  Either way, though, the substantial meaning is the same in either case. IMO.

Like most political ideological activists, feminists like to propagate their movement by creating memes that can be repeated in the media, classrooms and such, and which gain a false credibility by their repetition. Such as the myth (or false meme) that that DV cases increase on Superbowl Sunday, that the word "History" means "HIS-story", that the statistical difference in men's and women's incomes are due to discrimination, etc.  

Language deteriorates as it is circulated around. But your correction of the precision of our language is, at least for me, appreciated because it keeps us on our toes.  

Again,  I don't see how your corrections substantially change the validity of the points made on this thread. :)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 18, 2005, 08:59 PM
LOL, I swear I'm not trying to be nitpicky!  :)  Maybe it's partly the engineer in me...which gives me an idea for a siggy, it's one of my favorite quotes.  The main reason I'm so particular in what I say, though, is because I feel I must be able to factually defend any assertion I make, and I cannot factually defend goofy statements like, "No woman would ever do <whatever>."  And the choice of modifier really makes a massive difference in the accuracy of a statement...for instance, I could say, "Most rapists are men," and be able to back that up statistically.  I couldn't say, "All rapists are men," and be able to back THAT up at all.  And it's highly offensive as well.  Small as the difference in those two statements are, they make a *real* difference in the meaning, kwim?

I honestly haven't heard the statements you've all been posting coming from any feminist in the specific form you post them.  Of course I've heard somewhat *similar* statements, but again, the small change in word choice gives an enormous change in meaning sometimes.  I'm not trying to say that *nobody's* ever said what you've all been posting, though--I'm sure *somebody* has.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluetrigger on Aug 18, 2005, 10:06 PM
Your caution against the use of sweeping generalizations is well taken. SGs are not always wrong, but usually are--especially when referring to catagories of people.Condsidering this thread, I'm not sure why you gave these examples. I didn't see any posts here that made generalizations. As far as I can see, all the posts made were appropriately conditional. Generally, when a poster does use a negative SG about people, Dr. Evil swopes down and smacks 'em.  

The sweeping generalizations that were attributed to feminists--that's a different matter. I've heard them all, expressed in a number of ways by feminists and non-committed people (which, btw, means they are having their intended effect). I've heard them in the media, classrooms, casual conversation, in meetings, in professional periodicals, in advocacy research, etc.; expressed sometimes exactly as phrased at the beginning of this thread.

I'll agree not all feminists make sweeping generalizations, but that's not the topic of this thread. The topic was about myths that (albeit some, not all) feminists do make (which sometimes take the form of catagorical generalizations about both sexes--nearly always in a way that harms the iimage of boys and men) . Which I think is a problem worthy of discussion. Especially on this board.

Again, I don't think the change in language substantially matters in the case of this thread. In fact, it kind of throws the subject off course.

Btw, if its in your nature to be nitpicky, that's ok. You need to be yourself!  :wink:
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: CaptDMO on Aug 18, 2005, 10:41 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
?
I honestly haven't heard the statements you've all been posting coming from any feminist in the specific form you post them.  Of course I've heard somewhat *similar* statements, but again, the small change in word choice gives an enormous change in meaning sometimes..


I MUST STAND CORRECTED. In no place did I see the exact words "A mother/woman would NEVER do this"

Further, nowhere did I see any attempt at refute of the history of, or current popularity of, womans use of the actions described at all.However, at this point,I've only reread comment threads from two( yet unnamed-but pop ) of the  sites that I've gleaned  insight from for my previous written opinion.

Quote from: "bluetrigger"
Language deteriorates as it is circulated around. But your(Ikanneg) correction of the precision of our language is, at least for me, appreciated because it keeps us on our toes.
parenthesis mine
agreed and seconded.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: neoteny on Aug 18, 2005, 11:13 PM
Quote from: "RockyMountainMan"
In case you missed it the first time:

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html)


That was outstanding; thanks for the link.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: neonsamurai on Aug 19, 2005, 12:14 AM
Ikanneg said in relation to friends of hers who'd been raped
Quote
Several...hmm, let me think. Counting...four, that I've known of.


Four of your friends have been raped? That's terrible. Why didn't they report what happened to them to the police?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 06:22 AM
Quote from: "neonsamurai"
Ikanneg said in relation to friends of hers who'd been raped
Quote
Several...hmm, let me think. Counting...four, that I've known of.


Four of your friends have been raped? That's terrible. Why didn't they report what happened to them to the police?


Let's see...No. 1 might have called the police of her own accord, but before she had managed to calm down enough to have that suggested to her, somebody else had already called them.  No. 2 was raped by her boyfriend; she was too afraid of what her very racist, violent father would do to her if he found out during the course of a police investigation and trial that she had been dating a black guy to try to have him prosecuted for it.  No. 3 was raped by a, well she thought, a friend; they were both part of a close circle of friends and she had gone willingly alone to his place that time as she had done many times in the past.  She couldn't stand the idea of their entire circle of friends *knowing,* which they would have; she couldn't stand the idea of rejection from any of those friends; she thought the police/judge/jury would blame her for being alone with the guy on purpose and she would be humiliated and traumatized for nothing; she was terrified that he would come after her and do it again in revenge if she tried to have him arrested.  No. 4 was raped by her boyfriend and wasn't 100% sure at the time that he had known for sure that she didn't want to have sex-- and she didn't report him from a combination of that feeling of uncertainty and because she thought that nobody would believe she hadn't wanted to have sex because she had let him kiss her and touch her intimately (she was a virgin).  (She did find out much later that he had definitely known she hadn't wanted to have sex.)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: neonsamurai on Aug 19, 2005, 07:00 AM
That's pretty grim.

But it sounds like there was nothing anyone could do about the last three. I mean, the guys broke the law, but the situations were so difficult that nothing could be done without causing more problems. It's like me knowing who one of the London bombers is, but if I told the police I'd lose all my friends, or have my family disown me.

It's a tough call.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: SIAM on Aug 19, 2005, 07:10 AM
I think we are giving feminists too much credit here with words like "myth" and "belief" - they are deliberate lies.  Lies that are as bold as telling the emporer that he is not naked, but in fact wearing clothing of materials so fine, they can't be seen by the human eye, nor felt by skin.  Eventually society will stop playing the game that women are weak when it suits them, and equal and as good as men are when it suits them, or even better than men when it suits them.  

For me, this is the biggest lie of all:-

women are better parents then men (aka "in the best interests of the child, we award full custody to the mother").  

Second biggest lie:-

DV almost always involves the man being the aggressor and the women being the victim.

While I'm at it, another kind-of lie:-

passive aggression is just a "bit of fun"/clever/sophisticated.  Many women hide their aggression through passive acts, such as with-holding access to her children's father or through ostracising somebody from a group (through bad-mouthing them, spreading false rumours).  Not only are women just as likely as men to be physically violent, they are far more likely to resort to passive-aggression than men are.  

I honestly believe women in general have a greater capacity to cruelty and aggression than men do.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 07:16 AM
Quote from: "IMHO"
I honestly believe women in general have a greater capacity to cruelty and aggression than men do.


Wow, I can't even begin to imagine how you'd factually back up such an assertion.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: SIAM on Aug 19, 2005, 07:19 AM
Quote
Wow, I can't even begin to imagine how you'd factually back up such an assertion.


I came to this conclusion through experience and observation.  When including passive-aggression, I believe my experiences are not atypical of other people's.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 07:29 AM
Quote from: "IMHO"
Quote
Wow, I can't even begin to imagine how you'd factually back up such an assertion.


I came to this conclusion through experience and observation.  When including passive-aggression, I believe my experiences are not atypical of other people's.


I dunno...personal experience and observation aren't a very good tool when it comes to quantifying entire genders or other subsections of humanity, imo.  For instance, if I did that, I would conclude that men are overwhelmingly more physically and sexually abusive towards their SO and children than women are, since that has been my experience and observation.  But I'm not comfortable with that conclusion because my experience and observation aren't statistically significant.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 07:35 AM
Quote from: "IMHO"
I honestly believe women in general have a greater capacity to cruelty and aggression than men do.


What doesn't help the situation any is the fact that boys and young men who dance out of line are going to eventually be smacked back into place by the police, fathers, other men or society in general.  Or they eventually wind up in prison.

Young women are given more leeway - in part because unless she REALLY gets out of line, no one dares step in and restrain her - so some of them almost feel they have the right to slap men, treat people like crap, and pretty much give in to whatever their little ego wants.  Combine that with the fact that the panting young man chasing after her will keep coming back for the golden vagina no matter how poorly she treats him - and you have a recipe for creating a monster.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluegrass on Aug 19, 2005, 07:40 AM
Galt-

I know you like to attribute it to sex, but frankly I think it's deeper than that.  I'm beginning to think that the sexual part is really just an expression of the emotional part -- that is, the constant quest for sex is really more of a constant quest for emotional connection and that an awful lot of men seem to generalize their emotional dependence on their mothers with the women in their lives.

They're not on a constant quest for "pussy" as much as they're on a constant quest for their mothers' approval.  This is the basis of everything from chivalry to some mens' seeming sexual addiction.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 07:46 AM
Quote from: "bluegrass"
Galt-

I know you like to attribute it to sex, but frankly I think it's deeper than that.  I'm beginning to think that the sexual part is really just an expression of the emotional part -- that is, the constant quest for sex is really more of a constant quest for emotional connection and that an awful lot of men seem to generalize their emotional dependence on their mothers with the women in their lives.

They're not on a constant quest for "pussy" as much as they're on a constant quest for their mothers' approval.  This is the basis of everything from chivalry to some mens' seeming sexual addiction.


I agree, and that's another part of it.  Men are conditioned to go to great lengths to avoid hearing "you're not a real man" and therefore develop chivalry as a reflex.

I also have it in me from my childhood conditioning.  At least I'm getting a little bit better: Getting onto an airplane once, Cute Young Thing(TM) was still on a cell phone, and she simply pointed to her luggage, pointed to the rack where it was supposed to go, and then turned her back and continued her conversation.  I just ignored her.

Maybe it's not even all childhood conditioning.  Maybe there's something genetic there, but I know that men will really take burdens on themselves to help women - who may not even be thankful.  It's just expected.

But part of it is still the quest for the possibility of pink taco.  I saw a hidden camera-type show in which a good looking woman stopped random men and told them that she dropped her ring in the icky garbage can by mistake.  Could he please be a real man (bats eyes) and put his own hand in the garbage and fish it out for her?  Then they dressed up the same woman as a hag with makeup, false teeth and pillows under her clothes designed to make her look chubby.  Far fewer men bit - but some still did, and those are the ones in which chivalry played a dominant role.

I'd like to see how many people - men or women - would help a man with the same request.  Probably 0 women and 0 men.  They would say, "get it out yourself, you wimp."
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: SIAM on Aug 19, 2005, 08:06 AM
Quote
I dunno...personal experience and observation aren't a very good tool when it comes to quantifying entire genders or other subsections of humanity, imo.


I think they are, especially when the alternatives are statistics and factoids. You can create any "factoid" you like, and twist statistics to "confirm" pre-defined assumptions.   An example: personally I'll make judgements on who to trust/who not to trust based on my past experiences and intuition, not simply by reading dry academic studies on human behaviour (which in any case are subject to bias) - your intuition is going to be far more accurate than using studies and demographics and making assumptions on an individual from such dry analysis. A big part of survival is to learn from, and adapt to your environment.  You don't do that through theory alone.  

If I looked at my past experiences, and then if I was to accept conventional wisdom on domestic violence (based on many "facts"), I would have to suffer the symptoms of cognitive disonance :D
Title: Male Privilege
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Aug 19, 2005, 08:21 AM
Sometimes these things just turn into an article - Sorry about the length.

Personally, I think the myth of male privilege is the biggest crock to have ever evolved out of the "devoid of intelligence" swamps of stupidity and radical/gender feminism.
http://www.menstuff.org/pov/povs/malepriv.html

Gee, the myth of male privilege, or something like it, would sure make a great title for a book,
http://tinyurl.com/cwrjg  That book should be required reading in every Women's Studies 101 course in the world.

My Dearly departed Father only had a 7th grade education, because he had to quit school to go work in the fields and help the family make a living.  Historically, families where considered more privileged if they had more male children to work the fields so how is breaking your back for a living male privilege?
http://www.cafepress.com/mensbiz.10490197
Privileged Patriarchs or Beasts of Burden

Ironically, it was my mother, who had the 8th grade education, who was the most bitter about being denied a chance to go on to high school, and one of her oft repeated phrases was, "Those books will make a damned fool out of you."  Yes, I guess my own dear Mom, suffered from that common female malady of today; having a perception of unjustly being denied privileges, then being confused and conflicted about the whole thing.  If the truth be told, I have no recollection of my Dad having ever expressed any disatisfaction or bitterness with his lot in life.  He just accepted it and made the best of it like the truly noble guy he was.

Men have historically been sent off to war with no choice in the matter.  Even in today's volunteer army America still says that only men can serve in direct front line combat roles on the ground.  So how is getting gassed or blown up by artillery (as some of my relatives have been) male privilege?
http://www.cafepress.com/mensbiz.9157428
Privileged Patriarch or Disposable Patriot

Men are 94% of industrial deaths and injuries so are men who are forced to take the death jobs to support their families, Privileged Partriarchs, or are they, historically, really just industrial guinea pigs?  Here's an old book that gives a glimpse of the historical toll taken on men's lives to build the industry and infrastructure of this great nation.
http://tinyurl.com/cvmw9
Death on the Job

How do male feminists and women's studies instructors explain male privilege to black men who die (on average) 14 years sooner than privileged, pampered white women who are the driving force of the bigoted, anti-male radical/gender feminist movement?

A good male friend of mine, who happens to be black, nailed it for me one day when he matter of factly stated, "Death is the Ultimate Indicator of Oppression."
http://www.cafepress.com/mensbiz.9954967
Men are 76% of homicides and 75% of suicides, but some male feminists have the nerve to say men are privileged to not have to be in fear of violence like women, #8 on the Male Privilege checklist, "I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces."
http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html  I heard a self-avowed male feminist say this in a women's studies program at UCLA.
What a stupid thing to say, that men are privileged because they are taught to not have to fear walking alone after dark in average public places, This statement implies that women are fearful and thereby oppressed to have do that.  It is men who are oppressed by not being taught that they are the ones who are clearly in the most danger .  Men are not fearful in those situations, but the homicide and assualt rates by gender indicate they clearly should be.  That is not a privilege, it is an oppression born out of the courageous protector (hero) mentality that men are taught .

Furthemore, of the ten leading causes of death by disease, men lead in all categories in nearly all age ranges, yet in L.A. County there is an Office of Women's Health, but not an Office of Men's Health.   There are 31 women's commissions in CA, but none for men.  CA men are routinely denied access to domestic violence shelters, because almost exclusively, they're for women only.  I could go on and on citing examples of the gender feminist bigotry against men in CA, but you get the idea, and that pattern is duplicated throughout the rest of the U.S.  and the rest of the western world and beyond.

The myth of male privilege is one of the most offensive, insulting and just plain stupid propaganda lies to have ever come out of the stupid mouths of radical/gender feminists.  Men and women have both, historically experienced oppression and privilege in many ways and in differing degrees in different areas throughout history.  Individually, men and women have both experienced privilege and oppression, and no one gender has an overwhelming amount of overall privilege or oppression .  

To stereotype all "men" or all "women" together as women's studies routinely does (using half truths, lies and irresponsible research), is not as much a sign of the female privilege of modern women as it is a sign of the intellectual bankruptcy, gross stupidity, and outright bigotry of the radical/gender feminist mentality comprising that hate movement.  To further stereotype men as a group who have overwhelmingly been privileged, and women as a group who have overwhelmingly been oppressed is not just ridiculous, bigoted, it is flat out asinine, and clinically bordering on a form of mental illness.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: CaptDMO on Aug 19, 2005, 08:25 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "neonsamurai"
Ikanneg said in relation to friends of hers who'd been raped
Quote
Several...hmm, let me think. Counting...four, that I've known of.


Four of your friends have been raped? That's terrible. Why didn't they report what happened to them to the police?


Let's see...No. 1 might have called the police of her own accord, but before she had managed to calm down enough to have that suggested to her, somebody else had already called them.  No. 2 was raped by her boyfriend; she was too afraid of what her very racist, violent father would do to her if he found out during the course of a police investigation and trial that she had been dating a black guy to try to have him prosecuted for it.  No. 3 was raped by a, well she thought, a friend; they were both part of a close circle of friends and she had gone willingly alone to his place that time as she had done many times in the past.  She couldn't stand the idea of their entire circle of friends *knowing,* which they would have; she couldn't stand the idea of rejection from any of those friends; she thought the police/judge/jury would blame her for being alone with the guy on purpose and she would be humiliated and traumatized for nothing; she was terrified that he would come after her and do it again in revenge if she tried to have him arrested.  No. 4 was raped by her boyfriend and wasn't 100% sure at the time that he had known for sure that she didn't want to have sex-- and she didn't report him from a combination of that feeling of uncertainty and because she thought that nobody would believe she hadn't wanted to have sex because she had let him kiss her and touch her intimately (she was a virgin).  (She did find out much later that he had definitely known she hadn't wanted to have sex.)


What atrocious anecdotage. I can't help but think of all the times I've heard these situations revealed. Sadly these excruciating accounts ever so rarely seem to get to court to have the evidence weighed and entered so that true justice may prevail. I only ever hear them described third hand, and yet, by the number of times I am exposed to these very similar statements you relay,  one would think that women everywhere would just be willing to rise above the potentially harsh examination lights that courts increasingly shine on such cases. How could such complex details that truly tug at the heartstrings possibly be ignored, especially considering the number of  times they reappear.  Sometimes I think I must be very fortunate to seem to avoided this type of outrage, knowing full well the frequency with which these accounts are related outside my personal sphere of influence.
It saddens me that I have to hear these painfully similar recounts again and again, constrained only by the compassionate insight of the victims.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr. Bad on Aug 19, 2005, 09:02 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "IMHO"
I honestly believe women in general have a greater capacity to cruelty and aggression than men do.


Wow, I can't even begin to imagine how you'd factually back up such an assertion.


Hi Ikanneg, welcome.  I've been enjoying your posts, and admire your respect for logic and reason, so I feel that I need to nitpick and point something out to you:  A belief is not a declaration of fact, and therefore, does not require objective proof to support it.  For example, most religions are based on belief because objective proof for things like immaculate conception, ascension to heaven, the existence of God him/herself, etc., is not available.    Therefore IMO IMHO need not offer any facts to back up his beliefs; they are what they are.  Now, if IMHO had said "Women in general have a greater capacity to cruelty and aggression than men do" I would side with you and ask him/her for citations to peer-reviewed research substantiating this assertion.

While I think that our beliefs are more defensible when we provide legitimate evidence for them, IMO we're all still entitled to hold our beliefs without the need to provide said evidence - just as long as we make it clear that we're not claiming fact.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: CaptDMO on Aug 19, 2005, 09:04 AM
Quote from: "IMHO"
Quote
Wow, I can't even begin to imagine how you'd factually back up such an assertion.


I came to this conclusion through experience and observation.  When including passive-aggression, I believe my experiences are not atypical of other people's.


I'd have to somewhat disagree. In my personal experience and observation, and In My Humble Opinion-
I've  found that passive-agressive behavior from the offensive folk I have known was only an issue when in the public eye, or when  accountability could become an issue. Otherwise, if there was no evident threat of factual accountability, the initiation of aggression could be quite overt, generally beginning with postures of indignation over perceived slights in attention.
I have read, been told first hand, and  clearly observed, so many anecdotal cases that I have to conclude the majority of  others in my sphere of influence concur.
Fortunately, this hasn't been clouded by innumerable hypothetical explainations beyond what reasonable benifit of doubt affords to
amorphous phenomina.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: realman on Aug 19, 2005, 09:48 AM
"They're not on a constant quest for "pussy" as much as they're on a constant quest for their mothers' approval. "

I don't know, in some cases this probably true but it is extremely Freudian. IMHO Freudian ideology is generally correct in some cases but doesn't really apply to scoiety as a whole.

I can say for my self recalling my teens and early 20s- no, it had EVERYTHING to do with "pussy".

I would say it's got more to do with 1.)intrinsic desire for sex, compunded in one's teens and 20s by the relative scarcity of it 2.) men's desire to be attractive to women to satisfy their own egos, 3.) men's desire to be attractive to women to get sex, have the close companionship a heterosexual male in western socety can  only have with a female, be seen as "succesful" in mating and dating, be able to have a family one day, etc. and 4.) our boys and young men are still drilled on a daily basis to cater to girls/women and that's a hard habit to break when from day what that is all he's been taught.

In my experience I don't think in most cases it has that much to do with men looking for mom's approval, looking for a "surrogate mom", or anything like that. It has to do with what they've been taught since birth, their sexual needs/desires, the internal desire to be attractive and usccessful, and  the desire to have closeness/companionship with another human being.

To most guys, kissing women's asses = it's what men do, it's the right thing, it makes them attractive desirable to women, they'll do what it takes to increase the chances of sex, etc. I don't think for most men it goes much deeper than this, but of course for some it will, just as some women seek men to be their "daddy figure" but I don't think this is *generally* the case.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 09:56 AM
I think that if all of a sudden a chemical was put into the water supply that eliminates men's sexual desire for women, then feminists would be a sorry lot.  No one would really care anymore, above and beyond treating people in the right way.

You'd no longer have "feminists" who operate off the old traditions of a man supporting them - while they simultaneously think out ever more subtle reasons why men are oppressing them.  Taxpayer funding for "women's studies" and grants for these dolts would dry up in a heartbeat.

I've almost come to an understanding with the Bisquit Queen about a reasonable woman who comes to an agreement in life with a reasonable man - but I can't even fathom some guy who supports a woman who is constantly spouting feminist beliefs.  She is using the ancient notions of a man supporting her - while simultaneously using the modern notions that "everything is equal".  What's sad is that men still exist who don't even understand that.  "Everything has to be equal", but of course men should support women financially, because women are just women.  I'm just surprised that these user women are able to keep the smirk off their face while they use these types of men.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 10:06 AM
And another thing (while I'm ranting ... LOL):

Feminists seem to be experts at playing the "gravity game".  That means denying one thing, or claiming no knowledge of it, while pushing down something else.  Then you push down the first thing.  Everything starts falling down, because nothing means nothing anymore.  Except all of the feminist myths, which are defended until the cows come home.

I slowly ... slowly ... find these people sickening.  They have a political agenda consisting of "ME, ME, ME" and a lot of men go along with it.  They are real men, because they chauvanistically defend women.  And the feminists know full well what they are doing, but they don't have the morals that the male-supporters have (in a twisted way).  There are no morals in hard-core feminism.  If men are stupid enough to give us what we want, for whatever reason, we deserve it.  We were oppressed for 10,000 years.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 11:04 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
[I saw a hidden camera-type show in which a good looking woman stopped random men and told them that she dropped her ring in the icky garbage can by mistake.  Could he please be a real man (bats eyes) and put his own hand in the garbage and fish it out for her?  Then they dressed up the same woman as a hag with makeup, false teeth and pillows under her clothes designed to make her look chubby.  Far fewer men bit - but some still did, and those are the ones in which chivalry played a dominant role.

I'd like to see how many people - men or women - would help a man with the same request.  Probably 0 women and 0 men.  They would say, "get it out yourself, you wimp."


I would totally help somebody I thought looked like he or she *needed* it--you know, child, parent with young child(ren), disabled person, senior citizen, etc.  For an able-bodied adult, regardless of gender?  I'd probably be a little freaked out that he or she was asking at *all* and back away with a placating smile on my face, lol.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 11:08 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
I think that if all of a sudden a chemical was put into the water supply that eliminates men's sexual desire for women, then feminists would be a sorry lot.  No one would really care anymore, above and beyond treating people in the right way..


That might be more true than you realize, in a way you're not anticipating here.  :)

I
Quote from: "Galt"
've almost come to an understanding with the Bisquit Queen about a reasonable woman who comes to an agreement in life with a reasonable man - but I can't even fathom some guy who supports a woman who is constantly spouting feminist beliefs.  She is using the ancient notions of a man supporting her - while simultaneously using the modern notions that "everything is equal".  What's sad is that men still exist who don't even understand that.  "Everything has to be equal", but of course men should support women financially, because women are just women.  I'm just surprised that these user women are able to keep the smirk off their face while they use these types of men.


I'm surprised at this line of reasoning, which seems to say, If a wife stays home and raises the children instead of working for pay, then she doesn't deserve equality with her husband.  Am I understanding you correctly?  If so, would that also apply in reverse, with a husband who stays at home and raises the children while his wife supports them, he wouldn't deserve equality with his wife?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 11:12 AM
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Hi Ikanneg, welcome.  I've been enjoying your posts, and admire your respect for logic and reason, so I feel that I need to nitpick and point something out to you:  A belief is not a declaration of fact, and therefore, does not require objective proof to support it.  For example, most religions are based on belief because objective proof for things like immaculate conception, ascension to heaven, the existence of God him/herself, etc., is not available.    Therefore IMO IMHO need not offer any facts to back up his beliefs; they are what they are.  Now, if IMHO had said "Women in general have a greater capacity to cruelty and aggression than men do" I would side with you and ask him/her for citations to peer-reviewed research substantiating this assertion.

While I think that our beliefs are more defensible when we provide legitimate evidence for them, IMO we're all still entitled to hold our beliefs without the need to provide said evidence - just as long as we make it clear that we're not claiming fact.


Very legitimate point, and very true--I get tunnel vision because I generally try my darndest to never hold beliefs that I cannot back up with some sort of objective fact--probably not a shocker that I'm also agnostic, lol.  Thanks for the reminder!  :)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 11:18 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
I'm surprised at this line of reasoning, which seems to say, If a wife stays home and raises the children instead of working for pay, then she doesn't deserve equality with her husband.  Am I understanding you correctly?  If so, would that also apply in reverse, with a husband who stays at home and raises the children while his wife supports them, he wouldn't deserve equality with his wife?


Ummmm ... my solution has always been to not get into that situation at all.  She'll always come up with good arguments that I have to dispute.  I'm not going to dispute them at all - I'm not going to give any woman the possibility of that.  A smart woman who wants to work - and possibly take a few years out for a child - is for me.

Besides, let's get more specific about "raising the children".  First five years - granted.  If the kids are then in school, yes, I don't care if the man or woman stays at home, there's not much to do besides watching Oprah.

And further - I wouldn't want a woman who has no drive to use that time.  If I were a woman, I wouldn't want a man who has no drive to use that time or do anything in life.

Equalitarian enough for you?  LOL
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 11:19 AM
Quote from: "IMHO"
[ You can create any "factoid" you like, and twist statistics to "confirm" pre-defined assumptions.  


It's true people do that, and it's highly distasteful.  It's also hard work for those of us with lazy streaks to have to sift through the crud and find the real meat, so to speak, lol.

Quote from: "IMHO"
An example: personally I'll make judgements on who to trust/who not to trust based on my past experiences and intuition, not simply by reading dry academic studies on human behaviour (which in any case are subject to bias) - your intuition is going to be far more accurate than using studies and demographics and making assumptions on an individual from such dry analysis. A big part of survival is to learn from, and adapt to your environment.  You don't do that through theory alone.  


;) One learns by reading, a few more learn by watching, and the rest of us just have to pee on the electric fence for ourselves?  

Of course, you're right--personal observation and experience are a very important component of the learning process.  However, they can also be very isolating, very mind-closing--I really think they should be liberally mixed with studies, demographics, reading, and actual physical travel to and speech with groups of humans other than just your own immediate set, kwim?  Slap it all together in a pot and then shake out the most probable truths.  (Naturally not a perfect system, but it seems to cover the most babes, lol)

Quote from: "IMHO"
If I looked at my past experiences, and then if I was to accept conventional wisdom on domestic violence (based on many "facts"), I would have to suffer the symptoms of cognitive disonance :D


;) I'd suffer the same if I looked at my past experiences and then accepted the idea that women have achieved parity with men in the workplace.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 11:24 AM
And ... when I look at the average age of marriage (which is skyrocketing) and the number of kids being born in European countries and America (which is plummeting), I have to think that other men are thinking the same way I do.
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 11:34 AM
Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Men have historically been sent off to war with no choice in the matter.  Even in today's volunteer army America still says that only men can serve in direct front line combat roles on the ground.  So how is getting gassed or blown up by artillery (as some of my relatives have been) male privilege?


Actually, feminists are on the forefront of trying to get women into combat.  The opponents of that are generally antifeminist women and men.  

Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Men are 94% of industrial deaths and injuries so are men who are forced to take the death jobs to support their families, Privileged Partriarchs, or are they, historically, really just industrial guinea pigs?  Here's an old book that gives a glimpse of the historical toll taken on men's lives to build the industry and infrastructure of this great nation.


As women move further and further into heavy manufacturing and industry, that will change--I'm sure it *has* changed in the last twenty years.  At least one very new heavy manufacturing industry--large scale drug production in biotechnology--is 50% women, and at least in my personal experience, serious injury isn't sex-specific there.

Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
Men and women have both, historically experienced oppression and privilege in many ways and in differing degrees in different areas throughout history.  Individually, men and women have both experienced privilege and oppression


Very true.


Quote from: "Men's Rights Activist"
and no one gender has an overwhelming amount of overall privilege or oppression[/u] [/b].  


Unfortunately, women have generally been more oppressed, in nearly every culture historically, than men have been.  For a woman and a man of identical race, ethnicity, income, servitude, etc--the women generally had even *less* privilege.  Children historically have been the most oppressed of all.  (Still are, in undeveloped countries--that those kids survive childhood at all amazes me sometimes, in some situations.  And of course, so many of them *don't* survive.)
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 11:50 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Unfortunately, women have generally been more oppressed, in nearly every culture historically, than men have been.  


Good point on the "feminist myths" thread.  LOL

Who knows.  If they are given more than they produce, I wouldn't call that "oppressed".

There are artificial structures today left and right - set-asides in the government for women-owned businesses, taxpayers supporting the sham of women's studies professors, women working in air-conditioned offices, with steel-worker husbands providing the real money - and they are "oppressed" LOL, and on and on.

Men have responded with an artificial structure in which women can think they earn the same.  Or they get taxpayer money, funded more likely by men (if you look at tax statistics).

Yup, and female engineers doing some PR thing, while the male engineers are in the back room designing the friggin' thing.  For the same pay - or maybe the woman gets more because they need to show that they have a certain percentage of female engineers - whether they do something or not.  I know how the game works.  Been there.

And you're still complaining.  Sorry, can't help you any further.
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 11:59 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Unfortunately, women have generally been more oppressed, in nearly every culture historically, than men have been.  


Who knows.  If they are given more than they produce, I wouldn't call that "oppressed". .


That's kind of an interesting statement...perhaps you could go into that concept in more detail?

Quote from: "Galt"
There are artificial structures today left and right - set-asides in the government for women-owned businesses, taxpayers supporting the sham of women's studies professors, women working in air-conditioned offices, with steel-worker husbands providing the real money - and they are "oppressed" LOL, and on and on..


Not that that's not a topic worth diverging onto, but I thought we were talking about human history overall, of which the past few decades are a very small part?  If not, I apologize, I was confused about the primary statement (lol, not all THAT unusual).

Quote from: "Galt"
And you're still complaining.  Sorry, can't help you any further.


LOL, where did I complain about something?
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 12:01 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
LOL, where did I complain about something?


"Women have generally been more oppressed ..."

You're not even credible anymore.
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 12:02 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Unfortunately, women have generally been more oppressed, in nearly every culture historically, than men have been.  


Yup, and female engineers doing some PR thing, while the male engineers are in the backroom designing the friggin' thing.  I know how the game works.  Been there.


;) Nope, in spite of many efforts by the guys to hog all the fun stuff to themselves and leave me to write meeting minutes and give presentations, I get my time in on AutoCAD.
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 12:05 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
LOL, where did I complain about something?


"Women have generally been more oppressed ..."

You're not even credible anymore.


:( Gosh, I'm sorry you feel that way.  A simple, fairly contemporary yet also historic example would be "voting rights."  I really am sorry you don't find me credible, yet I can't figure out any way to regard the human history of voting rights as anything other than a situation where women were oppressed more than men were.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: realman on Aug 19, 2005, 01:46 PM
I think there is much confusion when it comes to the overall scheme of "oppression", rights, responsibilities, etc. in a historical sense.

Historically speaking, typically men made the money, men protected, men provided, men ran the show. Women took care of home and hearth, raised children, and had few other responsibilities. The payoff for men was that in excange for their greater responsibilties, greater risk of injury or death, etc., they also had more freedoms. The payoff for women was that in exchange for their lesser risks and obligations and far greater level of protection, they did not enjoy as many privileges as did men. In it's most highly refined form, this was called chivalry (and as I've commented before, whenever I hear a modern day princess-type harping about how men should be "chivalrous", it's always fun to see the puzzled looks when one suggests that chivalry was a two-way street- women did pay a price for the greater protection, lesser responsibility, and general all-around not having to do things for onesself that chivalry provided).

Now, was this neccessarily what all women would want or consider fair? probably not. Is it what all women want? No. But I'd bet that there were plenty of men in historical context who at times wished they could enjoy the relative safety, stability, and freedom from obligations as well.

To say that being treated as a protected class and in exchange having fewer privileges is "oppression" is at best misleading. To say that women being beaten and raped=oppression or women,  in a society that routinely tortures, kills, and castrates men- is likewise at best a flawed argument.

I certainly will not discount the fact that there are plenty of women in history who have been treated poorly, oppressed, abused, or had few rights or freedoms; but just as many men have lived under the same conditions.

I would prefer a scoiety in which neither men or women are stuck with rigid roles based upon gender, and in which unwarranted brutality is not tolerated by or against either gender. But to suggest that throughout most fo history women were "oppressed" simply because they were confined to certain roles and denied certain privileges, when men were conifiend to their own set of roles and held to greater risks and obligations- nope, not buying it. TRy telling  a boy who was castrated to provide a high tenor voice that women have it worse. Try telling a medieval landowner dying on the battlefield from the blow of a bearded axe that his wife who is safe at hoem watching teh children, should have greater freedom of speech and action. And also keep in mind that in a ruthless and brutal society, there was much that men were simply more suited to do (in terms of manual labor, weilding heavy arms, etc.). Up until recent times it would have been silly to use women as warriors or keepers of the peace. So as a man, you risked life and limb to protect your women folk. As a woman, you enjoyed this protection and in return deferred power to the males that protected you. Of course if men had to be the responsible decision makes and providers and protectors, it likewise means the men had greater need to be skilled and educated, so men typically enjoyed greater levels of acces to education and training. In very few cases did it have anything to do with a conscious effort to repress women. Even in the 1950s "Cleaver family" scenario, it is still based on this same model- mom may have had less power or privilege, but she also had less responsibility, less stress, and while quite different from 1000 years ago, the men folk were still the protectors, providers, and decision makes. I'm not saying housewives should have been entirely happy with their lot, but it would seem that their husbands would have had plenty to grouse about as well. It was simply a system of roles, not a system of opporession of one or the other.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 02:03 PM
Yes, it is oppression when the party who is being denied both "responsibilities" and "privileges" is not given a choice in the matter.  That's easily shown.  I will take what you've written and replace "men" with "slaveowners" and "women" with "slaves," and guess what..?  It still makes a very sad kind of sense.

"Historically speaking, typically slaveowners made the money, slaveowners protected, slaveowners provided, slaveowners ran the show. Slaves took care of home and hearth, raised children, and had few other responsibilities. The payoff for slaveowners was that in excange for their greater responsibilties, greater risk of injury or death, etc., they also had more freedoms. The payoff for slaves was that in exchange for their lesser risks and obligations and far greater level of protection, they did not enjoy as many privileges as did slaveowners.

Now, was this neccessarily what all slaves would want or consider fair? probably not. Is it what all slaves want? No. But I'd bet that there were plenty of slaveowners in historical context who at times wished they could enjoy the relative safety, stability, and freedom from obligations as well.

I certainly will not discount the fact that there are plenty of slaves in history who have been treated poorly, oppressed, abused, or had few rights or freedoms; but just as many slaveowners have lived under the same conditions.

To suggest that throughout most fo history slaves were "oppressed" simply because they were confined to certain roles and denied certain privileges, when slaveowners were conifiend to their own set of roles and held to greater risks and obligations- nope, not buying it. TRy telling a boy who was castrated to provide a high tenor voice that slaves have it worse. Try telling a medieval landowner dying on the battlefield from the blow of a bearded axe that his slave who is safe at hoem watching teh children, should have greater freedom of speech and action. Up until recent times it would have been silly to use slaves as warriors or keepers of the peace. So as a slaveowner, you risked life and limb to protect your slaves. As a slave, you enjoyed this protection and in return deferred power to the slaveowners that protected you. Of course if slaveowners had to be the responsible decision makes and providers and protectors, it likewise means the slaveowners had greater need to be skilled and educated, so slaveowners typically enjoyed greater levels of acces to education and training. In very few cases did it have anything to do with a conscious effort to repress slaves. It was simply a system of roles, not a system of opporession of one or the other."
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 02:06 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) Nope, in spite of many efforts by the guys to hog all the fun stuff to themselves and leave me to write meeting minutes and give presentations, I get my time in on AutoCAD.


Ummm ... huh?  LOL

AutoCAD is a lot better than what they used to have ... a draftsmen board, that the engineers gave instructions for.

Probably your best shot is to not describe what you do as an "engineer", otherwise people will pick up on what you really do.  Ambiguity is cool.
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 02:12 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) Nope, in spite of many efforts by the guys to hog all the fun stuff to themselves and leave me to write meeting minutes and give presentations, I get my time in on AutoCAD.


Ummm ... huh?  LOL


;) Above response was in response to you saying, "Yup, and female engineers doing some PR thing, while the male engineers are in the back room designing the friggin' thing. For the same pay - or maybe the woman gets more because they need to show that they have a certain percentage of female engineers - whether they do something or not. I know how the game works. Been there."

BTW, another poster from my regular iVillage Feminism board may be popping over for a visit sometime soon...apparently she finds my tales of my adventures over here kinda interesting.  She's rather a bit more of a radical feminist than myself, so brace for impact.  :)
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 02:15 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
She's rather a bit more of a radical feminist than myself, so brace for impact.  :)


It's only a message board.  If you don't mind, I'm not going to brace myself for any loudmouth feminist drivvle.  I've already heard it.  Over and over.

But I can't handle a strong woman, so I'm going to just shame myself.
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: Galt on Aug 19, 2005, 02:21 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) Above response was in response to you saying, "Yup, and female engineers doing some PR thing, while the male engineers are in the back room designing the friggin' thing. For the same pay - or maybe the woman gets more because they need to show that they have a certain percentage of female engineers - whether they do something or not. I know how the game works. Been there."


Then I don't think you even get what I was saying.

Too funny.
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 02:27 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) Above response was in response to you saying, "Yup, and female engineers doing some PR thing, while the male engineers are in the back room designing the friggin' thing. For the same pay - or maybe the woman gets more because they need to show that they have a certain percentage of female engineers - whether they do something or not. I know how the game works. Been there."


Then I don't think you even get what I was saying.

Too funny.


C'mon, share, share.  :)  What *were* you trying to say, that I missed?
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 02:31 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) Nope, in spite of many efforts by the guys to hog all the fun stuff to themselves and leave me to write meeting minutes and give presentations, I get my time in on AutoCAD.


Ummm ... huh?  LOL

AutoCAD is a lot better than what they used to have ... a draftsmen board, that the engineers gave instructions for.

Probably your best shot is to not describe what you do as an "engineer", otherwise people will pick up on what you really do.  Ambiguity is cool.


Well, if I didn't describe what I do as an "engineer," I'd be lying, lol.  ITA AutoCAD is way better than manual drafting, which I actually haven't done since junior high school.  Though actually I did kinda enjoy that too.  :)  Are you an engineer too?  What kind and/or what industry?
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 02:31 PM
n/t
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 19, 2005, 02:34 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
She's rather a bit more of a radical feminist than myself, so brace for impact.  :)


It's only a message board.  If you don't mind, I'm not going to brace myself for any loudmouth feminist drivvle.  I've already heard it.  Over and over.

But I can't handle a strong woman, so I'm going to just shame myself.


LOL, why would *I* mind?  It was just a friendly warning.  If you don't choose to be friendly in return...as you say, it's just a message board. ;)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: realman on Aug 19, 2005, 02:36 PM
I'm not even going to field your response beyond saying I don't many slaveowners throughout history have dies trying to defend their slaves or save their slaves lives; I don't think too many slaves were the beneficiaries of 50% of the code of conduct known as "chivalry"; and I don't think many women were forced to live in terrible conditions while the men around them lived like kings.

By using yoru logic you could say that abotu anything you want. You could say employers oppress employees; you could say the wealthy oppress the middle class; you could say the customer oppresses the wait staff; you could say the guy sitting in the backhoe oppresses the guy in the trench (and if the guy in the trench is guding the guy digging with the backhoe, you could even say the guy in the trench oppresses the backhoe operator). And on and on.... at some point one has to acknowledge that "you don't get something for nothing" and realize that it is actually quite commonplace and non-oppressive for people to have restrictions and responsibilties.

As I said I'm not advocating a return to the way things used to be- but the way things are now is not much better, especially if you're a male. It just happens that historically this is how things were divvied up, and truth be told it pretty much worked. If you'd rather not be a woman who cannot own property and has no say in anything otuside your hosuehold, I can understand that; but don't try to say you've got it worse, I'd rather not have to risk life and limb defending and providing for you- especially if you do something wrong or illegal, because it is ME, not you, that they will fine, imprison, execute, or torture.
:shock:
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: SIAM on Aug 19, 2005, 03:26 PM
Quote
BTW, another poster from my regular iVillage Feminism board may be popping over for a visit sometime soon...apparently she finds my tales of my adventures over here kinda interesting. She's rather a bit more of a radical feminist than myself, so brace for impact.


Oh, per-leeeeeeeze  :roll:

Radical feminism is so passé, so yesterday.  You've already ground your own axe down to the handle in under 100 posts, lkanneg.  You may think your views are edgy and rad to your own ears, but I personally can telegraph your entire future responses based on what you've already said - it's a shrink-wrapped bundled set of beliefs you have that are absolutely identical to a number of feminists who I've met who will sell their integrity for a confused double-think style that contradicts itself every second post.  Sorry, you've given enough rope to hang yourself just in a few days of posting here. I predict how it will go with you - you'll get into many arguments here, but try to keep it "jokey" with many "LOL"s and smileys (yes: passive aggression at play here), but eventually you'll realise there are too many people here who see that the emporer is butt naked.  

Of course, you may throw a curve and prove me wrong and show you're actually more of a humanitarian than a feminist, and I'd gladly admit I was wrong about you. Up to you, of course. :D (LOL!)
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 19, 2005, 04:02 PM
Quote
BTW, another poster from my regular iVillage Feminism board may be popping over for a visit sometime soon.


Well, in that case, take into consideration that some of us here do not represent men's rights activists.  I'm an outsider.  Thanks.   8)

If she's a real character, please make sure that I can in no way get to her picture for my site.  :)

For the record, lkanneg, it's nice having you around.  It gets pretty boring watching each other preach to the choir here.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 19, 2005, 04:09 PM
Hmmm,

lets see now, affirmative action and special programs for women in schools, affirmative action and quotas/set asides for women in the work force, the lowering and outright elimination of standards in MANY professions so women can 'participate' (read- illusion of equality via discrimination against very often more qualified men), add to all this the ENDLESS support groups and programs for women only and the entire government media complex....

What was it that women have done for themselves?

Oh that's right, predominately white upper-class females received all this patronize while holding up their middle finger and vomiting out all the feminist bullshit that had been taught since they learned the word "Gimme" just out of diapers.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: SouthernGuy on Aug 19, 2005, 04:13 PM
Quote
For the record, lkanneg, it's nice having you around. It gets pretty boring watching each other preach to the choir here.


That's why I recommended this board to her. She seemed genuinely curious what would go on a men's issues site. I'd much rather debate with her than a eunuch like Hugo...

SG
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 19, 2005, 04:22 PM
Quote from: "realman"
I'm not even going to field your response beyond saying I don't many slaveowners throughout history have dies trying to defend their slaves or save their slaves lives; I don't think too many slaves were the beneficiaries of 50% of the code of conduct known as "chivalry"; and I don't think many women were forced to live in terrible conditions while the men around them lived like kings.
:


Also, what slaves out live the slaveowners? What slaves come from the same parents and same neighborhoods, same schools. What slaves inherit the wealth of the slave owners ect.....this analogy is flawed to the max. somewhere on the net, someone else makes these same points in a article that is very well written. I wish I could remember. Maybe it Warren Farrel in the "Myth of Male Power"

Also if a man goes to work and then gives his money to a woman, who is the slave? If a man gives his seat to a woman, opens a car door for a woman, who is the superior?

Finally if one goes and works hard for long periods of time, who is the slave? The one working, or the one that doesnt work, yet expect to fully enjoy the fruits of the workers labor.
Im done, got to run.
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 19, 2005, 04:38 PM
Ikanneg:  

"I agree that men are genetically better designed in the physical strength department than women are. Women do have a few innate physical advantages, but not many, and I can only think of two that actually relate to physical activity off the top of my head--lower center of gravity and greater flexibility. However, like all tendencies, statistical likelihoods, etc., it's never wise to extend that generalization into the personal realm--you can't randomly pick a man and woman out of the general population and say, "He's stronger than she is." When I was in the Army, my upper body strength was greater than about a third of the guys in my unit and equal to about another third, and the last third of the guys were stronger than I was. So at that time, if someone had picked me and a guy at random from the group, they would have had somewhere between a 30-50% chance of being wrong, and a 50-70% chance of being right, if they'd said, "He's a man so he's stronger than you are."


Actually Ikanneg It would be very "wise" to assert that a random man is stronger then a random woman because the odds are overwhelming that this is correct. Your logic is flawed. It is the equivalent of saying you can't pick out a random woman and say "she is capable of giving birth" since not all women can get pregnant. This is called dumbing down rational thought and is a common theme within political correctness- including feminism.

As far as your personal experience goes, sorry I don't believe you. The first rule of thumb when dealing with any feminist is to know that when challeneged there is a high probability that they will exaggerate, or embellish, or outright lie.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 19, 2005, 04:51 PM
Yeah, her example is flawed.  Primarily it's flawed because she's taking a specific female, herself, and contrasting her with a randomly picked male from a group of males.

That doesn't really tell us what the odds are when picking a random female from a group of females and constrasting her with a random male from a group of males.

Whatever.  She's still right about not assuming.  You can't just assume.  There are plenty of women stronger than me, but the chances of that mattering much are pretty slim if one were to push me over the edge, so I don't let it bother me.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Roy on Aug 19, 2005, 05:22 PM
OK, here's a little true story illustrating how women do not ever know who they are....

(Clearly not generalizable to the entire female population...)

My master's degree chairwoman at a Big Ten university was a self-proclaimed lesbian, Marxist-feminist.

Can't get more PC, right?

In her middle years, she discovered that she was not homosexual, and today is married to a man and she has rejected her former "lifestyle."

Now, if a woman can go from radical lesbian to happy mainstream wifey in the process of "discovering herself," just how should any rational man attempt to understand women?

Freud spent his life trying, and confessed before his death that he had failed.

So, the prize is still available for all idiot savants.....   :wink:
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 19, 2005, 05:35 PM
We disagree on the second part Test. You are wrong to suggest that a general biological fact is just an 'assumption'.

Again this is dumbing down rational thought, for instance to conclude that a men's and women's division in sports is unwarranted because it is based on an 'assumption'.

The analogies are endless; how about no one can state that falling off a 100ft cliff will kill you because not everyone who has fallen 100ft has died.

NONSENSE... science uses probability to make conclusions ALL THE TIME, and guess what, they are right to do so even if there are exceptions to the rule.

Generalizing is a good thing when it is the truth, and often leads to the harsh reality which many non-critical thinking types can no longer handle; men and women are different, with different capacities and deficiencies.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: LSBeene on Aug 19, 2005, 06:19 PM
I, for one, do not find Ikanneg's posts to be the feminist party line.  And, unlike the MS board posters she has not (I read the entire thread) refused to answer, ranted, ignored questions, nor tried to derail the thread.

Maybe it's been a rough week for some people, but what's up with the hostility towards our new poster?

She's been on  point, conceeded linguistic mis-steps, and tried to be agreeable.  What's the prob?

Oh, I can't wait for her rad-fem friend to come either ... a good debate pumps the blood.

Steven
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 19, 2005, 06:36 PM
Hi Ikanneg

The idea that the lack of voting rights for women was a mark of oppression is not true.

There was virtually nothing to vote for a century ago, because national governments were tiny. (The tax rate was about 1% and not many people paid it.) People hardly knew that their national governments existed, so little did they impinge upon daily life.

And if you look closely at the small amount of social legislation that western governments did pass in those days, it was invariably in favour of women, and often to the detriment of men. For example, during the middle of the 1800's, western governments passed legislation restricting the working hours of women and children. There were no such restrictions on the working hours of men - who often had to labour for 16 hours a day,

Indeed, many of the early feminists in this period were not complaining that the lack of voting rights somehow amounted to an 'oppression' of women, but that women were too often wasting their time on trivial matters once their children were grown up, and that giving them the vote might actually cause them to take more of an interest in the working of society.

Harry
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: powder-monkey on Aug 19, 2005, 07:39 PM
All too often, attempts to engage pro-feminist sites in reasoned debate have been met with evasion, deletion and outright banning.  Consequently, we resemble a battalion that's been too long in garrison and discovers there are adjustments to be made when it takes the field.  Analogies need to be tightened and hyperbole reined in.  

These are some of the livliest exchanges seen on SYG in a long time.  I've always thought that honing one's arguments for use in real world encounters was one of the chief benefits of forum participation.  

Thank you, lkanneg.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 19, 2005, 07:59 PM
Engage pro-feminist sites in a reasoned debate- are you kidding?


Here's an observation- stop kissing Ikanneg's ass

You want skills to debate feminists? Here's the secret- they're a combination of brain-washed, ignorant, and hateful... debating them in anything is about as productive as banging your head against a wall- in other words there is no debating them- they are the enemy and need to be cast down without reservation.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 19, 2005, 08:49 PM
Geez relax, Russ.  It's just a feminist, man.  Don't take them so seriously.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: CaptDMO on Aug 19, 2005, 09:08 PM
Quote from: "LSBeene"
I, for one, do not find Ikanneg's posts to be the feminist party line.

I find the phrasing to be an astoundingly restrained version of what I often see in some of the extreem feminist boards rife with recent pseudo-intellectual, neo-womyns studies graduates.
Admittedly, I have to take a wait and see approach, I'll refer back to this post in a few weeks or so as a  measure of my expectations. If my suspicions prove correct I'll freely claim I told you so rights. If proven wrong I reserve the right to simper away and pretend I never made such bold claims.
Quote

Oh, I can't wait for her rad-fem friend to come either ... a good debate pumps the blood.

True, true,
However , I've noticed a trend lately. When I entered into the verbal battle of the sexes it was demanded that I give examples of any claims I made. When a plethora of news accounts and personal experiance followed it was no longer valid.
It was further demanded that I back up any claims with hard facts and data.
When a plethora of census, college, independant, CDC, CIA(the geography stuff) data was making the opposite gender position uncomfortable, it is now announced that all data can be skewed(duh) and is therefore no longer valid.
The newly approved level of discorse was to be based strictly on the Greek logic or French/Marxist philosophy models.
Well, that got stupid quickly,  I just proclaimed "Logic constructs are but the first step toward understanding reality" (can't remember who I stole that from!)
 
Let's see,
No anecdotal evidence, no matter how often it occurs
No cold data and especially no surveys
(I think this is an attitude currently espoused at Dr. Schwyzers, re.movie comments)

Now I find a full circle return to passive-aggressive attempts at condecention, much like  the now widely ridiculed "well, a real man would...",but  blended with a soupcon of ancient "What,who,me?"to be the
current tool of the demonic hoards. Of course,  projection is always handy in a pinch- ;)

Let it be known that  spelling is MY kryptonite-to derail anything I have to say by criticizm of  my spelling and piss poor editing will make me just curl up and cry. *sheesh*

This is OK by me, I can reconfigure the phasers as the Borg assimilates, after all, in the sacred words of the grand pooh-bah of the (can't remember) lodge-Red Green

I'm a man.
I can change,
If I have to,
I guess.
;)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: CaptDMO on Aug 19, 2005, 09:18 PM
Quote from: "powder-monkey"
All too often, attempts to engage pro-feminist sites in reasoned debate have been met with evasion, deletion and outright banning.  Consequently, we resemble a battalion that's been too long in garrison and discovers there are adjustments to be made when it takes the field.  Analogies need to be tightened and hyperbole reined in.
In My Humble Opinion,*sigh*annoyingly on-track ;)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 19, 2005, 09:23 PM
Well TEST I will tell you, my feminist threshold (tolerance for them) has been getting lower and lower over the years...

Like others here I can predict every one of their stupid androgyny/sex reversed anti-male arguments no matter how politely put or disguised before they even make them.  They are like human tape recorders, record feminist bullshit and press play, record and press play- garbage in-garbage out.

It would be nice if we could just go to war with them, kill them all, and be done with it. Damn our civilized times !
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 19, 2005, 10:15 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
They are like human tape recorders


I think that's the best analogy I've heard for them yet.

Quote
It would be nice if we could just go to war with them, kill them all, and be done with it.


The thought makes me wet.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluetrigger on Aug 20, 2005, 03:05 AM
I think the fact that contemporary society is willing to embrace feminist victim myths as fact, without much good evidence, is a sign that our society is misandristic. An ongoing, repetitive, relentless critique of these myths totally indendent of debate with feminists is the road on which the men's movement will drive its eighteen wheeler down.

Not that we shouldn't debate feminists, that will hone our skills and help us understand our adversary on an ongoing basis.

But we needn't get sidetracked in debating with the devil.
Title: Re: Male Privilege
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 04:43 AM
Quote from: "TestSubject"
For the record, lkanneg, it's nice having you around.  It gets pretty boring watching each other preach to the choir here.


LOL, we *totally* feel the same way over on the Feminism Today board at iVillage, though I don't think we've ever admitted it aloud (well, I might've).  I mean, we just don't *debate* each other very much b/c we *agree* so often on *everything* and...it's nice when somebody shows up who *doesn't* agree with us!  (though it's not so nice if all he or she wants to do is start randomly insulting us personally, rather than making thought-provoking statements about feminism in general--unfortunately we get a few of those now and then too)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 04:59 AM
Quote from: "IMHO"
Quote
BTW, another poster from my regular iVillage Feminism board may be popping over for a visit sometime soon...apparently she finds my tales of my adventures over here kinda interesting. She's rather a bit more of a radical feminist than myself, so brace for impact.


Oh, per-leeeeeeeze  :roll:


Well, okay, obviously I made a mistake in saying *anything* since I offended at least two people doing so.  I apologize!  :)  Honestly, I only said something because, well...I know this poster pretty well and she has the habit of aggravating anti-feminist men a lot more than many of the rest of us, and it felt underhanded to *know* she was coming to visit and just not say anything.  But it obviously wasn't the right move.  :)

Quote from: "IMHO"
Radical feminism is so passé, so yesterday.


LOL, radical feminism as a fashion statement!  

Quote from: "IMHO"
You've already ground your own axe down to the handle in under 100 posts, lkanneg.  You may think your views are edgy and rad to your own ears, but I personally can telegraph your entire future responses based on what you've already said - it's a shrink-wrapped bundled set of beliefs you have that are absolutely identical to a number of feminists who I've met who will sell their integrity for a confused double-think style that contradicts itself every second post.  Sorry, you've given enough rope to hang yourself just in a few days of posting here. I predict how it will go with you - you'll get into many arguments here, but try to keep it "jokey" with many "LOL"s and smileys (yes: passive aggression at play here), but eventually you'll realise there are too many people here who see that the emporer is butt naked.


Well, no, I don't think my views are "edgy" and "rad."  That would more be the views of my friend from the iVillage board, lol.  My views are pretty mild, possibly even <gasp> boring sometimes.  :)

Actually, I post smileys and lols when I'm not even debating a point with anybody, just shooting the sh*t; I've done that here.  It's my conversational style.  I'm sorry you don't like it!  LOL, not to mention that I've come to the conclusion that the death of any feminist is to lose the ability to laugh both at others and at herself--Lord preserve me from becoming the Grim Reaper of Feminism!  :)

Quote from: "IMHO"
Of course, you may throw a curve and prove me wrong and show you're actually more of a humanitarian than a feminist, and I'd gladly admit I was wrong about you. Up to you, of course. :D (LOL!)


Well, it's my sincere hope that you come to enjoy my posts too or at least find them thought-provoking!  :)  If not, well, I can't please everybody...
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 05:05 AM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
the lowering and outright elimination of standards in MANY professions so women can 'participate' (read- illusion of equality via discrimination against very often more qualified men)


Could you provide some examples of that?

Quote from: "Russ2d"
add to all this the ENDLESS support groups and programs for women only


I think that's something women have fought for and gained for themselves...what's stopping men from doing the same?

Quote from: "Russ2d"
and the entire government media complex....


Oh dear, not the Vast Feminist Media Conspiracy again!  :)  Someday somebody's going to actually provide proof of the evil organization and demonstrate how they consciously manipulate the Media (and possibly define what he/he means by "Media" while he/she's at it).  I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking conspiracy theories seriously, and yes, that *does* include taking the Evil American Patriarchy Conspiracy theory seriously as well, lol.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 05:11 AM
Quote from: "TestSubject"
Geez relax, Russ.  It's just a feminist, man.  Don't take them so seriously.


ITA ;)

Do take the serious things I say *somewhat* seriously, or we won't have any fun debating!  But not *that* seriously.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 05:26 AM
Quote from: "CaptDMO"
When a plethora of news accounts and personal experiance followed it was no longer valid.
It was further demanded that I back up any claims with hard facts and data.
When a plethora of census, college, independant, CDC, CIA(the geography stuff) data was making the opposite gender position uncomfortable, it is now announced that all data can be skewed(duh) and is therefore no longer valid.
The newly approved level of discorse was to be based strictly on the Greek logic or French/Marxist philosophy models.
Well, that got stupid quickly,  I just proclaimed "Logic constructs are but the first step toward understanding reality" (can't remember who I stole that from!)


That's an interesting analysis of debate techniques, even more so 'cause it's not limited to feminist or men's rights debate boards--it's not a gender issue, obviously!  I sometimes post on a "disciplining your child" debate board on iVillage and it's the same old, same old...kind of amazing, actually.  

This is how I work:
I take everyone's anecdotes at face value, ie, I never doubt the truth of what he/she is saying and the impact it has on his/her life, and the indicator that whatever the anecdote is describing, *does* happen.  However, I don't take anecdotes as proof that what the anecdote is describing, is the way things are for everyone everywhere.

I take statistics, research, etc. from sites that have no apparent affiliation with a biased group (I guess NOTHING is totally bias-free but you have to start SOMEPLACE) as reasonable facts.  Examples:  CDC, FBI, WHO.  

I take statistics, research, etc. from sites that are obviously biased with a grain of salt.  Examples:  NOW, angryharry.com  

Logic...logic is a great tool, but it seems like it'd be meaningless without facts to back it up...lol, I'd love to comment on French/Marxist philosophy models but I'm prevented by my woeful ignorance of them.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 05:34 AM
Quote from: "angryharry"
Hi Ikanneg

The idea that the lack of voting rights for women was a mark of oppression is not true.

There was virtually nothing to vote for a century ago, because national governments were tiny. (The tax rate was about 1% and not many people paid it.) People hardly knew that their national governments existed, so little did they impinge upon daily life.


Problems with that argument:

1.  Why single out the national government?  Women couldn't vote in state/territory and local government either for the most part (it's actually kind of interesting to look at a chronology of women's local voting rights--there was one place, can't remember where, I think one of the Northwest territories, that women had the right to vote when the initial gov't was formed, then it was taken away a few years later, then they got it back about twenty years later, then it was gone again in a few years, lol--like it had bipolar disorder or something)  If you look at local, state and federal government together, was it really so tiny compared to the country's population, which was also not anywhere near what it is today?
2.  Was the reason women weren't allowed to vote because men considered the government so insignificant and unimportant they didn't want to waste women's valuable time, only their own (by that definition, presumably *less* valuable) time?  What was the reason that the men of the times themselves actually gave for not allowing women to vote?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: SIAM on Aug 20, 2005, 05:39 AM
Quote
LOL, radical feminism as a fashion statement!


Indeed it is, to many people.  It's also a damaging set of beliefs that create strange laws.

lkanneg, some questions - lets see if you can give straight answers:-

- Do we live in a patriarchal society?

- Do you believe there is a wage-gap between men and women? And if so, is this down to a patriarchal society?

- Do you support the assumption of joint custody in the event of a divorce? Do you think women who with-hold visitation to their children's father should be punished?

- Do you think false accusers should be named and shamed, and even serve the punishment of the crime they falsely accused somebody of?

- Do you support the idea that domestic violence mainly involves female victims? Or do you accept the idea that phyiscal violence isn't something that one sex is more likely to act out than the other?

- Are you a humanitarian, or are you just really looking to maintain female privileges?

I ask those questions since the only views you've put forward so far tend to be that of a traditional feminist rather than one who is truly supportive of equality.  In other posts, you're basically not saying anything at all apart from talking about your style of writing.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 05:53 AM
Quote from: "realman"
I'm not even going to field your response beyond saying I don't many slaveowners throughout history have dies trying to defend their slaves or save their slaves lives; I don't think too many slaves were the beneficiaries of 50% of the code of conduct known as "chivalry"; and I don't think many women were forced to live in terrible conditions while the men around them lived like kings.


Problems with this argument:

1.  Slaveowners throughout history *have* died trying to defend their slaves or save their slaves' lives--it was *always* to defend and save their slaves.  Generally they were being attacked in the first place to obtain their property by force.  Those slaves were very valuable property, not just in an abstract sense, but in the sense that they were the producers of everything the slaveowners needed and wanted in and for life, both directly (food and clothing from the land) and indirectly (money).
2.  Hmm..."code of conduct."  Was the ''code of conduct" a "law?"  Put another way--what was the penalty for *failing* to follow the code of chivarly as it specifically applied to women?  Well, nothing, right..?  Did the women of a man who did so get to flout his authority?  Well, no, I don't think so.  Did anything bad happen to him at all?  No, I don't think so.  Whether or not a man behaved chivalrously towards women was entirely his choice, and if he didn't, that was fine.  Also, to which women did the code of chivalry, when it was chosen by men to apply it, apply?  The vast majority of women?  Well, no.  Commoner women were worked like animals, just as commoner men were.  I don't believe that most men of that time even knew what chivalry *was.*  That was a toy...and it *was* a toy...of the upper class, like reading and bathing.  Which were also skills possessed to a VERY variable degree even by the upper class.
3.  "I don't think many women were forced to live in terrible conditions while the men around them lived like kings."  This is true because most people back then lived in terrible conditions, male and female.  It was an awful time to be alive for the majority of the population.  The life expectancy was pretty grotesque alone.  The problem is...in the cases of a man who *did* live like a king, the way the women of his household lived was entirely up to him.  If he was a wonderful master, they lived like queens.  If he was a monster of cruelty and degradation, they lived in terrible conditions.  It was entirely at his discretion.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 06:25 AM
Quote from: "IMHO"


lkanneg, some questions - lets see if you can give straight answers:-

- Do we live in a patriarchal society?


Let's see...Merriam-Webster defines "patriarchy" as "social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power."

Assuming we are talking solely about the US (I'm hesitant to even speak of western Europe in general, as I'm not so intimately familiar with it), then by the first part of the definition (up to "broadly"), the answer is No, currently, we don't.  (Many developing countries are currently still patriarchies by that definition, if we're talking worldwide.)  

By the seond part of the definition (after "broadly"), men *do* control a disproportionately, measured by their presence in the general population, large share of the political and economic power in the US.  

Quote from: "IMHO"
- Do you believe there is a wage-gap between men and women? And if so, is this down to a patriarchal society?


Does the wage gap exist at all?  Yes.  Does it exist everywhere?  No--there are a huge number of professions now in which it does not exist at all--mine is one of them.  Where does it exist?  Mostly in the blue-collar world, and most often takes the form of the fact that the best-paying jobs that do not require a college education, are difficult for women to break into, and women are often not only not encouraged but actually discouraged from attempting to do so.  The skilled trades are a good example of that.  White-collar jobs, on the other hand, show a very good parity in wages based on gender.  For instance, I'm as sure as I can be w/o actually getting to see other people's paychecks that I'm paid the same as the men in my company and industry with similar positions, responsibilities and years of experience.

Where the wage gap exists most blatantly, is it because of patriarchy?  Well, I don't think it's *patriarchy,* really.  It *is* due to gender influences, imo.

Quote from: "IMHO"
- Do you support the assumption of joint custody in the event of a divorce? Do you think women who with-hold visitation to their children's father should be punished?


Well, I definitely do support joint custody, it's what I have with my ex-husband and our sons.  :)  
Yes, I think *any* parent who withholds visitation without a genuine suspicion of abusive activities is a disgusting self-centered jerk who obviously can't handle the responsibility of having custody of a child.  :(

Quote from: "IMHO"
- Do you think false accusers should be named and shamed, and even serve the punishment of the crime they falsely accused somebody of?


As long as the false accusation was made knowingly, rather than in honest error, yes, I do.

Quote from: "IMHO"
- Do you support the idea that domestic violence mainly involves female victims? Or do you accept the idea that phyiscal violence isn't something that one sex is more likely to act out than the other?


(sigh) I really don't know.  If I went by my own personal experience and observation, I would have to say that domestic violence mainly involves female victims.  However, I don't believe my experiences and observations are statistically significant enough to make any kind of generalization off of.  I've read such a plethora of studies on the subject that I can't make heads nor tails of what's *really* the truth.  I do believe that women can and have abused others physically in the home, both male and female, adult and child.  I don't know what to say about which gender does it more.  TBH, child abuse is one of my "causes" and I don't even *care* which gender does it more--abusive men and women are all equal piles of dog crap in my eyes.  I believe that domestic violence issues should be addressed in a completely gender-blind fashion--let's help the victims and stop the perps!!  I don't argue with people who say women do it more or people who say men do it more.  I do strongly oppose focusing efforts *only* on female victims--why focus on victims based upon gender at all?  Can't we just throw our doors wide open to *any* victim?  JMO

Quote from: "IMHO"
- Are you a humanitarian, or are you just really looking to maintain female privileges?


I don't know if I'm a humanitarian, lol.  Seriously, my best friend is what I'd call a humanitarian, and she's so much more unselfish than I am towards others in general that I'd be embarrassed to refer to myself as one as well.  

I'm trying to think if there are any "female privileges" I woudl like to maintain...I can't think of anything I support only for women and not for men as well, but I'll keep thinking about it...well, I think women probably physically *need* a little more time off of work after childbirth than the father of the child does, because childbirth really takes it out of you, but that's only if we're talking about a choice between *no* time off and *some* time off.  It took me about three weeks to totally recover from having my babies (it probably wouldn't have taken so long if I hadn't been nursing every two hours around the clock, lol, that tends to interfere).  Aside from physical recovery from childbirth, I equally support getting job-secure paid leave for *both* parents indiscriminately.  I can't think of anything else that I would want to give women more privileges than men, or men more privileges than women.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: sethay on Aug 20, 2005, 06:32 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "realman"
I'm not even going to field your response beyond saying I don't many slaveowners throughout history have dies trying to defend their slaves or save their slaves lives; I don't think too many slaves were the beneficiaries of 50% of the code of conduct known as "chivalry"; and I don't think many women were forced to live in terrible conditions while the men around them lived like kings.


Problems with this argument:

1.  Slaveowners throughout history *have* died trying to defend their slaves or save their slaves' lives--it was *always* to defend and save their slaves.  Generally they were being attacked in the first place to obtain their property by force.  Those slaves were very valuable property, not just in an abstract sense, but in the sense that they were the producers of everything the slaveowners needed and wanted in and for life, both directly (food and clothing from the land) and indirectly (money).
2.  Hmm..."code of conduct."  Was the ''code of conduct" a "law?"  Put another way--what was the penalty for *failing* to follow the code of chivarly as it specifically applied to women?  Well, nothing, right..?  Did the women of a man who did so get to flout his authority?  Well, no, I don't think so.  Did anything bad happen to him at all?  No, I don't think so.  Whether or not a man behaved chivalrously towards women was entirely his choice, and if he didn't, that was fine.  Also, to which women did the code of chivalry, when it was chosen by men to apply it, apply?  The vast majority of women?  Well, no.  Commoner women were worked like animals, just as commoner men were.  I don't believe that most men of that time even knew what chivalry *was.*  That was a toy...and it *was* a toy...of the upper class, like reading and bathing.  Which were also skills possessed to a VERY variable degree even by the upper class.
3.  "I don't think many women were forced to live in terrible conditions while the men around them lived like kings."  This is true because most people back then lived in terrible conditions, male and female.  It was an awful time to be alive for the majority of the population.  The life expectancy was pretty grotesque alone.  The problem is...in the cases of a man who *did* live like a king, the way the women of his household lived was entirely up to him.  If he was a wonderful master, they lived like queens.  If he was a monster of cruelty and degradation, they lived in terrible conditions.  It was entirely at his discretion.


lol...after reading this response i just have this funny image of a bunch of slave owners franticly running around in a burning boat yelling "slaves first!" and hustling all of the slaves onto the lifeboats while the owners remain on the sinking boat

(wish i had time to repond more, but have got to go to work  :(  )
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 07:45 AM
Quote from: "sethay"
lol...after reading this response i just have this funny image of a bunch of slave owners franticly running around in a burning boat yelling "slaves first!" and hustling all of the slaves onto the lifeboats while the owners remain on the sinking boat

(wish i had time to repond more, but have got to go to work  :(  )


LOL, who says you gotta be a rocket scientist to be a slaveowner...
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: powder-monkey on Aug 20, 2005, 08:53 AM
"LOL, who says you gotta be a rocket scientist to be a slaveowner..."

This evades the question as to whether the *women and children first* attitude is at odds with the slave-owner analogy.  
It does seem to imply that protective self-sacrifice constitutes a kind of dim-wittedness on the part of men.  If so, you may have found common ground with your adversaries.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 20, 2005, 09:00 AM
Hello ikanneg

Quote
1. Why single out the national government? Women couldn't vote in state/territory and local government either for the most part (it's actually kind of interesting to look at a chronology of women's local voting rights--there was one place, can't remember where, I think one of the Northwest territories, that women had the right to vote when the initial gov't was formed, then it was taken away a few years later, then they got it back about twenty years later, then it was gone again in a few years, lol--like it had bipolar disorder or something) If you look at local, state and federal government together, was it really so tiny compared to the country's population, which was also not anywhere near what it is today?
2. Was the reason women weren't allowed to vote because men considered the government so insignificant and unimportant they didn't want to waste women's valuable time, only their own (by that definition, presumably *less* valuable) time? What was the reason that the men of the times themselves actually gave for not allowing women to vote?


Given that women were preoccupied with matters - usually domestic  - that had precious little to do with what government was concerned with in those days - both men and women believed that the right to vote should be given to those who were, firstly, affected by what government did and, secondly, were involved in the implementation of its policies.

You don't get the Science faculty members voting on what the English department should be doing!

The economy, the military etc etc - those things outside the home - were run by men - at the expense of men. And both men and women mostly believed, therefore, that men should decide what direction they wanted to take in those areas.

Within a few decades of men getting the vote, however, women also got the vote.

But in their persistent attempts to heap hatred on to men, feminists continually try to make out that men were 'oppressing' women by denying them the vote.

And even though it is now 100 years onward from those days, the feminists still try to stir up hatred over this question.

But you don't, for example, find men these days trying to stir up hatred toward women over the fact that, in those days, it was only men who were sent across the border into war zones and that it was men, mostly, who had to do all the awful jobs that were done.

If I had lived 100 years ago, I would rather have not had the vote than work in a mine all day long.

...

Quote
Someday somebody's going to actually provide proof of the evil organization and demonstrate how they consciously manipulate the Media


Here is just one example, ...

http://www.harrysnews.com/tgSpinSistersSellMisery.htm
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 10:14 AM
Quote from: "powder-monkey"
"LOL, who says you gotta be a rocket scientist to be a slaveowner..."

This evades the question as to whether the *women and children first* attitude is at odds with the slave-owner analogy.  
It does seem to imply that protective self-sacrifice constitutes a kind of dim-wittedness on the part of men.  If so, you may have found common ground with your adversaries.


I admit, I do favor "children first," but I have no interest in trying to sustain the idea that it should be "WOMEN and children first."
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 10:35 AM
Hi Harry,

I'm sorry to say this, but your post is awfully inaccurate as far as US history goes.  Are you by chance from another country (I noticed some other posters are)?

You said, "Within a few decades of men getting the vote, women got the vote."

I believe that white male citizens over 21 have had the vote since the US was formed, in 1776.  *All* male citizens gained the right to vote with the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1867.  Female citizens did not get the right to vote until 1920.  All citizens ranging in age from 18 to 20 were additionally granted the vote in 1970.

You said: "But in their persistent attempts to heap hatred on to men, feminists continually try to make out that men were 'oppressing' women by denying them the vote.  And even though it is now 100 years onward from those days, the feminists still try to stir up hatred over this question. "

;) Actually I would think it'd be a persistent attempt to speak the truth.  It hasn't been 100 years onward since those days.  The knowledge that there are millions of people alive today who can actually remember a time when women such as myself were legally not allowed to vote, doesn't stir hatred in me--it's just a reminder that, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  

Women in Saudi Arabia can't vote today.  This seems to be generally regarded as a really bad thing by most Americans.  Do you not think it's a bad thing?  Why do you think that so many people, often male people, make such a big deal out of it, if it shouldn't be considered oppressive?

Lisa

PS--I will check out the angryharry.com link, but I have to be honest with you and tell you that I consider "news" from heavily biased sites...including not only antifeminist but feminist websites as well, such as NOW.org...to be less than trustworthy as far as an unskewed respect for data and perspective go.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 20, 2005, 11:37 AM
Hello Lisa

I'm a Brit.

But I do not think that the fact that the voting rights for women in the USA were different from those over here makes much difference to my point of view.

For example, in your civil war, half a million **men** died.

Men were expected to carry out duties and functions - and make sacrifices - that were never expected of women. And it is for this reason that both men and women associated the vote with men rather than women.

For 30+ years, however, feminists have used the issue of 'the vote' to inflame hatred towards men. But, in comparison to men, precious little was demanded of women by governments in those days.

With regard to Saudi Arabia, it is a strange land indeed. Nevertheless, I think you will find that far more is expected of Saudi men than of women.

Interestingly, I saw two news items recently concerning government troops pushing around crowds of people to drive them away from their protests. One was reporting on events in Indonesia and the other one in India - outside Bombay.

In both cases the women were shouting and railing at the government troops - without much fear - while the men were keeping themselves well in the background.

It seems to me that wherever one looks, men tend to oppress - and to aggress against - men, not women; regardless of voting rights.

With regard to the feminist 'media conspiracy' against men, there are so many examples of this that I can only refer you to my website.

Besides which, it would be extremely naive for anyone to believe that highly active pressure groups do not attempt to manipulate the media.

Finally, I would suggest that you read my piece ...

http://www.angryharry.com/esAPermanentGenderWar.htm

... and, perhaps, begin to recognise that there are no solutions to the 'equality' issue.

If you understand this, then you will, perhaps, also realise that a permanent gender war is not a good idea - particularly now that the internet has given men the means not only to fight back, but also to inflame millions of other men into a state of 'dissatisfaction' with regard to the current situation.

And, as you can surely see from many of the comments on this thread, many men no longer even have much interest in continuing to debate the issues with women. They do not like what is happening, and they intend to change it.

My own view is that, in general, western women are the most selfish, over-indulged human beings on the planet. And it is about time that they were dethroned from their lofty pedestals and made to recognise that without their men, they would have nothing worth having.

Harry
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: RockyMountainMan on Aug 20, 2005, 11:46 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Hi Harry,

I believe that white male citizens over 21 have had the vote since the US was formed, in 1776.  *All* male citizens gained the right to vote with the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1867.  Female citizens did not get the right to vote until 1920.  All citizens ranging in age from 18 to 20 were additionally granted the vote in 1970.


Initially it was property that granted the vote. Few men voted any more than did women.  Until the early 1900s the smallest unit of society was not the individual, as today, but the household. However any law may have read, it was never "one man one vote," but one household one vote.  Often, but not always, it was the male who actually cast the vote.

What if the "man of the house" was away on business, incapacitated, or there wasn't one? By virtue of an estate, the household was entitled to its vote, and the most senior member cast it.   In the early 1800s, voting was open and recorded. Obviously, secrecy would make it subject to abuse, so who voted how was public record. If you find those records you discover that 20% or more of those who voted were women.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: RockyMountainMan on Aug 20, 2005, 12:17 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"

"In past times, women rarely owned property."

Generally, not true.  Just as today women own most of the wealth, in past times many women owned property mostly by inheritance. (I won't go so far as to say they owned "most" of the property)

Quote from: "lkanneg"

"In past times, if a woman owned property, it became her husband's upon their marriage."

Generally true.  This was the rule in most states under the traditions of English and French common-law.  In the few states that operated under Spanish common-law, women retained their property.

Quote from: "lkanneg"
"In past times, married women could not independently purchase property."  

Not true.  If you had the means you could purchase property.  Male or female, you would have a hard time getting a loan to purchase property if you were single.  You were considered immature and unreliable if you hadn't taken on the responsibilities of marriage and family.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 12:30 PM
Quote from: "angryharry"
Hello Lisa

Men were expected to carry out duties and functions - and make sacrifices - that were never expected of women. And it is for this reason that both men and women associated the vote with men rather than women.


Two problems with the first statement:
1.  It only states half of the situation.  The other half, when stated, greatly changes the entire concept.  A *complete* picture of the situation would begin with your first sentence, then be followed by, "Women were not *permitted to choose* to carry out these duties and functions and make these sacrifices."
2.  Women did have a duty, function, and up until pretty recent times, sacrifices to make that men did not (indeed, couldn't).  Pregnancy and childbirth.  It is strange to me that the prospect of dying in war seems to have conferred a great deal more freedom in society to the man who is expected to do it, while dying in childbirth conferred the opposite.  


Quote from: "angryharry"
you will, perhaps, also realise that a permanent gender war is not a good idea


:( I *never* thought a gender war, temporary *or* permanent, was a good idea, believe me.

Quote from: "angryharry"
particularly now that the internet has given men the means not only to fight back, but also to inflame millions of other men into a state of 'dissatisfaction' with regard to the current situation.

And, as you can surely see from many of the comments on this thread, many men no longer even have much interest in continuing to debate the issues with women. They do not like what is happening, and they intend to change it.


I think that's great, honestly.  Not necessarily that "millions of other men will be inflamed," lol, but that the global communication network allows both men and women worldwide to exchange ideas nearly instantaneously.  I believe that if there *is* a problem that millions of men need to be inflamed about...if there *is* a great wrong being done them...that groups of men will rise up and will make every effort to change it because in that circumstances it will *deserve* to be changed.  If it does *deserve* to be changed, they will succeed because millions of women will join them.  Women could never have won the rights they possess today if many men had not aided and abetted them; blacks could never have won the rights they possess to today if many whites had not aided and abetted them.   When something is truly *wrong* and needs to be made *right,* then not only those who percieve themselves to be oppressed will rise up and fight it--but members of the oppressing class (whatever class that happens to be) will also.  IMO

Quote from: "angryharry"
My own view is that, in general, western women are the most selfish, over-indulged human beings on the planet.

Harry


LOL, my best friend, after returning to the US from an East African village where she lived for two years, thinks *all* Westerners are selfish, spoiled and over-indulged.  Witness that we have time for stuff like this, not to mention electricity.  :)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 12:39 PM
Quote from: "RockyMountainMan"
Quote from: "lkanneg"

"In past times, women rarely owned property."

Generally, not true.  Just as today women own most of the wealth, in past times many women owned property mostly by inheritance. (I won't go so far as to say they owned "most" of the property)


I stand by my original statement.  If you could point me in the direction of some historical info proving that women owned property more than *rarely,* I'd be interested in seeing it., and happy to retract my statement if it can be proven wrong.

Quote from: "RockyMountainMan"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
"In past times, married women could not independently purchase property."  

Not true.


I stand by my original statement.  Again, if you have proof otherwise...I believe the laws on this began to change sometime in the mid-1800s in the Western world, so prior to that...I'd like to see them and I'd be happy to retract my statement if it's wrong.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 12:51 PM
Quote from: "RockyMountainMan"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Hi Harry,

I believe that white male citizens over 21 have had the vote since the US was formed, in 1776.  *All* male citizens gained the right to vote with the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1867.  Female citizens did not get the right to vote until 1920.  All citizens ranging in age from 18 to 20 were additionally granted the vote in 1970.


Initially it was property that granted the vote. Few men voted any more than did women.  Until the early 1900s the smallest unit of society was not the individual, as today, but the household. However any law may have read, it was never "one man one vote," but one household one vote.  Often, but not always, it was the male who actually cast the vote.

What if the "man of the house" was away on business, incapacitated, or there wasn't one? By virtue of an estate, the household was entitled to its vote, and the most senior member cast it.   In the early 1800s, voting was open and recorded. Obviously, secrecy would make it subject to abuse, so who voted how was public record. If you find those records you discover that 20% or more of those who voted were women.


Two problems:
1.  As far as I know, white male citizens over 21 in the United States have never had to had property in order to vote--I've never heard of that.  I can't remember any specification of that nature in the Constitution, definitely.  Where did you find legislation prohibiting white male citizens over 21 from voting if they did not own property?
2.  If several male bachelors over 21 had lived in a boarding house run by a childless widow, they could each have voted for whomever they pleased and she could have legally voted for no one.  If several female bachelors (lol, sorry, *spinsters* is such a goofy word) over 21 had lived in a boarding house run by a childhess widow, not one of them could have voted for anybody, legally.  Regardless of the fact that the number of "households" in each situation was one.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: RockyMountainMan on Aug 20, 2005, 05:39 PM
See:  "Woman Suffrage," (http://encarta.msn.com/text_761577595___2/Woman_Suffrage.html) Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Quote
In most colonies land ownership, not gender, determined the right to vote. Although females possessed only limited property rights, women from families that owned property could sometimes vote, particularly if the male head of household was for some reason incapacitated. In Massachusetts women property holders had voting privileges from 1691 to 1780. In this period, groups such as the American Quakers, and some individuals, notably the Anglo-American political philosopher Thomas Paine, also argued that women should possess the right to vote.


But it is true that when property ownership and tax requirements were dropped, women were left without the right to vote.

See also: "Women and the Law of Property in Early America" by Marylynn Salmon.  It's a feminist history book, but it covers the interlocking aspects of the history of property ownership (including a woman's legal status when it came to voting) in detail.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 20, 2005, 06:14 PM
Hello ikanneg

Yes, women had to endure the responsibilities of childbirth etc.

There was no escaping this given their biology.

Men, however, were not so much biologically 'bound' to help those women in particular. They were more socially and culturally bound to do so.

And my guess is that the social, cultural and legal mores developed by the western/Christian authorities (e.g. church and state etc) with respect to such things as family, property, voting etc were increasingly designed to 'encourage' the development of stable families and societies - using both the stick and the carrot.

Loosely speaking, this would have been done in order to keep as many people as happy (quiet) as possible.

The anger expressed on this website, however, has much to do with the fact that feminists continue to demonise men both from those times and those who live currently as being 'oppressors of women' in some way.

The truth, however, is the exact opposite.

Men worked and sacrificed a great deal for their women and children during the past and currently, but all they get from feminists and current-day women is hatred.

I would like to know how you think you would feel, for example, if, instead of men being constantly pilloried and criticised for not handing the vote straight away to women, it was women who were constantly pilloried and criticised for not pulling their weight in mines, factories, warfare, the construction industry etc etc etc etc.

Or, perhaps, how would you feel if the mainstream media felt it acceptable to make jokes about women's vaginas being cut up? - cf Bobbit jokes.

My point is that men are getting fed up with the way in which they are being treated and portrayed.

With regard to your comment implying that **both** western men and women are privileged compared to the rest of the world, the point I was making was that western women are being far too over-indulged.

Furthermore, it is mostly thanks to western men - not women - that this privileged status has been achieved. (Western women were, apparently, far too oppressed and disempowered to have had much power or influence).

Finally, in general, you seem to think that the internet will help to sort out the various gripes that men have vis-a-vis women.

Yes, it will; but, perhaps, not quite in the way that you imagine.

For example, I recommend my piece ...

http://www.angryharry.com/esMenhavebreddogsandcattle.htm

... to see what the future might have in store for women if they are not careful.

And do not allow yourself to believe that the internet will necessarily iron out the 'inequalities' between men and women, because the forces stacking up in favour of 'men' are huge.

Harry
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: RockyMountainMan on Aug 20, 2005, 06:43 PM
Women & the Law:  Women, Wives and Widows  (In the Southern Colonies) (http://www.genfiles.com/legal/womensrights.htm)

Quote
Unmarried Women

Unmarried women had many of the same rights as men, the principal exceptions being the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries.  Unmarried women (including widows) who had reached the age of majority had the right to sue in court, enter into contracts, buy or sell land or other property, make a will, or to be a guardian to a minor.  Unmarried women aged 17 or more could also act as an executrix of a will or administratrix of an intestate estate.  Women aged 12 or more could make a will (bequeathing personal property only), witness deeds or contracts, and testify in court - though it is rare to find such a record for minor women.   The appearance of a woman in any of these records is a nearly certain indication that they were unmarried.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bukowski on Aug 20, 2005, 07:29 PM
Quote
angryharry wrote:
Hello Lisa

Men were expected to carry out duties and functions - and make sacrifices - that were never expected of women. And it is for this reason that both men and women associated the vote with men rather than women.



Ikennag wrote~
"Two problems with the first statement:
1. It only states half of the situation. The other half, when stated, greatly changes the entire concept. A *complete* picture of the situation would begin with your first sentence, then be followed by, "Women were not *permitted to choose* to carry out these duties and functions and make these sacrifices."





Today, women can choose to die for the state.  They can choose not to.  They can be in high ranking positions within the govt.'s armed forces.  Yet they are not 'required' to do so in any way.  Men currently have to sign up for selective service in the event that the state needs men as a resource just as men were used as a resource in the past. The past where
"Women were not *permitted to choose* to carry out these duties and functions and make these sacrifices."

Instead of 'choosing' to make it into a negative that women were not "permitted" the choice to die for the rich/poweful, you could more accurately say, that men were not "permitted" the choice of not fighing and dying for them.

Now women have been permitted the choice to do so, but, women are not "permitted" the privilege of being forced to do so like men could and have through out history.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 09:58 PM
Hi bukowski,

Yup, things are different now.  Women *are* now permitted to choose for the most part to take on the duties, responsibilities and sacrifices that traditionally only men were allowed to choose, and for the most part are also able to reap the benefits and privileges associated with those duties, responsibilities, and sacrifices.  

(sigh) if you are opposing Selective Service, you are preaching to the choir.  I think it sucks royally.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 10:02 PM
Quote from: "RockyMountainMan"
Women & the Law:  Women, Wives and Widows  (In the Southern Colonies) (http://www.genfiles.com/legal/womensrights.htm)

Quote
Unmarried Women

Unmarried women had many of the same rights as men, the principal exceptions being the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries.  Unmarried women (including widows) who had reached the age of majority had the right to sue in court, enter into contracts, buy or sell land or other property, make a will, or to be a guardian to a minor.  Unmarried women aged 17 or more could also act as an executrix of a will or administratrix of an intestate estate.  Women aged 12 or more could make a will (bequeathing personal property only), witness deeds or contracts, and testify in court - though it is rare to find such a record for minor women.   The appearance of a woman in any of these records is a nearly certain indication that they were unmarried.


This is a good interesting read, but I'm not sure if you're posting it to me or not in response to one of my posts?  I did have a post about *married* women being unable to purchase property independently...
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 20, 2005, 10:17 PM
Quote from: "angryharry"
Hello ikanneg

Yes, women had to endure the responsibilities of childbirth etc.

There was no escaping this given their biology.


Of course there was escaping that...contraceptive methods and abortion have been around for centuries.

Quote from: "angryharry"
I would like to know how you think you would feel, for example, if, instead of men being constantly pilloried and criticised for not handing the vote straight away to women, it was women who were constantly pilloried and criticised for not pulling their weight in mines, factories, warfare, the construction industry etc etc etc etc.


If women had been *permitted* and even *encouraged* to do those things, and refused, I would think that women *deserved* censure.  Since men *were* permitted and even *encouraged* to allow women to vote,  those who refused deserve censure. [/quote]

Quote from: "angryharry"
Or, perhaps, how would you feel if the mainstream media felt it acceptable to make jokes about women's vaginas being cut up? - cf Bobbit jokes.


:( I thought the rash of Bobbit jokes was hateful and not even a tiny bit acceptable.  

Quote from: "angryharry"
With regard to your comment implying that **both** western men and women are privileged compared to the rest of the world, the point I was making was that western women are being far too over-indulged.


<shrug> I disagree.  

Quote from: "angryharry"
Furthermore, it is mostly thanks to western men - not women - that this privileged status has been achieved.


I disagree with that too.  Both men and women have helped achieve the privileged status that Westerners hold today.  

Quote from: "angryharry"
(Western women were, apparently, far too oppressed and disempowered to have had much power or influence).


:)  It IS fascinating how the slope of the line of the US's rise to world power seems to run parallel to the slope of the line of US women's empowerment.

Quote from: "angryharry"
Finally, in general, you seem to think that the internet will help to sort out the various gripes that men have vis-a-vis women.


<blink> No, I think you must have misunderstood something I posted...it's a nice thought, but it isn't one I'd had previously.

Quote from: "angryharry"
I recommend my piece ...

http://www.angryharry.com/esMenhavebreddogsandcattle.htm

... to see what the future might have in store for women if they are not careful. Harry


I skimmed through the article; I've already read "The Stepford Wives," though, so there were no new concepts there for me.  I find the knowledge that some men think this way sad, but untroubling, and not thought-provoking.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 21, 2005, 12:48 AM
Erm, he wasn't saying women didn't contribute to our "privileged" status.  He was saying they've contributed less than they like to think.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 21, 2005, 03:42 AM
Quote from: "TestSubject"
Erm, he wasn't saying women didn't contribute to our "privileged" status.  He was saying they've contributed less than they like to think.


;) I know.  I was disagreeing with that statement. I believe men and women contributed about equally.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Raymond Cuttill on Aug 21, 2005, 05:36 AM
I've finally found time to join in this thread.

The main feminist myth is that women have been oppressed.  The word oppression itself comes from feminism's Marxist/Communist roots. Of course it can be used correctly to talk about the oppression of slaves but in the Marxist hands it becomes a propaganda tool to use against anyone who has more power or seems to have more power. Marxists have to shoehorn the facts into oppressed and oppressor.  As we see with discussions about women voting, all inconvenient facts about non-property owners (including most men), tax related and literacy tests are thrown aside. This is so they can talk about an oppressor (all men) and oppressed (all women). One can easily say that this was a century ago, but once you have men typecast as an oppressor, you then claim they plotted against women and are still plotting. Thus every one of us men is found guilty of oppressing women a century ago.  

My mother died this year aged 93.  She had had the vote her entire adult life. Granted the laws were passed when she was a girl, but she could have voted for Chambelain and Churchill and one or two earlier Prime Ministers. It follows that if I am one of these male oppressors that I must have prevented her from having the vote but somehow I failed.  But perhaps women fought for the vote. Well, I know there were marches and protests and even riots and jailings plus some women's terrorism but FOUGHT for the vote?  Where and when was the D-Day for the vote? Perhaps I plotted with other men to stop my grandmother voting but allowed my mother to vote?

   Since clearly any notion that any man today is responsible for inequality in voting a century ago is ridiculous. It ignores all the inequality that various groups of men suffered about the vote and in other areas.  In the First World War not a single women, suffragette or otherwise, complained that they weren't in the frontline and still haven't even though they've had the vote for near a century.

   So why does this notion of women's oppression persist? I say mostly because women like to believe it, and because men like to please women.  Feminist teach this drivel and most women believe it or want to believe it and a lot of men go along with it. It is not based on logic or facts but on feelings. It is about pleasing the woman and men have always tried to please women. I remember a man on The Wright Stuff, a talk show on UK's Channel 5, who in one discussion, proudly stood up and said "Women were chattel (property) 50 years ago" Clearly he expected approval and got it from just about everyone. It doesn't matter the statement was drivel. It mattered that it pleased the (PC) audience. Outside of slavery and serfdom; no woman has ever been chattel. The statement can easily be disproved, but it is not about speaking the truth. Had someone like me stood up and challenged him, I would have been verbally attacked.  Not for lying but for upsetting the cosy feeling he and the audience had about what had just been said.

   Once you question the cosy feeling a lot of things can also be questioned.  Perhaps the wage gap or the DV stats are wrong.  Perhaps there is no need of women' studies or affirmative action. Perhaps we could say everything from lavatory seats to glass ceilings are just women trying to belittle and undermine men for their own benefit. Perhaps we could question everything women say and have an open honest debate. Unfortunately attacking men is both fun and profitable and gives a cosy feeling to a lot of women.

   This is why feminist myths continue to exist.  Telling the truth upsets the cosy feeling.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 06:09 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) I know.  I was disagreeing with that statement. I believe men and women contributed about equally.


So maybe we have to narrow down such a broad field as "creating a privileged status or prosperity".

Do you mean in the area of designing and building infrastructure (roads, bridges, canals, skyscrapers, houses etc.)?  Do you mean in the area of innovation & patents?  Design, production and distribution of consumable goods?  Cars?  Soup cans?  Remote controls for TVs?  Optimization, process engineering, modernization and streamlining of factories?

The military?  Exploration of new places?  Advancement of medicine?

Hauling away garbage and higher-level waste management?  Mining?  Welding?  All of that gives us prosperity and lots of stuff to buy.

If you're talking about any of that, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than you think it's about equal.  Look at men vs. women with regard to patents, for instance.  Or just look outside and count the number of women vs. men you see up on a roof doing repair work, building houses or maintaining roads.  Next, go to the mall and see what's happening there during the day.  Don't include the men who are remodeling something, drilling or laying electrical cables in the mall, though.  Look at the people sipping a cafe latte in the food court for this second experiment.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 06:22 AM
Double post
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 21, 2005, 06:26 AM
Hi Galt

You forgot to add that it is men who have produced the greatest works in all of the arts - literature, poetry, music, paintings, sculptures, films, plays, architecture etc. - medicine, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, geology, cosmology, mathematics, economics, geography, climatology, aeronautics, pharmacology, surgery, computer hardware, software etc. etc etc etc etc
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 06:29 AM
That's true Angry Harry, but in the area of music, you're leaving out the tremendous contributions of the Spice Girls.*



*[Actually, I may have even been willing to let Victoria try to win me over before she got too skinny and got that Beckham guy - she blew her big chance, though].
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 21, 2005, 06:40 AM
Ah yes. The Spice Girls. That's very true.

And, of course, toenail painting.

Perhaps women have contributed as much as men after all.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: RockyMountainMan on Aug 21, 2005, 07:10 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Hi bukowski,

Yup, things are different now.  Women *are* now permitted to choose for the most part to take on the duties, responsibilities and sacrifices that traditionally only men were allowed to choose, and for the most part are also able to reap the benefits and privileges associated with those duties, responsibilities, and sacrifices.  

(sigh) if you are opposing Selective Service, you are preaching to the choir.  I think it sucks royally.

Actually, for most men there was not much choice.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Raymond Cuttill on Aug 21, 2005, 07:37 AM
Hi Angryharry and Galt,
  You forgot to mention the woman who invented Kevlar or liquid paper or windscreen wipers.  They're all here
Women Inventors - A Sampling of Women Inventors and Their Inventions  (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/women.shtml)
There are 9 pages of categories of inventions. Apparently you can get women's all on one page, although some have been missed out.  There was a Victorian woman who invented the expanding umbrella stand.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 21, 2005, 08:04 AM
Pardon me Raymond for not following your post with some comment, but I am simply too disgusted by Ikanneg's notion that the fact that men were pressurised to go to war somehow equates to women not being given the choice to go to war; particularly given that women - at least here in the UK - marched around calling men cowards if they did not sign up.

Presumably she also thinks that men being forced to work for 16 hours a day in the most unwholesome of conditions in order to feed their families was also a mark of the oppression of women.

Ho Hum. Never mind. The tide is turning.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 08:11 AM
Quote from: "angryharry"
... particularly given that women - at least here in the UK - marched around calling men cowards if they did not sign up.


I think that was called the "White Feather" campaign. Or?

There are also pictures of men in Germany being encouraged and pushed on by women to go to war.

Feminists like the word "choose" a lot when they talk about men.  Young men choose to get a job rather than starve to death.  Apparently.  A guy whose life spins out of control chooses to be homeless.

On the other hand, feminists want to portray women as the complete victim of circumstances made by the Patriarchy.  Evil "choosing" men always plotting to hold them down.

The reality - for both men and women - is that life is in part choices and in part stuff that happens to you.  John Lennon didn't choose to get shot.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 21, 2005, 08:16 AM
Hi Galt


Quote
When a male soldier is not ready for duty because of being too drunk, sunburned, or unprepared in another way, he can be given an Article 15 of court martial law as punishment. Yet women can voluntarily get pregnant, be excused from duty, sent back home, and given time off without penalty. The high pregnancy rate aboard Navy ships, female soldiers getting pregnant just before they’re deployed overseas, and the high pregnancy rate in Bosnia so female soldiers could go home makes their military readiness a real joke. Remember the USS Acadia, which was quickly dubbed "The Love Boat," during the Gulf War that had to deactivate because 25% of the women on board got pregnant?


More here ...

http://tinyurl.com/9hgdj
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 08:17 AM
Here it is:

(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWfeather.jpg)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 08:21 AM
Oh, this sounds great:

The physical disparity: The difference in average physical ability between men and women is easy to prove to any rational person. The armed services actually have different standards on their physical fitness tests. The U.S. Army fitness standards: 80 pushups for men vs. 56 for women, 87 sit-ups for men vs. 85 for women, and 12 ½ minutes for a two-mile run for men vs.15 ½ minutes for women.

Male Marines have to do a minimum of 40 sit-ups vs. 22 for women, 3 pull-ups for men with no pull-up requirement for women, and men must run a three-mile course, 1.5 miles for women. Notice that the traditional pushup has been eliminated from the Marine fitness test altogether. The Marine Corps. explains this away by stating, "Fitness tests for women are not as difficult as those for men because of biological differences." The current female recruit, treatment, training and testing has been created using a less difficult standard called "gender norming."

Today the Marines maintain segregated, but supposedly equal, training for men and women. They insist that women Marines become as combat-capable as men. If this was true, why do they need to train separately in the first place? Even former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, a major proponent for women in combat, condemned the separate training of the Marines stating, "Separate is inherently unequal." Remember, in war there is no women-only competition. If the fighting becomes hand-to-hand combat, we can't ask the enemy to pair off women like they do in the U.S. Army and Marine training camps.


Maybe there can be an international treaty that if war breaks out, men aren't allowed to touch female enemies - they can only be engaged by a female on the other side.

But what if a country doesn't sign the treaty?  Problems, problems, that can only be resolved with feminism.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 08:24 AM
By the way, there was also a report on military readiness that I saw somewhere on www.iwf.org

The report mentioned that the standards for throwing hand grenades had to be reduced for women - because almost no woman could meet them - so low that in a real situation, the woman herself would have been blown up and not the enemy.

My thought when I read that was "then why go through the game of even doing it - women aren't going to be throwing hand grenades in a war, everyone knows that".  

The answer is that feminists would then be in an uproar.  And the chivalrous male enablers and the feminists in Congress don't want that.  So the game of "pretend" goes on.

Another feminist myth.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Aug 21, 2005, 08:29 AM
Galt,

That is why I am no longer in the Navy.  The preferential treatment, special privs, disparity in the rules... I just couldn't take it anymore....

When I was deployed in the gulf, the USS Samuel Gompers (a supply ship) was deployed as well, by the time we got half way there, 17 women were sent home due to.... guess what...... uhhuh...... you guessed it....

To top it all off, three were sent to Mast (equal to court) in front of the Captain for prostitution..... yes, you heard right.  They were selling the all mighty puuntang and got pregnant.......

Clearly, I find the men involved in this to be somewhat at fault, but if the women were not there, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

"Petty officer Martin, sir, I don't much feel like pulling the mid-watch this evening.  What if I were to give you a blow job... could you put someone else on the watch instead of me?"

No shit, I actually was asked that.

Al
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 21, 2005, 08:33 AM
AH, Galt, Raymond,

You are forgetting 'The Vagina Monologues'. This work of art, which extols the myriad virtues of the c*nt, was surely as great an innovation as quantum theory, the world wide web, or the wheel?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 08:37 AM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
AH, Galt, Raymond,

You are forgetting 'The Vagina Monologues'. This work of art, which extols the myriad virtues of the c*nt, was surely as great an innovation as quantum theory, the world wide web, or the wheel?


I know, and I have to admit I left out the "Great Exploiter" - Oprah Winfrey.  The mesmerist of the mass of stay-at-home women, whipping them up into a frenzy.  The master of daytime talk.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 21, 2005, 08:42 AM
Ah yes. The Vagina Monologues. The height of women's literature. LOL!

Last night I saw the BBC's programme about the aftermath of WWII in Germany.

The American and British soldiers had a wail of a time because there were so many German women available. We were told that so many German men were either in prison or disabled or dead that there was a huge surplus of German women.

You could see them partying with the Americans and the Brits and celebrating the end of the war - for quite a few years!

But the German women were, in fact, particularly supportive of Hitler.

But now that the Germans had lost the war, the German women thought it best to cosy up to the very men who had killed, imprisoned or disabled their own men.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 08:48 AM
Quote from: "AlMartin"
"Petty officer Martin, sir, I don't much feel like pulling the mid-watch this evening.  What if I were to give you a blow job... could you put someone else on the watch instead of me?"


Actually, men who go for that in the military are open to a lot more than just corruption for assigning someone else to the mid-watch.  She'd REALLY get special privileges if she then filed a formal complaint on top of getting out of her duty.  And they know that.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TerryGale on Aug 21, 2005, 08:53 AM
Quote from: "Raymond Cuttill"
Hi Angryharry and Galt,
  You forgot to mention the woman who invented Kevlar or liquid paper or windscreen wipers.  They're all here
Women Inventors - A Sampling of Women Inventors and Their Inventions  (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/women.shtml)
There are 9 pages of categories of inventions. Apparently you can get women's all on one page, although some have been missed out.  There was a Victorian woman who invented the expanding umbrella stand.

Madame Curie?

Better pages:
Women Inventors - by Jean F Blashfield - 48 pages (http://print.google.com/print?id=usrdir-QMQ0C&lpg=PA5&dq=women+inventors&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dwomen%2Binventors%26sourceid%3Dmozilla-search%26start%3D0%26start%3D0%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26client%3Dfirefox%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official&pg=PA47&printsec=7&sig=pRB0ixvfVNhMPGQ0rrYrGikfLc8)
Women Inventors - Link to resource page (http://inventors.about.com/od/womeninventors/)
Google MORE... (http://www.google.com/search?q=women+inventors&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

Btw, the woman who invented disposable diapers revolutionized child care... :D  :lol:
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bluegrass on Aug 21, 2005, 08:58 AM
So much to wade through here and after looking around I can't find one particular post to respond to.  But I think many of the determinations of relative privelege and oppression that people like lkanneg cite is the result of big gaps in an understanding of cultural and historical context.

Firs the idea that women couldn't purchase or own property once married is only somewhat accurate.  In most places in North America, they could in fact keep the property they already had separate -- they simply had to draw up the legal papers before they were married.  In fact, much of the estate of Mount Vernon was land that Martha Washington brought into the marriage.  Though it could be said that the property was her husband's, I believe that in most states, he couldn't just liquidate it -- he had to have her signature which was obtained in private after counsel with an impartial representative, like a judge or notary.

I'd also like to ask how this differs from our modern "communit property" states.

Next, one has to understand where this came from (Angryharry or another Brit can correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment).

The evoltuion of English Commonlaw during the time between the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and the issuance of Magna Carta in the early 13th century was quite brutal.  When a dispute arose between two parties, there was substantial pressure to settle "out of court" and a fair amount of time to do it, as it often took a couple of years for the circuit court to come round the area to hold a trial.  Warrants and complaints were issued by one of the parties even in cases of death as opposed to being issue by gov't as they are now.

If the case went to "trial" and a clear solution could not be made over the property dispute (which was usually the  case in a day without forensics or even a legal "profession") the dispute went to combat.

That is, it was the belief at the time that the person speaking the truth had a slight advantage over the liar -- so they met on the field with weapons and either fought to the death or until one surrendered.  A typical punishment for those who surrendered was having one's eyes put out along with simultaneous castration.

The aristocracy, on the other hand, were allowed to hire a professional champion to fight in their stead so didn't necessarily have to submit to such unpleasantness.

Husbands were forced by law to fight in their wives' stead since a woman probably wouldn't stand a chance.  So in the end, women enjoyed a status that was somewhat similar to that of the nobility in that they didn't really have to fear forced blindness and mutilation if they stole someone else's pig.  It does seem to bear some similarity to the position of the arisocrats.

So in the end one is led to the question:  "who was oppressed and who was free from oppression."  It's a question where one could answer in degrees for either the man or the woman.  However at the end of the day, I know who I'd rather be.

It is remarkable how many people are so familiar with the idea that women didn't have as much right to bring a case in the medeaval court -- unfortunately that seems to be the only detail of history they know.

Our legal system grew out of that cultural context.  It just isn't as simple as feminism would make it out to be.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 08:58 AM
Quote from: "TerryGale"

Madame Curie?


Yeah, and she was even invited to the "Solvay Conference" of renowned physicists, including Albert Einstein, Heisenberg and all the rest, around a hundred years ago when women were "heavily oppressed".  The giggle is that there were more Nobel prizes awarded to women in physics in the first half of the 1900s than in the second half - after feminism kicked in hard in the 1960s.

Now - with affirmative action - you can hardly come up with an argument that women are oppressed or hindered from inventing.  The only problem in the feminist argument is the number of patents produced TODAY with regard to men versus women.  So feminists fought for their rights - now they just have to produce with those rights - just like men always had to - otherwise people may notice.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 21, 2005, 09:01 AM
Quote from: "TerryGale"

Madame Curie?


The reason Mr Curie (Pierre) did not attend or accept the nobel prize with his wife was because he was sick from radiation poisoning. He sent her to receive it and added her name as a helper in his studies. How did she help? She was the woman who stood by him during his research, she was his secertary and assistant, but he would not allow her near his experiments for safety reasons. She did not get radiation poisioning because she was not doing the experiments.

She got all the glory from the fems.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 21, 2005, 09:04 AM
VDARE.COM - http://www.vdare.com/misc/mercer_050106_silly.htm

January 06, 2005

By Ilana Mercer

In his recent monumental work, Human Accomplishment, Charles Murray came up with 4,002 subjects who, as a Times Literary Supplement reviewer put it, "dragged their fellow men out of wattle-and-daub hovels and pushed them into space rockets."

Of special interest is that women comprise only two percent of these achievers: Six physicists, four mathematicians, five astronomers and thirty-seven entrants for Western Literature. There were no women philosophers of distinction and no front-rank composers.

In fairness, the legal emancipation of women only began in earnest in the 19th century--a situation that parallels the predicament of the Jews.

"Until the end of 18C throughout Europe, and well into 19C in most parts of Europe," writes Murray, Jews "lived under a regime of legally restricted rights and socially sanctioned discrimination as severe as that borne by any population not held in chattel slavery."

But where have women been since 1950? Over the last five decades women, who make up roughly 50 percent of the world's population, have claimed only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences. In literature, women have claimed only 8 percent. No woman has won a Nobel in economics.

During that period Jews, who comprise less than 0.5 percent the world's population, have claimed 32 percent of the Nobel Prizes for medicine, 32 percent for physics, 39 percent for economics and 29 percent of all science awards.


One possible explanation for this discrepancy: the alleged greater variability in men's intelligence. The "Bell Curve" of their IQ distribution seems to be less bunched around the median IQ than that of women. They are, consequently, more likely to enjoy very high but suffer very low IQs.

The subjects in which so few women have demonstrated excellence require particularly high IQs. And women, so the theory goes, simply have fewer high IQs.

However, Professor Richard Lynn, co-author of IQ And The Wealth Of Nations, argues that men enjoy an advantage in average IQ--their median may be as much as five points above that of women. This means that there are even more high IQ men than women. At an IQ of 145 there are about ten men to one woman.

The other popular but less credible explanation involves the equal-but-different approach to aptitude. Men are better at math, spatial and mechanical reasoning; women at verbal skills. Women's mathematical reasoning might not be as good as men's on average but women, according to this theory, make up for it with superior verbal fluency and artistic flair.

Lynn, working from his developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence, demonstrates that while men do enjoy the aforementioned advantage, adults are, on average, equal in verbal ability, with one minor exception: women are better at spelling and foreign languages.

Women's relatively scant accomplishments in the second half of the 20th century as quantified objectively by Murray certainly puts meat on the bones of Lynn's findings.

Since 1950, women have won only five Nobels in literature. And some of those are questionable. How can one put Toni Morrison into the literary company of Patrick White, Albert Camus, and Isaac Bashevis Singer?

In past years, the literature prize went to authors of the caliber of J. M. Coetzee, Günter Grass, and V.S. Naipaul.

But last year, Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek was awarded the literature prize.

I'm not suggesting the grumpy Jelinek is a fraud like Guatemalan leftist and Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu. Some of Jelinek's dusty works, translated crudely into English, showcase some skill (if one can stomach the contrived subject matter). However, unlike her male predecessors, she is better known for politically correct posturing than for penning memorable works of literature.

Questions also surround this year's choice for the most prestigious prize in medicine. I personally doubt whether Linda B. Buck's olfactory discoveries warranted a Nobel (shared with Richard Axel). For example, this year's Nobel winners in Chemistry--two Israelis and one American--appear to dwarf the Buck and Axel smell sensation.

Was the committee compelled perhaps to showcase at least one female scientist?

To overcome the shortage of women in male-dominated professions, some institutions are stacking the deck.

Statistician La Griffe du Lion has documented the campaign to make entry into engineering schools easier for women. To overcome the advantage that men have on the crucial mathematical reasoning sections of the admission tests, educational administrators are devising subtle ways to lower standards.

On a lighter note, look at the zany world of reality television--as presented in this scene from the first season of The Apprentice.

The task confronting the two competing teams was to refurbish and rent out two apartments. The team leaders--Katrina Campins and Troy McClain--were vying for the best apartment. Campins, tart and schoolmarm rolled into one, is a real estate "expert," but is unsure which apartment is the better bet.

Although it is unclear to what avail, Campins decided that she and her rival would write down and then exchange their respective choices. Troy McClain, who had been watching her closely as she brainstormed (or infarcted) for the camera, smiled amiably and complied. When Campins opened McClain's note, she went berserk. He had effortlessly outsmarted her: "I want what you want," McClain had written.

Then and there he figured out how to claim the prized pick by picking the professional's brain.

Of course, The Apprentice candidates constitute a restricted sample, chosen for a combination of looks and status.

Despite this, the disparities in character and cerebral agility between the men and the women could not be more glaring. An obviously déclassé act, the women would have been utterly risible if they were not so revolting.

I sincerely hope The Apprentice is not an accurate reflection of the crème de la crème of up-and-coming distaff America.

As a measure of woman, the Nobel Prize is depressing enough.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Raymond Cuttill on Aug 21, 2005, 09:14 AM
Quote from: "TerryGale"
Quote from: "Raymond Cuttill"
Hi Angryharry and Galt,
  You forgot to mention the woman who invented Kevlar or liquid paper or windscreen wipers.  They're all here
Women Inventors - A Sampling of Women Inventors and Their Inventions  (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/women.shtml)
There are 9 pages of categories of inventions. Apparently you can get women's all on one page, although some have been missed out.  There was a Victorian woman who invented the expanding umbrella stand.

Madame Curie?

Better pages:
Women Inventors - by Jean F Blashfield - 48 pages (http://print.google.com/print?id=usrdir-QMQ0C&lpg=PA5&dq=women+inventors&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dwomen%2Binventors%26sourceid%3Dmozilla-search%26start%3D0%26start%3D0%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26client%3Dfirefox%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official&pg=PA47&printsec=7&sig=pRB0ixvfVNhMPGQ0rrYrGikfLc8)
Women Inventors - Link to resource page (http://inventors.about.com/od/womeninventors/)
Google MORE... (http://www.google.com/search?q=women+inventors&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)

Btw, the woman who invented disposable diapers revolutionized child care... :D  :lol:


Madame Curie was a scientist not an inventor.

My point about the number of pages was that out of 9 pages of inventions, (which doesn't cover all inventions) only 1 was needed to cover women's inventions.  Even a 48 page book would not enough to cover all of men's inventions if you gave them reasonable coverage.

Tell me who the female Edison is..

and for scientists tell me who the female Einstein is..
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 21, 2005, 09:24 AM
Also, this was posted on AH recently (Sorry about the formatting):

Dr Peter M. Forster wrote:

Below I have copied a letter published in The Psychologist in August 2005.
Given the general interest in sex differences you might think that it would
be easy to find references to studies on sex differences in IQ, but the
opposite is the case. IIRC, when the BBC did a programme and web survey of its own on intelligence and IQ, it also found a male advantage of several points. However, within a couple of days that fact was removed from the website of the programme. One could be forgiven for thinking that media organisations and most academics are suppressing a potentially interesting area of research.

- - - article begins - - -

Sex differences in IQ

The article 'Intellectual competence' (June 2005) invites views on the
question 'Do you think there are sex differences in intelligence?'

Up to end of the 19th century it was widely believed that men are, at least
on average, more intelligent than women. In the 20th century this view was rejected and it became almost universally asserted by major authorities, including Terman, Spearman, Cattell, Eysenck, Brody, Jensen and Mackintosh, that there is no difference.

The wheel came full circle when I proposed that the historical view was
right (Lynn, 1994). Men have larger brains than women by about 10 per cent and larger brains confer greater brain power, so men must necessarily be on average more intelligent than women.

I showed that this is so on any reasonable definition of intelligence. If
it is defined as the IQ on the Wechsler tests, men have obtained higher
average means than women on a number of standardisation samples. Men also have higher average IQs if intelligence is defined as reasoning ability or as the sum of verbal, reasoning and spatial abilities (Lynn, 1994).

This conclusion was disputed by Mackintosh (1996), who argued that
non-verbal reasoning measured by the Progressive Matrices is the best
measure of intelligence and that there is no sex difference on this test.
To examine this objection I carried out (with the assistance of Paul
Irwing) a meta-analysis of studies of sex differences on the Progressive
Matrices. We found that among adults the average IQ of men exceeds that of women by approximately five IQ points (Lynn & Irwing, 2005). There is no difference among children up to the age of 15.

A consensus paradigm is not easily overthrown no matter how strong the
evidence against it, as Galileo famously found, so I have not been
surprised to find people are still asserting that there is no sex
difference in intelligence for example, 'the psychometric evidence that
there is no sex difference in general ability is overwhelming' (from the
Oxford Encyclopedia of the Mind, 2004).

However, some of those who have examined the evidence have begun to accept

my conclusion. One of these is Colom in Madrid who puts the male advantage among 18-year-olds at 4.3 IQ points (Colom & Lynn, 2004). Another is Nyborg (2003) in Denmark, who has however contended that I erred in estimating the intelligence advantage of men at 5 IQ points and that the correct figure is 5.55 IQ points. Yet another who it could be argued has reached the same conclusion is Baron-Cohen (2003) in Cambridge, although he prefers the terminology that men have greater 'synthesising ability' (aka intelligence: a distinction without a difference). Supportive evidence of a different kind has come from Furnham (2001) who has found that lay people consistently rate their fathers as more intelligent than their mothers, although he has forborne to mention that this happens to be correct.

Richard Lynn
University of Ulster
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 21, 2005, 09:27 AM
Something that's interesting is to compare the grades of girls in high school - which are higher than those of boys, in some cases far higher - to the scores on standardized tests like the SAT and ACT in the United States, or the GMAT, LSAT and MCAT for further university study.

Men seem to do a lot better than women on standardized tests of knowledge - but they do a lot worse when a teacher is applying a subjective standard (i.e. grades in high school).
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 21, 2005, 09:43 AM
Quote from: "Galt"

Men seem to do a lot better than women on standardized tests of knowledge - but they do a lot worse when a teacher is applying a subjective standard (i.e. grades in high school).


Galt,

The standard feminazi line on this is that IQ is a social construct without any objective reality. However, the latest neuroscience work by EEG expert Dr Robert Thatcher shows that IQ can be understood in terms of electrical power and conherence patterns in the brain. Indeed, Dr Thatcher and his colleagues have developed software for predicting IQ from a standard eyes open/eyes closed EEG that has something like a 90% predictive accuracy.

If you are interested in this, a selection of his papers are available here:

http://www.appliedneuroscience.com/Articles.html

If something has no objective reality, and is a social construct, how can it be predicted by an EEG and some software?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: CaptDMO on Aug 21, 2005, 09:45 AM
Quote from: "TerryGale"

Btw, the woman who invented disposable diapers revolutionized child care... :D  :lol:


And clogged landfills across the nation! Not to mention generating new problems for the overland shipping trade.  
The woman that invented rely tampons has some 'splainin' to do as well.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TerryGale on Aug 21, 2005, 09:54 AM
People who know me know I hate linking to newspapers who require registration, due to my belief that registering for such increases your e-mail junk spam...  So here's the Freeper link for this..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467716/posts
From here on, let women kill their own spiders
BY DAVE BARRY, Aug. 21, 2005

(This classic Dave Barry column was originally published on Feb. 14, 1999.)

From time to time, I receive letters from a certain group of individuals

that I will describe, for want of a better term, as ''women.'' I have such a letter here, from a Susie Walker, of North Augusta, S.C., who asks the following question:

'Why do men open a drawer and say, `Where is the spatula?' Instead of, you know, looking for it?''

This question expresses a commonly held (by women) negative stereotype about guys of the male gender, which is that they cannot find things around the house, especially things in the kitchen. Many women believe that if you want to hide something from a man, all you have to do is put it in plain sight in the refrigerator, and he will never, ever find it, as evidenced by the fact that a man can open a refrigerator containing 463 pounds of assorted meats, poultry, cold cuts, condiments, vegetables, frozen dinners, snack foods, desserts, etc., and ask, with no irony whatsoever, ``Do we have anything to eat?''

Now, I COULD respond to this stereotype in a snide manner by making generalizations about women. I could ask, for example, how come your average woman prepares for virtually every upcoming event in her life, including dental appointments, by buying new shoes, even if she already owns as many pairs as the entire Riverdance troupe. I could point out that, if there were no women, there would be no such thing as Leonardo DiCaprio. I could ask why a woman would walk up to a perfectly innocent man who is minding his own business watching basketball and demand to know if a certain pair of pants makes her butt look too big, and then, no matter what he answers, get mad at him. I could ask why, according to the best scientific estimates, 93 percent of the nation's severely limited bathroom-storage space is taken up by decades-old, mostly empty tubes labeled ''moisturizer.'' I could point out that, to judge from the covers of countless women's magazines, the two topics most interesting to women are (1) Why men are all disgusting pigs, and (2) How to attract men.

Yes, I could raise these issues in response to the question asked by Susie Walker, of North Augusta, S.C., regarding the man who was asking where the spatula was. I could even ask WHY this particular man might be looking for the spatula. Could it be that he needs a spatula to kill a spider, because, while he was innocently watching basketball and minding his own business, a member of another major gender -- a gender that refuses to personally kill spiders but wants them all dead -- DEMANDED that he kill the spider, which nine times out of 10 turns out to be a male spider that was minding its own business? Do you realize how many men arrive in hospital emergency rooms every year, sometimes still gripping their spatulas, suffering from painful spider-inflicted injuries? I don't have the exact statistics right here, but I bet they are chilling.

As I say, I could raise these issues and resort to the kind of negativity indulged in by Susie Walker, of North Augusta, S.C. But I choose not to. I choose, instead, to address her question seriously, in hopes that, by improving the communication between the genders, all human beings -- both men and women, together -- will come to a better understanding of how dense women can be sometimes.

I say this because there is an excellent reason why a man would open the spatula drawer and, without looking for the spatula, ask where the spatula is: The man does not have TIME to look for the spatula. Why? Because HE IS BUSY THINKING. Men are ALMOST ALWAYS thinking. When you look at a man who appears to be merely scratching himself, rest assured that inside his head, his brain is humming like a high-powered computer, processing millions of pieces of information and producing important insights such as, ``This feels good!''

We should be grateful that men think so much, because over the years they have thought up countless inventions that have made life better for all people, everywhere. The shot clock in basketball is one example. Another one is underwear-eating bacteria. I found out about this thanks to the many alert readers who sent me an article from ''New Scientist'' magazine stating that Russian scientists -- and you KNOW these are guy scientists -- are trying to solve the problem of waste disposal aboard spacecraft, by 'designing a cocktail of bacteria to digest astronauts' cotton and paper underpants.'' Is that great, or what? I am picturing a utopian future wherein, when a man's briefs get dirty, they will simply dissolve from his body, thereby freeing him from the chore of dealing with his soiled underwear via the labor-intensive, time-consuming method he now uses, namely, dropping them on the floor.

I'm not saying that guys have solved all the world's problems. I'm just saying that there ARE solutions out there, and if, instead of harping endlessly about spatulas, we allow guys to use their mental talents to look for these solutions, in time, they will find them. Unless they are in the refrigerator.
--------------
It will indeed be revolutionary if men improve on the disposable diaper by making it biodegradable. :lol:

Dave Barry's Blog is interesting... http://blogs.herald.com/dave_barrys_blog/  It also serves as a backdoor to the online Miami Herald.  I got quite a few clicks in before hitting the registration page again.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Raymond Cuttill on Aug 21, 2005, 10:33 AM
I don't mean to be mean but I have to point out that women's contribution is disposable babies (abortion) and they're biodegradable.  :twisted:
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 21, 2005, 11:21 AM
Thank you Galt for bringing up gender norming in the military... let me add to that the field services of the police and fire departments...


I belong to the Center for Military readiness and I also study socio-biology, specifically endocrinology and fetal development as it relates to sex differences.


The military engages in gender norming practices because they have to, not because they want to. If they adopted a male standard no woman would pass and there were be cries of sex discrimination. This has already happened.

Point: Employing only men in the arms services and the field service of the police and fire departments makes rational in your face logical use of biological sex differences- IT IS NOT the result of men being treated unfairly, that idea repeated by many MRAs is a complete joke.

Some argue that if a woman is qualified then she should be allowed to serve. This is nonsense since standards were lowered (and in some cases eliminated outright to allow women to participate) and if the standards were raised across the board no normal woman would pass which is why they WILL NEVER do it. All the research has been done ad nauseum and this is the only way they can get women into the military - personally I don't even know why they bother to test women at all- why even keep up the charade -just let them in- if we are going to be retarded lets go all the way.

The truth is whatever level a woman performs at, no matter what that level is, there are thousands of men who can do it better. Why on earth in a area of life and death would any intelligent culture then use women? Answer...  lawsuits and the fear of loss of career via sex based charges. That is the harsh reality created by feminists in their quest of an androgynous culture and the many, often male, lawyers that take up their charges.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 21, 2005, 11:28 AM
That was very interesting Russ. This dropping of standards seems to be a common pattern. We've all observed the dumbing down of popular culture as feminism has risen - with TV and newspapers now dominated by fashion, gossip, celebrities, diets and other such crap.

Also, another example is here in the UK standards are being lowwered in medical surgery to accomodate more women, as the Times reported last year:

October 28, 2004 (The Times, UK)

Surgeons' training marathon halved to help women
By Sam Lister, Health Correspondent


THE amount of time that it takes for a medical student to qualify as a surgeon is to be cut by almost half in an effort to boost numbers and encourage more women to take up the specialty. Under the current medical curriculum, junior doctors must complete at least 12 years of postgraduate training to become a consultant surgeon.

Major reforms of the tuition process, outlined yesterday by the Royal College of Surgeons, will allow trainees to be fast-tracked to consultants in as little as seven years.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 21, 2005, 11:29 AM
Thank you Mr. Benn on your post of Madame Curie,

Not taking anything away from her but the truth is a lot different then what is written. The media writes as if she worked alone with perhaps her husband and their many male assistants making her coffee or something.

In woman's studies classes I am sure they probably write that she had to fight her way passed her husband to get to the laboratory as he did all he could to stop her professed brilliance, take away her shoes, and force her into their kitchen as a pregnant slave.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 21, 2005, 11:40 AM
Wow Mr. Benn,

Even surgeons now, damn...  here in the U.S. the EEOC (equal opportunity comission) has just filed charges against the Austin fire department claiming that the time physical exam is unfair to women. Keep in mind now that physical standards in fire departments have been lowered several times already in the past 10 years (the 200lb dummy carry was eliminated entirely). In 2000 87% of females failed the already lowered test so they lowered it again. In 2004 50% of females failed so now the EEOC has declared that the tests are still unfair.

The charge has caused a hiring freeze across the board and once Austin lowers it standards further ALL fire departments in all states will also have to comply- why? Well gee because Austin uses a national standard-

HAHAHAHA, what a fucking joke it all is- feminism is a ego/identity pathology which has infected our legal system and because of GREED they are succeeding in destroying our culture.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 21, 2005, 12:02 PM
Russ,

Many of these women view these jobs as "vanity careers", or "dress up and play soldier/doctor/fire-lady". They are not committed to it for the long-haul. There is always the opt-out clause of finding a richer sugar-daddy to bail them out. An option that is seldom available to a man.  There also seems to be this attitude that once a woman has done a man's job once, she is therefore his equal or superior at it, and she then looses any interest in working in it further.

The other big problem with the Heath Service here in the UK is that the medical profession is being increasingly feminised; more medical students are now female than male, and I suspect that this trend will accelerate as men loose motivation to compete to enter any profession that becomes feminised. The trouble is that something like 60% of these women doctors drop out of medicine for a less demanding career or to stay at home within 10 years of graduating. This is a massive waste to the UK taxpayer who is paying for their training, its also causing doctor shortages which then cause the health service to poach doctors from poorer countries who can ill afford to loose them.

So, billions of pounds are wasted and lives put at risk so that madam can dress up and play.

It seems the West has become more socialistic than the East. The Russians have already said that if they have a manned mission to Mars they will not be including any women because it is likely to cause too much conflict within the group.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bukowski on Aug 21, 2005, 12:12 PM
Quote
The Russians have already said that if they have a manned mission to Mars they will not be including any women because it is likely to cause too much conflict within the group.





Did they really say that?  I wonder what exactly they mean.  Would there be sexual tension bewteen the men and women?  Or were they meaning that having women in the group would cause conflict because women are too emotional?  Or what?  By any chance do you know?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 21, 2005, 12:20 PM
Hi Bukowski

Yes, its true.

The Russians have said this countless times through the years. We should also take them seriously as they are pretty hot on the psychology of spaceflight.

Heres just one link that I found recently on it, but I've seen stories on this several times through the years:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6955149
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 21, 2005, 04:40 PM
Quote from: "RockyMountainMan"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Hi bukowski,

Yup, things are different now.  Women *are* now permitted to choose for the most part to take on the duties, responsibilities and sacrifices that traditionally only men were allowed to choose, and for the most part are also able to reap the benefits and privileges associated with those duties, responsibilities, and sacrifices.  

(sigh) if you are opposing Selective Service, you are preaching to the choir.  I think it sucks royally.

Actually, for most men there was not much choice.


I'd think, at least as much choice as women had in regards to pregnancy and  childbearing.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 21, 2005, 04:42 PM
Quote from: "angryharry"
Hi Galt


Quote
When a male soldier is not ready for duty because of being too drunk, sunburned, or unprepared in another way, he can be given an Article 15 of court martial law as punishment. Yet women can voluntarily get pregnant, be excused from duty, sent back home, and given time off without penalty. The high pregnancy rate aboard Navy ships, female soldiers getting pregnant just before they're deployed overseas, and the high pregnancy rate in Bosnia so female soldiers could go home makes their military readiness a real joke. Remember the USS Acadia, which was quickly dubbed "The Love Boat," during the Gulf War that had to deactivate because 25% of the women on board got pregnant?


More here ...

http://tinyurl.com/9hgdj


;) If men could get pregnant, I suspect that "The Love Boat" phenomenon would be centuries old by now.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: SouthernGuy on Aug 21, 2005, 04:44 PM
Quote
I'd think, at least as much choice as women had in regards to pregnancy and childbearing.


You'll have to talk to our misogynistic lord and saviour about that one...:shock:

SG
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 21, 2005, 04:57 PM
Quote from: "AlMartin"


"Petty officer Martin, sir, I don't much feel like pulling the mid-watch this evening.  What if I were to give you a blow job... could you put someone else on the watch instead of me?"

No shit, I actually was asked that.

Al


It's amazing, the crazy stuff that goes on in the military sometimes...

I remember during basic training, I had to run back to the barracks to get something for one of my squad members, and as I was rooting around in my wall locker, another private from my platoon came out of the bathroom with the weirdest look on her face...and right after her came one of our male drill sergeants.  I closed my locker up and squeezed back between it and the adjacent locker til I heard the barracks door close, then peeked out.  The other private was standing next to her bunk, still with the strangest look on her face.  

Me:  "Um, is everything okay?"
Her:  "I don't know."
Me:  "Um...what was <drill sergeant> doing in the bathroom with you..?"
Her:  "Well, <other drill sergeant> sent me back here because I was missing my glove shells and when I came in, <drill sergeant> started yelling at me for not being with the platoon, and I tried to tell him that <other drill sergeant> had sent me back here and he said that he was going to tell <other drill sergeant> that I was in here screwing around instead of what I was supposed to be doing.   So I said please don't and then he said, then I hope you know how to f*ck."
Me:  (long pause)  Did you..?
Her:  Yeah.
Me:  (long pause) Are you okay?
Her:  Yeah.  I guess so.  Don't tell anybody.
Me:   Well--
Her:  Promise.  
Me:  You sure you're okay?
Her:  Yeah.  Let's get back outside.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 21, 2005, 05:00 PM
Excuse me ikanneg, but are you and Ms Natalie Clifford Barney an 'item'?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 21, 2005, 05:20 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Quote from: "TerryGale"

Madame Curie?


The reason Mr Curie (Pierre) did not attend or accept the nobel prize with his wife was because he was sick from radiation poisoning. He sent her to receive it and added her name as a helper in his studies. How did she help? She was the woman who stood by him during his research, she was his secertary and assistant, but he would not allow her near his experiments for safety reasons. She did not get radiation poisioning because she was not doing the experiments.

She got all the glory from the fems.


If anyone is interested in the *actual* course of events of Marie Curie's scientific work and death, here is some info from the American Institute of Physics:

"The woman who became "Madame Marie Curie" was named Maria Sklodowska at birth. She was born on November 7, 1867, in Warsaw, the city that had once been the capital of Poland.  Shortly before she turned 24, she registered at the famous Sorbonne university as Marie, the French form of Maria. She completed master's degrees in physics and math in  three years.  Marie's superior work in physics won her a scholarship. A group of industrialists, the Society for the Encouragement of National Industry, paid her to investigate the magnetic properties of different steels. To carry out the work she needed a lab.

Pierre Curie had a lab, so Marie was introduced to him in spring 1894. He had the title of Laboratory Chief at the Paris Municipal School of Industrial Physics and Chemistry. In fact his lab facilities were poor, but he let Marie work there. Curie, about 10 years older than Marie, had made important scientific discoveries on magnetism and crystals. But he had never completed a doctoral thesis.

As the relationship between Pierre and Marie deepened, he convinced her that she should pursue science in Paris, not return to Poland for good. She in turn convinced him to write up his magnetism research and get a doctoral degree. He was then promoted to a professorship, but his teaching duties grew, and his lab got no better.

Pierre and Marie married in July 1895. Over the next two years, Marie completed her research on the magnetic properties of steels. She submitted her final results shortly before giving birth to their first daughter, Irène, in September 1897.  

Two mysterious discoveries led Marie Curie to her life's work. In December 1895, a German physicist, Wilhelm Roentgen, had discovered rays that could travel through solid wood or flesh. A few months later a French physicist, Henri Becquerel, discovered that minerals containing uranium also gave off rays. Roentgen's X-rays amazed scientists, who took to studying them with great energy. They mostly ignored Becquerel's rays, which seemed much the same, only weaker. Marie decided to investigate the uranium rays. There was so little work on them for her to read about that she could begin experiments at once.

First Marie needed a lab. She had to settle for a storeroom in the Paris Municipal School, where her husband, Pierre Curie, was now a professor.  She started off by studying a variety of chemical compounds that contained uranium. She discovered that the strength of the rays that came out depended only on the amount of uranium in the compound. It had nothing to do with whether the material was solid or powdered, dry or wet, pure or combined with other chemical elements. If you had a certain amount of uranium--a certain number of uranium atoms--then you got a certain intensity of radiation. Nothing else made a difference.

And not only inside uranium. Trying out various chemicals, Marie found that compounds that contained an uncommon element, thorium, also gave off rays. To describe the behavior of these two elements, Marie made up the term "radioactivity."  The mineral pitchblende, rich in uranium, gave off more radioactivity than could be accounted for by the uranium in it (and there was no thorium). She figured the pitchblende must contain another element, fiercely radioactive, and never seen before. The promise of a strange new element was so exciting that Pierre put aside his work on crystals to help speed up the discovery.

After long labor they succeeded in finding not one but two new elements.  In July 1898 they published a paper revealing their first discovery. They honored Marie's native land by naming the element "polonium." That December they announced the second new element, which they named "radium" from the Latin word for ray.

In 1903, the great honor quickly changed their lives. Pierre was finally appointed to a professorship at the Sorbonne, and the university belatedly found funds for a laboratory for him. It also hired Marie--the first woman to win a Nobel Prize--as "laboratory chief."

Pierre had been ill, likely from radiation poisoning, and he did not manage to get to Sweden to deliver the traditional lecture accepting the Nobel Prize until 1905. On April 19, 1906, after working in the laboratory in the morning, he was on his way to a library when he slipped on the wet street and fell in front of a heavy horse-drawn wagon. It ran over his head, killing him instantly.

Less than a month later, the Sorbonne agreed to make Marie Curie its first woman professor, taking up Pierre's position. Meanwhile she began important lab work. Another scientist had come up with a theory that radium was not an element at all, but a compound of the known elements lead and helium. It took her several years to prove beyond doubt that radium was indeed an element. She then decided to establish a scientific institution worthy of Pierre's memory. Helped by her scientist friends, she persuaded the French government and the private Pasteur Foundation to fund a Radium Institute. Marie would head a radioactivity laboratory, and an eminent physician would lead its medical research laboratory.

Marie became the first person to win a second Nobel Prize. She traveled to Sweden to accept the 1911 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for her discovery of radium and polonium.

n August 1914, Germany invaded France. Nearly all of Curie's staff at the Radium Institute enlisted in the war effort. Curie continued to do research on radioactivity, but her main focus shifted to running the Radium Institute. She made the Institute a center for measuring the radium content of various products used by doctors and others. She also made it a world center for research, carefully selecting several dozen scientists and keeping up with the progress of each. Her researchers made many discoveries. In 1934, her daughter Irène and Irène's husband Frédéric  discovered artificial radioactivity at the Radium Institute.

Marie Curie and family members Curie did not live to see Irène and Frédéric receive the 1935 Nobel Prize for their discovery. As early as 1920 she had been sufferering from medical problems, probably caused by her many years of exposure to radioactive materials. On July 4, 1934, Marie Curie died of aplastic anemia, a blood disease that often results from getting too much radiation.

http://www.aip.org/history/curie/brief/01_poland/poland_1.html
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 21, 2005, 05:44 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
The military engages in gender norming practices because they have to, not because they want to. If they adopted a male standard no woman would pass and


Actually, the male PT standard for the Army is not that tough to pass.  :) I always did.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 21, 2005, 05:46 PM
n/t
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: bukowski on Aug 21, 2005, 05:48 PM
Then surely women should be put on the front lines until reparations are made!
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 21, 2005, 06:02 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) I know.  I was disagreeing with that statement. I believe men and women contributed about equally.


So maybe we have to narrow down such a broad field as "creating a privileged status or prosperity".


Actually, I was thinking of my day-to-day life, of all the conveniences, aids, services, objects, structures, etc. etc. that I use almost without conscious thought daily that make my life such a cream cheesecake compared to the non-Western developing world.  Since I think that the US workforce split roughly 50/50 by gender, I credit both genders roughly equally for the privileged life we lead on a day to day basis.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 21, 2005, 06:13 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Heres just one link that I found recently on it, but I've seen stories on this several times through the years:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6955149


Interesting.  Remind me again what Lapierre did that's so non-weak-and-delicate?

I know I've said this before but I think we should shoot more women off into space.  ;-)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 21, 2005, 07:12 PM
"Actually, the male PT standard for the Army is not that tough to pass.  I always did."

Who couldn't? The army is a PC hollow shell of what it should be, thanks to feminism and sympathetic lawyers.

I was referring to standards that should be.. I thought I was clear, maybe not.

One other thing to consider... even if a woman is able to meet a reasonable MINIMAL standard she will still not be as capable as her relative male counterpart.


Just a fact of life.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 21, 2005, 07:23 PM
"Actually, the male PT standard for the Army is not that tough to pass.  I always did."

Oh I forgot to add I don't believe you, even with all the standards reduced... I'm sure you've also crossed the Atlantic Ocean with your left leg tied over your head.


Sorry, I just know feminists
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TestSubject on Aug 21, 2005, 08:45 PM
I propose a change to army PT procedure (what is PT?  Physical Training?)...

Quote
Sarge: ASSUME THE POSITION AND COMMENCE SCRATCHING YOUR BALLS.

lkanneg:  :oops:  :roll:

Sarge: IS THERE A PROBLEM, PRIVATE?

lkanneg: Sir, yes sir.

Sarge: AND WHAT MIGHT THE PROBLEM BE, PRIVATE?

lkanneg: I have no balls, sir.


LMAO!  I KILL ME!

Quote
Sarge: HOW CAN YOU EXPECT TO DESTROY THE ENEMY IF YOU DON'T GOT THE BALLS TO DO IT?

lkanneg: I mean I have "balls," I just don't, you know, down there...
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Aug 22, 2005, 05:03 AM
"Actually, the male PT standard for the Army is not that tough to pass. I always did."


Yea, right....  I am sure you did the 60 pushups......"girl" pushups that is.....

For those that dont know, men must do standard pushups. Women on the otherhand must do them from the knees.  This is fact.  Don't get me started on waves......

Al
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 05:21 AM
Quote from: "angryharry"
Excuse me ikanneg, but are you and Ms Natalie Clifford Barney an 'item'?


LOL, no.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 05:24 AM
Quote from: "AlMartin"
"Actually, the male PT standard for the Army is not that tough to pass. I always did."


Yea, right....  I am sure you did the 60 pushups......"girl" pushups that is.....

For those that dont know, men must do standard pushups. Women on the otherhand must do them from the knees.  This is fact.  Don't get me started on waves......

Al


:lol: Fraid not.  Women on the otherhand must do the same exact kind of pushups that men do.  Since Army guys all know this, I gather you've never been in the Army?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 05:31 AM
Quote from: "TestSubject"
I propose a change to army PT procedure (what is PT?  Physical Training?)...

Quote
Sarge: ASSUME THE POSITION AND COMMENCE SCRATCHING YOUR BALLS.

lkanneg:  :oops:  :roll:

Sarge: IS THERE A PROBLEM, PRIVATE?

lkanneg: Sir, yes sir.

Sarge: AND WHAT MIGHT THE PROBLEM BE, PRIVATE?

lkanneg: I have no balls, sir.


LMAO!  I KILL ME!

Quote
Sarge: HOW CAN YOU EXPECT TO DESTROY THE ENEMY IF YOU DON'T GOT THE BALLS TO DO IT?

lkanneg: I mean I have "balls," I just don't, you know, down there...


LOL, you'd never believe it but we DID actually have an episode not TOO different from this...in Basic Training one of our drill sergeants was an Airborne Ranger and he was NOT used to working with females, he got really p*ssed off at our platoon once and was having us run punishment laps around the barracks holding our rifles over our heads...after a while some girls' arms were starting to sag kinda noticeably and he (he was chasing after us and yelling stuff the whole time already) started shouting, "Aw, are our little arms getting TIRED??  Then put them DOWN, put those weapons DOWN and let me see you grab your BALLS--"  then he stopped, then everybody started laughing (well, as much as you can laugh when you're panting) and so did he, then he starts yelling, "Grab WHATEVER YOU LIKE, ladies, you've got a lot more options than the boys--"
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Aug 22, 2005, 05:32 AM
Nope.  Navy man... and damn proud of it too.  I earned my stripes and medals.

Fraid so. Before I wrote that I made a quick call to a Sgt. Lefebvre and asked him what the rules are.  He said, and I quote, "Nope Al, we *have* to allow them to do pushups on their knees."

My brother-in-law, Sgt. David Lefebvre,  just came back from Iraq.. Army.  

Try again m'lady.

Al
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 05:42 AM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
"Actually, the male PT standard for the Army is not that tough to pass.  I always did."

Oh I forgot to add I don't believe you, even with all the standards reduced... I'm sure you've also crossed the Atlantic Ocean with your left leg tied over your head.


Sorry, I just know feminists


Sad, that you're reduced to pointing at me and shouting "Liar!"  because it's too scary to believe me.  LOL, and passing the Army PT test to the male standard is such as SMALL thing..!
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 06:20 AM
Quote from: "AlMartin"
Nope.  Navy man... and damn proud of it too.  I earned my stripes and medals.

Fraid so. Before I wrote that I made a quick call to a Sgt. Lefebvre and asked him what the rules are.  He said, and I quote, "Nope Al, we *have* to allow them to do pushups on their knees."

My brother-in-law, Sgt. David Lefebvre,  just came back from Iraq.. Army.  

Try again m'lady.

Al


;) I don't know which army your brother-in-law is in, but it isn't the US Army.  Here you go-- straight from Army pub. FM 21-20, complete with nice pic:

http://basic.armystudyguide.com/pt/about_apft_pu.htm
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Aug 22, 2005, 06:35 AM
"I don't know which army your brother-in-law is in, but it isn't the US Army. Here you go-- straight from Army pub. FM 21-20, complete with nice pic:"

Nice try.  Yep, that be the rules.... for men anyhow.  

Funny how you are telling me that Dave is lying... He PT's folks at least once a freaking week.  Shall I go down there and cute pictures of the mudheads doing PT testing the next time he is testing a female as well?  Oh, that's right, they would be from a different Army base anyhow.....and i'd propbably be arrested for sexual harrassment as well.... mmm nevermind.

Say what you will little lady, you ain't no Vet in my book.  Never was, never will be.

I've been to war, he's (Dave) been to war, my father and four uncles have been to war, and my grandfather went to two wars.  We are Vets, you are not.

Feel all warm and fuzzy that men like us went to war to protect your right to sit behind your computer and tell me what is and is not....

You are a sham.  or is it a shawl.... I'm not sure.

One last note, if you think I am getting personal, you are right.. it IS personal to me.  Do a little research on this site.  I wrote a post sometime back of my experiences with Waves in the Navy.

Al
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 06:49 AM
Quote from: "AlMartin"
"I don't know which army your brother-in-law is in, but it isn't the US Army. Here you go-- straight from Army pub. FM 21-20, complete with nice pic:"

Nice try.  Yep, that be the rules.... for men anyhow.


Read em again.  No exceptions.  :)   Pic is of female soldier.  Knees are never to touch the ground, period.   Of course, if you can find the Army pub. or reg or standard that states that Army females can do some other form of pushup other than standard for the APFT, then I'm eager to see it.  

Quote from: "AlMartin"
Funny how you are telling me that Dave is lying...


I never said, er, Dave was lying...perhaps he's just mistaken in his mind.  Really, I couldn't say where the confusion on your end is coming from.  :)

Quote from: "AlMartin"
He PT's folks at least once a freaking week.  Shall I go down there and cute pictures of the mudheads doing PT testing the next time he is testing a female as well?  


I think that's a great idea!  The truth will set you free, my man.  :)

Quote from: "AlMartin"
Say what you will little lady, you ain't no Vet in my book.  Never was, never will be.I've been to war, he's (Dave) been to war, my father and four uncles have been to war, and my grandfather went to two wars.  We are Vets, you are not.


:) As long as the US Army has a record of my service, that's really all that matters!

Quote from: "AlMartin"
One last note, if you think I am getting personal, you are right.. it IS personal to me.  Do a little research on this site.  I wrote a post sometime back of my experiences with Waves in the Navy.


Oddly enough, proud as I am of my military experience and the high quality of service to my country that I provided at that time, I am untroubled by your attitude towards it.  I am a little sorry for you, that you are unable to appreciate what I did, but that's your failing, not mine.  Perhaps someday your attitude will change.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 22, 2005, 10:00 AM
Agreed AlMartin,

Working on only 3 hours sleep yesterday I fell into the trap of the round robin discussion with lkanneg.

After reading a few of 'her' posts my bullshit meter went off and I unwisely ignored it.

Every branch of service was forced to adopt lower standards for women because of the simple fact that men outperform women. The argument that there should be one tough standard is hollow for two reasons. One, a rare few women would pass (and lets be honest about how feminine such individuals actually are) so the military would end up being 99% male and no feminist or PC sympathizer (anyone remember the mantra of tailhook?) would stand for it- this is what actually happened and is why they were FORCED to create dual standards in the first place. And two, minimal standards do not reflect actual capability. In other words, due to biological reality, for every woman (or half man/half woman) that is in the military she has displaced a corresponding male that can do the job better then her regardless of whatever standards the military adopts.

It doesn't matter what the services do with their standard line, it wont change the fact that normal healthy men outperform normal healthy women. The 'death professions' are not the same as driving a cab or playing at a picnic volley ball game where everyone should get a chance to play.

There is a reason why men have always been the warriors, cross culturally and throughout history and women the mother/nurturers.

It the harsh painful (for feminists) reality that there is an order to nature with built in sex roles which a culture can choose to wisely exploit or can stupidly ignore.

Our culture has chosen and continues to chose to be stupid.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Hachu on Aug 22, 2005, 10:27 AM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
Agreed AlMartin,

Working on only 3 hours sleep yesterday I fell into the trap of the round robin discussion with lkanneg.

After reading a few of 'her' posts my bullshit meter went off and I unwisely ignored it.

Every branch of service was forced to adopt lower standards for women because of the simple fact that men outperform women. The argument that there should be one tough standard is hollow for two reasons. One, a rare few women would pass (and lets be honest about how feminine such individuals actually are) so the military would end up being 99% male and no feminist or PC sympathizer (anyone remember the mantra of tailhook?) would stand for it- this is what actually happened and is why they were FORCED to create dual standards in the first place. And two, minimal standards do not reflect actual capability. In other words, due to biological reality, for every woman (or half man/half woman) that is in the military she has displaced a corresponding male that can do the job better then her regardless of whatever standards the military adopts.

It doesn't matter what the services do with their standard line, it wont change the fact that normal healthy men outperform normal healthy women. The 'death professions' are not the same as driving a cab or playing at a picnic volley ball game where everyone should get a chance to play.

There is a reason why men have always been the warriors, cross culturally and throughout history and women the mother/nurturers.

It the harsh painful (for feminists) reality that there is an order to nature with built in sex roles which a culture can choose to wisely exploit or can stupidly ignore.

Our culture has chosen and continues to chose to be stupid.


Maatkare is confused

Do you MRA acknowledge that women are naturally nuturers/mothers/caretakers etc?

And that men are naturally warriors/providers/protectors

?

Do you not also complain that about those roles when used in terms of divorce or societal opinions?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 22, 2005, 10:53 AM
You are correct Hachu if you have surmised that I am at odds with some of my fellow Men's Rights Activists...

Facts are facts and I cannot ignore what I have learned studying endocrinology and brain physiology.

Men and women do follow a very different design and the exceptions to this are (theory) the result of cellular reversal due to abnormal hormone exposure on a developing fetus.

Where we disagree:

I oppose a draft for women, women in combat or any other position except for support in the military.

I oppose the idea that chivalry is bad (modern chivalry is another matter) and that stay at home moms are not pulling their fair share.

I support the cultural celebration and exploitation of sex roles (which doesn't mean a gun to your head) which once was. Nature will take its own course.


Where we agree:

I oppose modern chivalry- quotas, eliminated standards, the idiotic idea that a woman can hit a man and not expect to get hit back etc

I oppose Title IX, the written laws of DV, all affirmative action, feminism and other inaccuracies in our schools and all male-bashing and brain-washing where ever it may be found.


Where we may I agree:

I oppose the industrialists moving in a similar direction towards a world government via existing forces (feminism, communism, large scale socialism) which destablize and ruin existing cultures. I don't have a problem with the general concept of a world order but it must be under a truly moral and freedom expanding force and that is NOT them.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: CaptDMO on Aug 22, 2005, 11:18 AM
Quote from: "Hachu"
Maatkare is confused

Indeed!
Perhaps you confuse MRA and F4J. Many seem to. I've seen several cases where the two (and other predominantly male gendered groups) are confused.
Admittedly, there is a fair amount of overlap between the two. There is an unfortunate lumping together at times so as to use one groups position to refute anothers by assumed association.  This point was  probably made clearest by a Dr.Schwyzer;From the blog (http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/12/manpower.html)
Quote from: "Hugoboy"

December 10, 2004
Manpower

One of the problems with being a man involved with the pro-feminist men's movement is that we often get mixed up with the men's rights activists who are virulently anti-feminist.  Thisgirl(thought to be Sophie B  of the hypno-feminist Volsunga site0 notes the appearance  of the new ManPower blog, and it is not an arrival to be welcomed.
Parens mine

Feel free to research their origins and seperate positions.  

Unlike folks that may lump themselves together for expediancy,  ie.
Gay
Lesbian
Bisexual
Transgender/or transsexual
While in fact they originally demanded autonomy.

and other groups that might adopt them as "......and our allies" when their political and demonstration efforts are useful, such as N.O.W. and NAMBLA, they are indeed  different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, there is the type of individual man that is willing to throw back feminist logic and political positions in the face of those that maintain them, as a measure of be carefull what you ask for and simply OK, now put up or shut up, while he leans back and laughs maniacally ;)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: realman on Aug 22, 2005, 11:25 AM
All this talk of chivalry lately... I guess my biggest issue with chivalry is that at one time, a  woman had to be a "lady" to be part of it. Being a lady = not being rude, respecting men, showing humility and appreciation, generally being "nice", etc. Nowadays any raving b*tch can demand "chivalry" from the men around her fully expecting it to be given. Chivarly to most of today's women is about "me me me, and getting men to do stuff for me me me". It was intending to be  mutual respect that obrserved the differences between males and females and reward men and women who were worthy of such mutal respect. It was NOT about doing whatever a woamn wanted a man to do for her, or about men acting as second class inferior beings to women.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr. Bad on Aug 22, 2005, 12:33 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Hi Harry,

I'm sorry to say this, but your post is awfully inaccurate as far as US history goes.  Are you by chance from another country (I noticed some other posters are)?

You said, "Within a few decades of men getting the vote, women got the vote."

I believe that white male citizens over 21 have had the vote since the US was formed, in 1776.


Sigh.  How many times do I have to debunk this myth.  I've done my homework on sufferage and the Constitution, so I think I'm going to compose a canned response for this oft-repeated myth.  In the meantime, here the short version. Again.

Sorry Ikaneg, but you're flat-out wrong - up until the 1870s voting rights were highly variable from state to state.  For example, women had the vote in New Jersey as soon as it became one of the Thriteen original states.  Other states allowed women to vote if owned property; this was also the case with men.  Voting was typically "one family, one vote," as long as that family owned property.  In state elections a family would chose to send a member to the state capitol to cast the family's vote; sometimes this was a woman but more often it was a man; that's just the way families were back then.  But to say that all men had the vote from the beginning of the Republic is just as incorrect as saying that no women had the vote; both are simply wrong.  

Quote from: "Ikanneg"
*All* male citizens gained the right to vote with the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1867.


Yes, as a reward for fighting in the bloodiest war our nation had seen to date, the men were given the right to vote so that they could have more control over their destiny.  However, at the same time the country was experiencing the westward expansion, and as an incentive to homesteading states like Wyoming, Montana, etc., they offered suffrage for women to lure families west; this was in the 1890s.  So if Susan B. Anthony had really wanted to vote so badly, all she would have had to do was to move to Wyoming, where she could have voted in state and national elections.  

Quote from: "Ikanneg"
Female citizens did not get the right to vote until 1920.


Correct. The 19th Amendment gave universal suffrage to women, about 50 years after men recieved it.  Many MRAs see it this way:  Men earned to right to vote because they were subject to the draft and sent to die in wars for the country, and thus they had a very serious stake re. who was to be in office representing them.

Quote from: "Ikanneg"
Quote
You said: "But in their persistent attempts to heap hatred on to men, feminists continually try to make out that men were 'oppressing' women by denying them the vote.  And even though it is now 100 years onward from those days, the feminists still try to stir up hatred over this question. "


;) Actually I would think it'd be a persistent attempt to speak the truth.  It hasn't been 100 years onward since those days.  The knowledge that there are millions of people alive today who can actually remember a time when women such as myself were legally not allowed to vote, doesn't stir hatred in me--it's just a reminder that, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."


Oh, come on - that's pure hyperbole.  There are few people who were alive then, and even fewer women who would have actually been denied the vote - they would have been born before 1899 (those born after would have had the vote by the time they were 21).  There are not "millions of people" that old, nor are there many women who are over 100 years old today and thus would remember when they couldn't vote.  Nonsense.  

Quote from: "Ikanneg"
Women in Saudi Arabia can't vote today.  This seems to be generally regarded as a really bad thing by most Americans.  Do you not think it's a bad thing?  Why do you think that so many people, often male people, make such a big deal out of it, if it shouldn't be considered oppressive?


Frankly, I don't care how the Saudis run their society as long as it doesn't interfere with ours.  Just like I wouldn't want them meddling with our society based on their view of how we should be.  

I like your posts Ikanneg (Lisa?), but you can't get away with feminist BS around here.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 12:58 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Hi Harry,

I'm sorry to say this, but your post is awfully inaccurate as far as US history goes.  Are you by chance from another country (I noticed some other posters are)?

You said, "Within a few decades of men getting the vote, women got the vote."

I believe that white male citizens over 21 have had the vote since the US was formed, in 1776.


Sigh.  How many times do I have to debunk this myth.  I've done my homework on sufferage and the Constitution, so I think I'm going to compose a canned response for this oft-repeated myth.  In the meantime, here the short version. Again.

Sorry Ikaneg, but you're flat-out wrong - up until the 1870s voting rights were highly variable from state to state.  For example, women had the vote in New Jersey as soon as it became one of the Thriteen original states.  Other states allowed women to vote if owned property; this was also the case with men.  Voting was typically "one family, one vote," as long as that family owned property.  In state elections a family would chose to send a member to the state capitol to cast the family's vote; sometimes this was a woman but more often it was a man; that's just the way families were back then.  But to say that all men had the vote from the beginning of the Republic is just as incorrect as saying that no women had the vote; both are simply wrong.  


State laws were variable, which I did point out.  :)  I was referring to the  law as specified by the US Constitution...sorry for not being specific enough!  Honestly, though, nobody's shown me any legislature, from 1776 onward, stating that those men without property could not vote, nor an example of a female owning property who could legally vote though her household contained no men.  I'd love to see either of those, if you have access to them.

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "Ikanneg"
*All* male citizens gained the right to vote with the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1867.


Yes, as a reward for fighting in the bloodiest war our nation had seen to date, the men were given the right to vote so that they could have more control over their destiny.  .


Actually, I believe the main motivator for the 15th Amendment, which barred citizens from being refused the vote due to race, color or previous condition of servitude, was for the Republicans to entrench their political power in the South.  It worked pretty well for a while.  Til the Southern states figured out poll taxes and grandfather clauses.

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "Ikanneg"
Quote
You said: "But in their persistent attempts to heap hatred on to men, feminists continually try to make out that men were 'oppressing' women by denying them the vote.  And even though it is now 100 years onward from those days, the feminists still try to stir up hatred over this question. "


;) Actually I would think it'd be a persistent attempt to speak the truth.  It hasn't been 100 years onward since those days.  The knowledge that there are millions of people alive today who can actually remember a time when women such as myself were legally not allowed to vote, doesn't stir hatred in me--it's just a reminder that, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."


Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Oh, come on - that's pure hyperbole.  There are few people who were alive then, and even fewer women who would have actually been denied the vote - they would have been born before 1899 (those born after would have had the vote by the time they were 21).  There are not "millions of people" that old, nor are there many women who are over 100 years old today and thus would remember when they couldn't vote.  Nonsense.  


And so it would've been nonsense, if I'd said there were millions of women alive today who remembered being 21+ and being unable to legally vote.  :)  Happily, I didn't say that--what I did say was "there are millions of people alive today who can actually remember a time when women such as myself were legally not allowed to vote" and is in your quote above.  According to the US Census, in 2000, 4.2 million US citizens were above the age of 85.  


Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
I like your posts Ikanneg (Lisa?), but you can't get away with feminist BS around here.


Well, thanks!  I'm enjoying myself with those of you who are debating with me--it's a lot more mentally stimulating to debate gender issues with people who don't agree with you than people that do.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr. Bad on Aug 22, 2005, 12:59 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
AH, Galt, Raymond,

You are forgetting 'The Vagina Monologues'. This work of art, which extols the myriad virtues of the c*nt, was surely as great an innovation as quantum theory, the world wide web, or the wheel?


Or how about Judy Chicagos 50-some(?) dinner plates, all with images of various vaginas on them? Dubbed "the Pussy Plates" by some neanderthal U.S. Senator who had the audacity to question whether or not this was a wise expenditure of scarce U.S. taxpayer dollars.   Those surely rank up there with landing on the moon, don't they?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr. Bad on Aug 22, 2005, 01:23 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"

And so it would've been nonsense, if I'd said there were millions of women alive today who remembered being 21+ and being unable to legally vote.  :)  Happily, I didn't say that--what I did say was "there are millions of people alive today who can actually remember a time when women such as myself were legally not allowed to vote" and is in your quote above.  According to the US Census, in 2000, 4.2 million US citizens were above the age of 85.


And all of them have had the right to vote once they reached the age of 21.  I stand by my assertion that you were engaging in hyperbole.

As for voting rights standards, before the 15th Amendment was passed, thereby making voting rights uniform across the Republic, this was a state's rights affair, so I would refer you you to the individual state Constitutions for that.  As I said, it was highly variable.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 22, 2005, 01:45 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
AH, Galt, Raymond,

You are forgetting 'The Vagina Monologues'. This work of art, which extols the myriad virtues of the c*nt, was surely as great an innovation as quantum theory, the world wide web, or the wheel?


Or how about Judy Chicagos 50-some(?) dinner plates, all with images of various vaginas on them? Dubbed "the Pussy Plates" by some neanderthal U.S. Senator who had the audacity to question whether or not this was a wise expenditure of scarce U.S. taxpayer dollars.   Those surely rank up there with landing on the moon, don't they?


Agreed Mr Bad. It truly makes one proud to be living in the age of such intellectual giants.

The 'pussy plates' were such an astounding innovation that one can barely comprehend that they were the work of mortal minds.

As womyn shakes off the shackles that man placed around her, who knows what other towering acheivements of the feminine mind await us?

Listen, one can almost hear the strains of Also sprach Zarathustra as womyn rises.

The Vagina Monologues.

The pussy plates.

What we do in life will echo through eternity. And these womyn's voices will echo down through the ages.

"We were here" they say,

"We were powerful"

"We were c*nts!"
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Aug 22, 2005, 01:50 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"

State laws were variable, which I did point out.  :)  I was referring to the  law as specified by the US Constitution...sorry for not being specific enough!  Honestly, though, nobody's shown me any legislature, from 1776 onward, stating that those men without property could not vote, nor an example of a female owning property who could legally vote though her household contained no men.  I'd love to see either of those, if you have access to them.


Don't quite have documents that old, but I do have this,
Quote
"Thomas Dorr, the renegade state legislator who had filled the streets with angry citizens, liked to point out the gap between the nation's ideals and its political practice. The Declaration of Independence declared that "All men are created equal," and demanded that government represent the people's interests. But in order to cast a vote in the new democracy, one had to be white (except in a few Northern states), male (except in New Jersey, where women voted until 1807), and a landowner (nearly everywhere). In some places, that left more than 85 percent of the adult population out of the political process."


http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/election/vote.htm
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr. Bad on Aug 22, 2005, 01:57 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
AH, Galt, Raymond,

You are forgetting 'The Vagina Monologues'. This work of art, which extols the myriad virtues of the c*nt, was surely as great an innovation as quantum theory, the world wide web, or the wheel?


Or how about Judy Chicagos 50-some(?) dinner plates, all with images of various vaginas on them? Dubbed "the Pussy Plates" by some neanderthal U.S. Senator who had the audacity to question whether or not this was a wise expenditure of scarce U.S. taxpayer dollars.   Those surely rank up there with landing on the moon, don't they?


Agreed Mr Bad. It truly makes one proud to be living in the age of such intellectual giants.

The 'pussy plates' were such an astounding innovation that one can barely comprehend that they were the work of mortal minds.

As womyn shakes off the shackles that man placed around her, who knows what other towering acheivements of the feminine mind await us?

Listen, one can almost hear the strains of Also sprach Zarathustra as womyn rises.

The Vagina Monologues.

The pussy plates.

What we do in life will echo through eternity. And these womyn's voices will echo down through the ages.

"We were here" they say,

"We were powerful"

"We were c*nts!"


ROTFLMAO!  

And indeed, they most certainly were!
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 22, 2005, 02:24 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "angryharry"
Hi Galt


Quote
When a male soldier is not ready for duty because of being too drunk, sunburned, or unprepared in another way, he can be given an Article 15 of court martial law as punishment. Yet women can voluntarily get pregnant, be excused from duty, sent back home, and given time off without penalty. The high pregnancy rate aboard Navy ships, female soldiers getting pregnant just before they're deployed overseas, and the high pregnancy rate in Bosnia so female soldiers could go home makes their military readiness a real joke. Remember the USS Acadia, which was quickly dubbed "The Love Boat," during the Gulf War that had to deactivate because 25% of the women on board got pregnant?


More here ...

http://tinyurl.com/9hgdj


;) If men could get pregnant, I suspect that "The Love Boat" phenomenon would be centuries old by now.



If frogs had wings.....well you know the rest. this is BS.
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 22, 2005, 02:25 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "AlMartin"


"Petty officer Martin, sir, I don't much feel like pulling the mid-watch this evening.  What if I were to give you a blow job... could you put someone else on the watch instead of me?"

No shit, I actually was asked that.

Al


It's amazing, the crazy stuff that goes on in the military sometimes...

I remember during basic training, I had to run back to the barracks to get something for one of my squad members, and as I was rooting around in my wall locker, another private from my platoon came out of the bathroom with the weirdest look on her face...and right after her came one of our male drill sergeants.  I closed my locker up and squeezed back between it and the adjacent locker til I heard the barracks door close, then peeked out.  The other private was standing next to her bunk, still with the strangest look on her face.  

Me:  "Um, is everything okay?"
Her:  "I don't know."
Me:  "Um...what was <drill sergeant> doing in the bathroom with you..?"
Her:  "Well, <other drill sergeant> sent me back here because I was missing my glove shells and when I came in, <drill sergeant> started yelling at me for not being with the platoon, and I tried to tell him that <other drill sergeant> had sent me back here and he said that he was going to tell <other drill sergeant> that I was in here screwing around instead of what I was supposed to be doing.   So I said please don't and then he said, then I hope you know how to f*ck."
Me:  (long pause)  Did you..?
Her:  Yeah.
Me:  (long pause) Are you okay?
Her:  Yeah.  I guess so.  Don't tell anybody.
Me:   Well--
Her:  Promise.  
Me:  You sure you're okay?
Her:  Yeah.  Let's get back outside.


I did 20 in the Navy, and this sounds like a ho getting her fu## on.
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 22, 2005, 02:27 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Russ2d"
The military engages in gender norming practices because they have to, not because they want to. If they adopted a male standard no woman would pass and


Actually, the male PT standard for the Army is not that tough to pass.  :) I always did.



yeah right.
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 22, 2005, 02:30 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) I know.  I was disagreeing with that statement. I believe men and women contributed about equally.


So maybe we have to narrow down such a broad field as "creating a privileged status or prosperity".


Actually, I was thinking of my day-to-day life, of all the conveniences, aids, services, objects, structures, etc. etc. that I use almost without conscious thought daily that make my life such a cream cheesecake compared to the non-Western developing world.  Since I think that the US workforce split roughly 50/50 by gender, I credit both genders roughly equally for the privileged life we lead on a day to day basis.



So with men doing all or most of all the tough jobs, I gather that a receptionist for instance contributes as much as an indispensible miner (example)?
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 03:02 PM
Quote from: "Stallywood"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "angryharry"
Hi Galt


Quote
When a male soldier is not ready for duty because of being too drunk, sunburned, or unprepared in another way, he can be given an Article 15 of court martial law as punishment. Yet women can voluntarily get pregnant, be excused from duty, sent back home, and given time off without penalty. The high pregnancy rate aboard Navy ships, female soldiers getting pregnant just before they're deployed overseas, and the high pregnancy rate in Bosnia so female soldiers could go home makes their military readiness a real joke. Remember the USS Acadia, which was quickly dubbed "The Love Boat," during the Gulf War that had to deactivate because 25% of the women on board got pregnant?


More here ...

http://tinyurl.com/9hgdj


;) If men could get pregnant, I suspect that "The Love Boat" phenomenon would be centuries old by now.



If frogs had wings.....well you know the rest. this is BS.
Stally


It's BS that male sailors have been fudgepackin each other for centuries?  You're rather innocent.  :)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 03:05 PM
Quote from: "Stallywood"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "AlMartin"


"Petty officer Martin, sir, I don't much feel like pulling the mid-watch this evening.  What if I were to give you a blow job... could you put someone else on the watch instead of me?"

No shit, I actually was asked that.

Al


It's amazing, the crazy stuff that goes on in the military sometimes...

I remember during basic training, I had to run back to the barracks to get something for one of my squad members, and as I was rooting around in my wall locker, another private from my platoon came out of the bathroom with the weirdest look on her face...and right after her came one of our male drill sergeants.  I closed my locker up and squeezed back between it and the adjacent locker til I heard the barracks door close, then peeked out.  The other private was standing next to her bunk, still with the strangest look on her face.  

Me:  "Um, is everything okay?"
Her:  "I don't know."
Me:  "Um...what was <drill sergeant> doing in the bathroom with you..?"
Her:  "Well, <other drill sergeant> sent me back here because I was missing my glove shells and when I came in, <drill sergeant> started yelling at me for not being with the platoon, and I tried to tell him that <other drill sergeant> had sent me back here and he said that he was going to tell <other drill sergeant> that I was in here screwing around instead of what I was supposed to be doing.   So I said please don't and then he said, then I hope you know how to f*ck."
Me:  (long pause)  Did you..?
Her:  Yeah.
Me:  (long pause) Are you okay?
Her:  Yeah.  I guess so.  Don't tell anybody.
Me:   Well--
Her:  Promise.  
Me:  You sure you're okay?
Her:  Yeah.  Let's get back outside.


I did 20 in the Navy, and this sounds like a ho getting her fu## on.
Stally


No, not in this case--that's not to say I didn't encounter any ho's during my Army days, cause I did. If you're interested let me know and I'll share a few stories.  :)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 03:17 PM
Quote from: "Stallywood"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
;) I know.  I was disagreeing with that statement. I believe men and women contributed about equally.


So maybe we have to narrow down such a broad field as "creating a privileged status or prosperity".


Actually, I was thinking of my day-to-day life, of all the conveniences, aids, services, objects, structures, etc. etc. that I use almost without conscious thought daily that make my life such a cream cheesecake compared to the non-Western developing world.  Since I think that the US workforce split roughly 50/50 by gender, I credit both genders roughly equally for the privileged life we lead on a day to day basis.



So with men doing all or most of all the tough jobs, I gather that a receptionist for instance contributes as much as an indispensible miner (example)?
Stally


Suppose it depends on your definition of a "tough" job.  There are jobs that are "tough" because they are physically arduous; there are jobs that are "tough" because they are intellectually ardous; there are jobs that are "tough" because they are disgusting; there are jobs that are "tough" because they are drudgery.  What definition of "tough" are you using?

Same goes for "indispensable."  What's "indispensable?"  For example, are teachers "indispensable?"
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 03:44 PM
Quote from: "Stallywood"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Russ2d"
The military engages in gender norming practices because they have to, not because they want to. If they adopted a male standard no woman would pass and


Actually, the male PT standard for the Army is not that tough to pass.  :) I always did.



yeah right.
Stally


Gad, do you guys even know how lame the male passing standard for the APFT *is*?  For males 17-21 to pass Basic Training:  

2 mile run:  16 min 36 sec
I mean, come ON, not only is this not the 4-minute mile, it ain't even the 8 minute mile...

Situps:  55 in 2 minutes
This is exactly the same as the women's standard...

Pushups:  35 in 2 minutes
One popular strategy:  Do 10 in 10 seconds --rest for half a minute---do another 10 in 10 seconds---rest for half a minute--do another 10 in 10 seconds--got half a minute left and only 5 more to crank out...  

Don't tell me you guys are so wildly impressed by these standards because you think they're actually hard to achieve...?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Aug 22, 2005, 04:20 PM
"Don't tell me you guys are so wildly impressed by these standards because you think they're actually hard to achieve...?"

Not at all..

Just find it almost impossible that you followed the same training as the men.  You didn't and you can claim all you want.  You did not.  Period.

Next youll be hailing the likes of Demi Moore in GI Jane by telling us you shaved your head as well....  You know, like the rest of the men HAD to.

ahem....
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 04:39 PM
Quote from: "AlMartin"
"Don't tell me you guys are so wildly impressed by these standards because you think they're actually hard to achieve...?"

Not at all..

Just find it almost impossible that you followed the same training as the men.  You didn't and you can claim all you want.  You did not.  Period.

Next youll be hailing the likes of Demi Moore in GI Jane by telling us you shaved your head as well....  You know, like the rest of the men HAD to.

ahem....


:lol: All I can do is present the evidence.  I certainly can't make you accept fact over your preferred fiction.  I'll cease trying, on this subject anyway.  It's just so FUNNY to me that you or *anyone* would think those standards are too hard to achieve when they're so low.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Aug 22, 2005, 05:10 PM
Fact is that it was that way 20 years ago and it still goes today.. You can lie all you want in a feble attempt to convince yourself that you are equal and performed equally with men, it is NOT fact.  period... deal with it.  A Quota queen is still a Quota Queen.... no matter how you look at it.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 22, 2005, 06:21 PM
Thanks to feminism military standards (as well as police and fire departments) have been reduced, plus an even lower woman standard (gender norming) was created to accomodate women.


Look, this is real simple.. normal healthy men outperform normal healthy women.. the average man is roughly twice as strong, has greater endurance, larger and denser bones and is more aggressive then the corresponding female.

Why are we using women then? Why doesn't the arm services only use men? And why don't they create real standards to get the upper percent of those men?

Answer: Some of the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon and members of the Senate Arms Services Committee pander to political correctness- those in the services themselves are told to toe the line or risk loss of career, lawsuits (especially from the ACLU), bad press, or any one of the myriad of sex based charges now plaguing otherwise sane people.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 22, 2005, 07:01 PM
Hi Russ

I sort of agree with you, believe it or not.  :)

Seriously.  Why do you think I *did* make sure I could pass the pushup and run part of the APFT (situp part was already the same for both genders)?  I didn't *have* to.  I did it for my own self-respect, because I didn't feel like I could call myself a real soldier if I didn't; I did it for my fellow male soldiers, because they didn't deserve to have somebody to their right who couldn't do the job (and if there are two standards for the same job, the higher one is obviously the *real* standard).  I did it for my own self-preservation, because *I* didn't want to find myself in a bad situation someday, all alone or even worse, surrounded by people who *couldn't* do the job, and not be able to at least take care of myself and by extension take care of others.  

I don't think that the current male standards are too low; I base this upon the fact that I don't see our male soldiers who've met those standards falling down on the job in Iraq.  They're doing an exemplary job, imo.  However, those separate female standards need to be tossed out the door like the garbage they are.  The women who can meet them, can do the job.  Those who can't, are a danger to themselves and worse, to their buddies, and even worse than useless to the people they're supposed to protect.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 22, 2005, 07:29 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Stallywood"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "angryharry"
Hi Galt


Quote
When a male soldier is not ready for duty because of being too drunk, sunburned, or unprepared in another way, he can be given an Article 15 of court martial law as punishment. Yet women can voluntarily get pregnant, be excused from duty, sent back home, and given time off without penalty. The high pregnancy rate aboard Navy ships, female soldiers getting pregnant just before they're deployed overseas, and the high pregnancy rate in Bosnia so female soldiers could go home makes their military readiness a real joke. Remember the USS Acadia, which was quickly dubbed "The Love Boat," during the Gulf War that had to deactivate because 25% of the women on board got pregnant?


More here ...

http://tinyurl.com/9hgdj


;) If men could get pregnant, I suspect that "The Love Boat" phenomenon would be centuries old by now.



If frogs had wings.....well you know the rest. this is BS.
Stally


It's BS that male sailors have been fudgepackin each other for centuries?  You're rather innocent.  :)


My bad, I was thinking this was the age old female argument, that if men got pregnant there would be more sympathy for women.  

Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 22, 2005, 07:38 PM
Suppose it depends on your definition of a "tough" job. There are jobs that are "tough" because they are physically arduous; there are jobs that are "tough" because they are intellectually ardous; there are jobs that are "tough" because they are disgusting; there are jobs that are "tough" because they are drudgery. What definition of "tough" are you using?

Same goes for "indispensable." What's "indispensable?" For example, are teachers "indispensable?"


By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 22, 2005, 10:22 PM
You are polite Ikanneg I will give you that but I am a realist.

I think the male standards are definitely too low and women shouldn't be in anything but support roles.

Keep in mind that qualifications do not mean capability. The PT standards are in place to ensure MINIMAL qualification- they don't represent the extremes that may be encountered in the field.

As an example, In one British study women were asked to carry a box of 90lbs of artillery shells a certain distance. 90% of them failed... the parameters were lowered and then the experiment abadoned altogether when the 70% failure rate was broached.

Of the 10% of women (I believe the number was 6) who succeeded your assertion would be that they were the 'equal' to the men who also succeeded. This is wrong and is the reason I hate when people's brains shut down at MINIMAL qualifications. It is very likely the men could have carried much higher weights beyond the standard which would be critical if extreme needs were encountered out in the field.

I am not questioning your patriotism in any way, I am merely stating that you took the place of a man who if was a mean relative to you would be 25% larger, 100% stronger, have a 30% advantage in endurance, not be as prone to injury, be more apt to bond with the other men as 'warriors' and if normal would be more aggressive.

I don't see the wisdom in pretending that a spade is not a spade for the sake of anyone's ego (and I don't mean ego in the derogatory sense).


Side note: Canada conducted a test where 100 women were asked to train and pass unadjusted male standards in a wide variety of physical challenges. 1 woman passed, and she was somewhere in the low average range. Anyone with brains would dismiss her, even though she was exceptional for a woman, for the next available average to high mean relative male.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 22, 2005, 11:50 PM
Ikanneg,

Here are some problems with what you are writing:

1. What you personally claim to be able to do has no relevance at all for what women can do statistically vis-à-vis men.  You claimed somewhere above that about a third of the men were weaker than you, a third were about as strong as you, and a third were stronger than you.  That puts you on the far, far right-hand side of the curve of the women's distribution.

2. What you are saying is unverifiable in this context.  Your claims (like the one-third thing above) are also very unusual claims, so you can probably understand the skepticism about a self-serving claim being used to support your particular argument.  "Self-serving claim" means that you are, of course, going to say something about yourself that backs up your argument, and no one can check to see if you are even exaggerating a teensy-weensy bit.

3. If you superimpose the distribution curve of women in any measure of strength or endurance, you have to admit that the men's curve is going to be shifted way over to the right.  That's what should be argued here, not your particular claims about your great strength and endurance.

In general, I get the feeling that you are throwing out feminist quips, making unverifiable personal claims and showing a general feminist hostility and mockery of men, all with the cheerful optimism of a plastic anchorwoman on a local TV station, so it's hard to examine parts of your barrage in more detail.  Several more claims and quips are made before someone has the time to examine one in detail.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 03:31 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Ikanneg,

Here are some problems with what you are writing:

1. What you personally claim to be able to do has no relevance at all for what women can do statistically vis-à-vis men.  You claimed somewhere above that about a third of the men were weaker than you, a third were about as strong as you, and a third were stronger than you.  That puts you on the far, far right-hand side of the curve of the women's distribution.


It doesn't, really.  I was strongly motivated to achieve the level of strength that I did.  If all the other guys in my unit had been as motivated as I, where would I have ended up on the strength continuum?  DEFINITELY lower.  :)  However, they weren't, and I was...that was the reality.  Frankly, policies should be based on reality, not statistical likelihoods.  Isn't that what you guys are always saying? ;)

Quote from: "Galt"
2. What you are saying is unverifiable in this context.  Your claims (like the one-third thing above) are also very unusual claims, so you can probably understand the skepticism about a self-serving claim being used to support your particular argument.  "Self-serving claim" means that you are, of course, going to say something about yourself that backs up your argument, and no one can check to see if you are even exaggerating a teensy-weensy bit.


I actually don't get it, because I'm not making any claims to *unusual* ability.  Now, if I said "I could bench press 300 lbs!"  THAT would be *very* unusual.  Or if I said, "I could run a mile in 4 minutes!"  (couldn't, and certainly can't at present!) However, passing the APFT to the male standard?  NOT that unusual, not something that requires an Olympic-class female athlete or bodybuilder to achieve.  

Quote from: "Galt"
3. If you superimpose the distribution curve of women in any measure of strength or endurance, you have to admit that the men's curve is going to be shifted way over to the right.  That's what should be argued here, not your particular claims about your great strength and endurance.


Actually, I think what should be argued is what people are *actually* doing, not what they are *statistically* or otherwise *capable* of doing.  Back to Army days...I knew a guy, little guy (5'6", 130 lbs or thereabouts), who got into a fight with a guy nearly a full foot taller and 100 lbs heavier...but who was nowhere near as dedicated as the little guy to PT, and nowhere near as determined as the little guy to succeed, period.  Little guy won.  If you decided to base reality on statistical capability, you would've bet your cash on the big guy because he had the *inborn capacity* to acquire far more strength than the little guy.  But if you *knew* those guys, you would've bet on the little one, and won.  JMO

Quote from: "Galt"
In general, I get the feeling that you are throwing out feminist quips, making unverifiable personal claims and showing a general feminist hostility and mockery of men, all with the cheerful optimism of a plastic anchorwoman on a local TV station, so it's hard to examine parts of your barrage in more detail.  Several more claims and quips are made before someone has the time to examine one in detail.


LOL, I suspect if I acted angry (rather than cheerful) I'd be branded "bitter" and hassled for that; if I acted serious, I'd be branded "humorless" and hassled for that; if I acted saddened, I'd be branded "self-pitying" and hassled for that.  In other words, I doubt that *any* attitude I could conceivably adopt  would please you.  So I'm just going with my natural disposition, which is cheerful and optimistic.  :)  

Lisa
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 03:41 AM
Hi Russ,

I've never argued that men both (a) have the genetic potential to be larger, stronger and raster than women and (b) that the male population strength, size and speed bell curves have a peak to the right of the female population strength, size and speed bell curves when plotted on the same axis.  It's a fact.

However, I don't understand the obsession with it.  All I really care about is what the *individual actually* does, not what a theoretical "average" person is genetically capable of doing.  I don't believe in restricting individual ability based upon statistics.  Or cultural norms.  Or anything else.  I really don't accept *any* restrictions on what *anybody* can achieve in his or her life other than his or her own abilities and determination or lack thereof.

But that's just me.  I understand that others believe differently.

Lisa
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 03:43 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
LOL, I suspect if I acted angry (rather than cheerful) I'd be branded "bitter" and hassled for that; if I acted serious, I'd be branded "humorless" and hassled for that; if I acted saddened, I'd be branded "self-pitying" and hassled for that.  In other words, I doubt that *any* attitude I could conceivably adopt  would please you.  So I'm just going with my natural disposition, which is cheerful and optimistic.  :)  


Actually, you DO come across as being angry and hostile.  Passive aggressiveness and smiley faces don't really change the underlying stance.

Or maybe I should rewrite that:

:D Actually, you DO come across as being angry and hostile.  :)  8) Double-LOL.  :D   Passive aggressiveness and smiley faces don't really change the underlying stance.  LOL :D  :D
[Please insert big hearts as dots over the letter "i" in each case].
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 03:48 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
However, I don't understand the obsession with it.  All I really care about is what the *individual actually* does, not what a theoretical "average" person is genetically capable of doing.


It's a response - to "equality of outcome" feminists who are constantly nagging that unless every area is 50%, then men are oppressing women.

It's not going to be 50% if the bell curves are shifted for men and women in a particular area - unless you hold men down in some way.  Which is exactly what a lot of feminists want to do.

Even to the extreme of now passing a law in Norway that 40% of people on corporate boards have to be women.  Even to the extent of Harvard now devoting millions to promoting more women to take science courses in college etc.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 03:50 AM
And if your response is "I don't believe in equality of outcome, I believe in equality of opportunity", then ... we're ... in ... agreement, and the issue is about equal-outcome feminists.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angryharry on Aug 23, 2005, 03:51 AM
ikanneg wrote ...

Quote
All I really care about is what the *individual actually* does, not what a theoretical "average" person is genetically capable of doing. I don't believe in restricting individual ability based upon statistics.


Then why do you call yourself a 'feminist'? - particularly given that what you have described is not what feminism is, in practice, about.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 03:56 AM
Quote from: "angryharry"
Then why do you call yourself a 'feminist'? - particularly given that what you have described is not what feminism is, in practice, about.


Right.  That's the thought I had.  She gives the dictionary definition of feminism, but people interpret "equality" in many different ways.  For instance, equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

I don't understand the point of taking a hostile stance and nit-picking, but when it gets down to brass tacks saying you are pretty much in agreement.

Maybe it's just a personal, hostile attitude towards men.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 04:18 AM
Quote from: "Stallywood"
By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally


Oh really?  :)  First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 04:23 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Oh really?  :)  First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.


There seems to be a perpetual drift away from the original topic here.  I thought that the original idea was who built the infrastructure or prosperity or the like in the developed countries.

If you think that taking care of babies is part of that, watch National Geographic or the like.  You'll see a lot of baby care going on.  Or watch cats and dogs - who have no other prosperty other than what their owners give them.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 04:31 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Oh really?  :)  First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.


There seems to be a perpetual drift away from the original topic here.  I thought that the original idea was who built the infrastructure or prosperity or the like in the developed countries.

If you think that taking care of babies is part of that, watch National Geographic or the like.  You'll see a lot of baby care going on.  Or watch cats and dogs - who have no other prosperty other than what their owners give them.


So if we let infants care for themselves and children acquire literacy and mathematical skills on their own, we'd continue to have the same infrastructure and prosperity?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 04:48 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
So if we let infants care for themselves and children acquire literacy and mathematical skills on their own, we'd continue to have the same infrastructure and prosperity?


It's certainly a step removed.  Building the infrastructure ... uhh ... probably contributes more towards it than not building it, aside from the fact that quite a few men ARE teachers of young children, or at least used to be.  I would check the sanity of any man taking care of or teaching young children today, though, given that accusations of child sexual abuse are rampant.

I suppose your last, remaining argument is that women are needed to have children.

But why aren't women carrying away garbage and risking their lives in fishing boats or up on skyscrapers in any great numbers in this new, equal world?  Why do the wives of these men have exactly the same lifestyle while working in an air-conditioned office or ... not working at all?  While their hubby is up on a telephone pole in a thunderstorm trying to get service back up.

I thought you were for equality, so maybe you can explain that part of it.

It sounds like we agree on equality of opportunity, now how about "equality of responsibility"?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 06:08 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
But why aren't women carrying away garbage and risking their lives in fishing boats or up on skyscrapers in any great numbers in this new, equal world?  

I thought you were for equality, so maybe you can explain that part of it.

It sounds like we agree on equality of opportunity, now how about "equality of responsibility"?


On a philosophical level, I fully support women and men equally choosing the jobs that best suit their ability and desire.  As you say, "equality of opportunity."  Now, why *aren't* women overwhelmingly in the skilled trades?  Conversely, why *aren't* men overwhelmingly in the menial/secretarial/elementary education/childcare professions?  The possibiities that seem obvious are four:

1.  Women refuse to work in the skilled trades.
2.  Men refuse to work in the menial/secretarial/elementary education/childcare professions.
3.  Women are being prevented from working in the skilled trades.
4.  Men are being prevented from working in the menial/secretarial/elementary ed/childcare professions.

Let's see...why didn't *I* choose to work in the traditionally female professions..?  I personally didn't choose them because they sounded like boring, low-paying drudgery to me.  I was aware that my personal safety would be far more uncertain and my heavy physical labor far greater if I chose, for instance, to be a soldier or work in large scale manufacturing, but I actually preferred that to being bored to death and poorly paid.  So I wonder:  do men have the same thought processes?  Or is it that they truly desire to work in menial/secretarial/elementary ed/childcare and are somehow being prevented from doing so?  Now, if that's the case, that needs to be stopped asap.  Do you know if that's the case?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 06:13 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
So I wonder:  do men have the same thought processes?  Or is it that they truly desire to work in menial/secretarial/elementary ed/childcare and are somehow being prevented from doing so?  Now, if that's the case, that needs to be stopped asap.  Do you know if that's the case?


I certainly can't speak for all men, but I know that working with children or the like would bore me to tears.  Probably a lot of men feel that way.

Having a girlfriend or wife who likes working in those areas would also bore me to tears, though (as would a housewife, as I've made clear here ad nauseum), but I suspect that a lot of men DON'T think that way.

Who knows - something to think about.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 23, 2005, 06:14 AM
Notice how she implies that menial jobs are primarily performed by women.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 06:17 AM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Notice how she implies that menial jobs are primarily performed by women.


That kind of got snuck in there among elementary school teachers and people working with children.

Actually, hanging on a garbage truck, jumping off, throwing trash in the back, jumping back on the side (repeat 500 times) is a very menial, dirty job, but men ONLY do it because they can get more money doing it than sitting in an air-conditioned office as a receptionist and they feel a need to "provide for their family" (which may only be a wife).  A lot of men have jobs like that - because they HAVE TO, not because they want to.

Then we get back to the "responsibility" part.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 06:26 AM
Now, that *is* interesting...what are the "menial" jobs, and how are they broken down by gender..?  I admit, I was thinking "housecleaning/office cleaning," which is like childcare sort of an extension outside the home of traditional "women's work" and which I do believe is primarily done by women.  However, garbage collecting is certainly menial work and I can't actually recall ever *seeing* a female garbage collector.  (According to my ex-husband, who is a cop, most garbage collectors are ex-convicts as this is one of the few jobs they have relatively little trouble obtaining with a record, but I don't know if this is a fact or not.)

:( I can't find anything on the Internet that even *lists* what are generally considered menial jobs, nevermind breaking down such a list by gender...anybody else know where to look?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Raymond Cuttill on Aug 23, 2005, 06:27 AM
As a matter of fact, I wonder about whose career is so important.  What are they working for?  My career was never for it's own sake. I was expecting to pay for a family (which didn't work out).  Is their life goal to have written on their tombstone "I was the best PA in PA"?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Galt on Aug 23, 2005, 06:29 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
:( I can't find anything on the Internet that even *lists* what are generally considered menial jobs, nevermind breaking down such a list by gender...anybody else know where to look?


It's sometimes hard to define "menial" in some areas, but I know a list was posted here of the top ten jobs with the highest death rates.  They were all male-oriented jobs, as I remember.

Being a fisherman was No. 1 or 2 on the list, which surprised me.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Aug 23, 2005, 06:37 AM
"Being a fisherman was No. 1 or 2 on the list, which surprised me."

Actually Galt, it would be a crabsman.  Specifically in the Alaskan region.  Listed as the #1 most deadliest job.  Why do MEN do it?  Because they make anywhere from 20-50K in a 3 month "season".....

I have a cousin that does it.  Sean has been doing it for some 8 years now.  last time I spoke with him, he said that he was going to stop soon because statistically he has exceeded (cheated) his chance of death or dismemberment which is at about 3 years.

Kinda scary huh?

Al
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 06:45 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Being a fisherman was No. 1 or 2 on the list, which surprised me.


I'm not surprised...my current husband is a (recreational) sailor with a passion for all things nautical, so we have lots of books lying around about sailing and sailors--I actually just finished "Endurance" by F.A. Worsley, which is a really fascinating book--and because of the sheer size of the ocean and the uncontrollability of the weather, even modern technology can only do so much to provide a safety net.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr. Bad on Aug 23, 2005, 12:56 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Now, that *is* interesting...what are the "menial" jobs, and how are they broken down by gender..?  I admit, I was thinking "housecleaning/office cleaning," which is like childcare sort of an extension outside the home of traditional "women's work" and which I do believe is primarily done by women.  However, garbage collecting is certainly menial work and I can't actually recall ever *seeing* a female garbage collector.


I've been thinking about this issue of menial "pink collar" jobs that women tend to do vs. the "blue collar" jobs that men tend to do, and to me, the issue of career track is germane.  I think that although the pink collar jobs start out as menial, there are a lot more career advancement opportunities for those who stay with them; for blue collar jobs, they are much more "dead end."  

For example, a secretary working in the Public Works office overseeing the garbage collection system has the opportunity to advance up the ranks, getting better and more interesting jobs along the way, and eventually becoming some senior adminstrator (this doesn't even take into account affirmative action and the New Girl's Network present in most public sector industries).  On the other hand, the man on the garbage truck has little chance of advancement to a more interesting job or career track; after all, have any of you heard of "Senior VP for Garbage Collectors" or the like?

Thus, to me, "blue collar" jobs are much crappier than "pink collar" jobs, no matter how hard the feminazis try to spin it.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 23, 2005, 04:31 PM
Ikanneg: "I don't believe in restricting individual ability based upon statistics."

But you should when the statistical truth in a life and death situation confirms that one gender will have a greater chance of survival and help others survive over another. Also your reasoning here is flawed. These statistics are not some kind of amorphous theory but the result of actual data of what men and women have done.

The reason for the obsession? Simple, lets suppose a physically challenging survival situation and you have one partner to choose- a fully trained woman which will give you a 22% chance of survival or a fully trained man which will grant you a 79% chance of survival...see my point.. now lets suppose you have a standing army of 150,000 and you have the choice of having it be all men or 50% women. Now let me add that your life directly depends on this army winning...  what would you honestly choose?

Too many Americans don't feel threatened in any real way and relative to other nations we live in affluence so the end result in my opinion is a lack of honesty and seriousness (bordering on delusion) concerning these 'death' occupations.

As for regular jobs I say let the chips fall where they may, no affirmative action, quotas, set asides, or 'special' programs, and with the understanding that men and women will choose different occupations because they have different capacities and different interests.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 05:14 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
Ikanneg: "I don't believe in restricting individual ability based upon statistics."

But you should when the statistical truth in a life and death situation confirms that one gender will have a greater chance of survival and help others survive over another.

The reason for the obsession? Simple, lets suppose a physically challenging survival situation and you have one partner to choose- a fully trained woman which will give you a 22% chance of survival or a fully trained man which will grant you a 79% chance of survival...see my point.. now lets suppose you have a standing army of 150,000 and you have the choice of having it be all men or 50% women. Now let me add that your life directly depends on this army winning...  what would you honestly choose ?


We see the situation very differently...I see the job of "soldier" as having a set of standards that must be met in order to do the job properly.  I would choose *anyone* who met those standards to be next to me.  Now, I *don't* consider the female APFT standards to be meeting those standards, so I'd way rather have a man next to me, as I could be comfortable knowing that he'd definitely met the *real* standard.  However, if the standards were across the board, I wouldn't care *which* gender of soldier I had at my side. If the military training standard has been met by both, then they are both 100% capable of doing their job.  If they are not, the standard is at fault, not the gender of one of them.  

Same with variations among men themselves...got two soldiers.  One is 5'6", 130 lbs.  The other is 6'0, 180 lbs.  Both fully qualified soldiers, having passed identical training standards.  Given the large weight and height and muscle mass inequity between them ...would you have a preference if they were both  male, though one is obviously going to be stronger and faster than the other?  Or do you only care about stronger and faster if one of them is *also* female?  If the larger, stronger one were female, would you still prefer the man?  If so, why?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: D on Aug 23, 2005, 05:18 PM
Sorry, but I can't follow this whole 'be a soldier' thing without making this comment.

Having studied war for the better part of my life I can tell you for a fact that if generals could have used women for cannon fodder they would have.

The reason women are not in the military is not arbitray or even men's fault.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 23, 2005, 06:23 PM
Last time I am going to try Ikanneg,

The standards had to be lowered for women in the services because only a rare few (likely reversed) would pass a legitimate male standard. Of those who do pass they are still not as capable as their relative male counterpart.

These are very basic facts born out in too numerous tests conducted by many different countries all reaching the same conclusion... in addition because of the action of Testostoerone on male specific cells the division between the sexes increases over time, the gap does not close. So even if for some bizarre reason the male and female were equal at the time of testing over time the male is likely to excel whereas the female is not. This is called efficiency and is vital for such situations where death is a possibility.

Again, setting minimal standards is fine but your deluding yourself if you believe that if each gender passes the minimum it means both are 100% capable.

It is because men outperform women that we have a men's and women's sport's divison, and it's because men outperform women that we should have a men-only military. It's just commonsense

As to whether I have issues with small men vs. large men in the military. I do not if both pass a legitimate standard. If both are normal both will possess the genes needed to excel over the standard whereas the corresponding woman would not.

Honestly Ikanneg you should know all this already, and if you still refuse then I can only conclude that you are simply dishonest about the facts.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 23, 2005, 06:37 PM
Quote from: "Russ2d"
Last time I am going to try Ikanneg,

As to whether I have issues with small men vs. large men in the military. I do not if both pass a legitimate standard. If both are normal both will possess the genes needed to excel over the standard whereas the corresponding woman would not.

Honestly Ikanneg you should know all this already, and if you still refuse then I can only conclude that you are simply dishonest about the facts.


;) Well, we are in agreement here about one thing...we're not successfully communicating with each other.  You aren't getting my point and I'm not getting yours.  Which is okay; debates don't necessarily end with both sides acknowledging even *some* legitimacy in the other's stance.  Sometimes they end in a stalemate, which is what this one is probably about to do.  I geniunely feel that if someone meets *legitimate* job standards, then they are qualified for the job, regardless of whether or not they possess a Y chromosome.  You feel otherwise.  C'est la vie.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 23, 2005, 07:10 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Stallywood"
By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally


Oh really?  :)  First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.


My point exactly. Men could step right in and do all these things.  :lol:
And again with the sidestepping, I am referring more to infrastructure support...But anyways. No big deal, your free to believe what ever dream you desire. :o
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Russ2d on Aug 23, 2005, 07:21 PM
I think I understand your view Ikanneg:

If a standard for a job is set at say lifting 100lbs, and both a man and a woman are capable of doing it you would conclude that they are both 100% 'equal' for that job. And if I say realistically that the man can actually lift say 300lbs you would dismiss this as irrelevant and such an increase in performance would never come in handy even in a life or death situation or that it takes a back seat to someone's 'right' to participate...

Have I got this right?  This is essentially what you are saying
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: angelssk7 on Aug 23, 2005, 07:28 PM
Quote from: "Stallywood"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Stallywood"
By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally


Oh really?  :)  First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.


My point exactly. Men could step right in and do all these things.  :lol:
And again with the sidestepping, I am referring more to infrastructure support...But anyways. No big deal, your free to believe what ever dream you desire. :o
Stally


I agree with Stally on this one. When it comes to things such as nursing, educating very young children, etc. men, and in some cases boys, are able to do it. For example, a number of Boy Scout merit badges require that the scout taking that badge to teach another scout some kind of skill, or to present what he learned to his troop. As a result a good number of them would be able to take the place of such things as education, at least on the elementary-school level. In the same way I know many men who are capable of teaching but aren't simply because they are not needed at this time, though they could move in if and when it is necessary.

In any case, that new show "the week women went" is a prime example that if women left, men could still fend for themselves. We could survive by building a new society with only enough women to serve said society for population reasons, but I have not seen any evidence that the converse would be true.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Stallywood on Aug 23, 2005, 07:39 PM
Think about it.... you have two different societys... One with many women and one man, the other with many men and one woman.
The one man, might be the happiest in the first society, but the second society would be the most successful and probably end up annexing the first one. Either via conquest or because they (Society #1) begged to be supported.
Stally
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 26, 2005, 11:43 AM
Quote from: "Stallywood"
Think about it.... you have two different societys... One with many women and one man, the other with many men and one woman.
The one man, might be the happiest in the first society, but the second society would be the most successful and probably end up annexing the first one. Either via conquest or because they (Society #1) begged to be supported.
Stally


People do like to speculate on what would happen in that case...ever heard of a book called The Disappearance by Phillip Wylie?  If you're interested:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0803298412/qid=1125081643/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4921877-9028624?v=glance&s=books
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Aug 26, 2005, 11:47 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Stallywood"
By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally


Oh really?  :)  First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.


What a loaded statement, I could go on forever about why that isn't a stat I would be particularly proud of if I were in that group.

There are a lot of issues with how children are being raised and educated these days.

Men could do the job, they aren't usually accepted into the fold unless they're manginas.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 26, 2005, 11:56 AM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Stallywood"
By tough, I mean  physically, or disgusting. Anyways, its not a big deal, as we both know that if women went on strike society would not miss a beat. Not so if men chose to do so.
Stally


Oh really?  :)  First thought that springs to mind...the vast majority of elementary school teachers, nurses, day care providers, stay at home parents and everybody else who cares for and educates infants and children, are women.


What a loaded statement, I could go on forever about why that isn't a stat I would be particularly proud of if I were in that group.

There are a lot of issues with how children are being raised and educated these days.

Men could do the job, they aren't usually accepted into the fold unless they're manginas.


Men could do the job...while they're doing the jobs they're currently doing as well?  The situation presented was, if women went on strike, not, if women vanished overnight and were replaced with an equal number of men.  ;)

How children are being raised and educated these days..?  A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 26, 2005, 01:53 PM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
How children are being raised and educated these days..?  A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?


Therefore you're claiming that there are a higher percentage of male teachers now than in the past? You got a reference for that please?
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 26, 2005, 02:16 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Quote from: "lkanneg"
How children are being raised and educated these days..?  A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?


Therefore you're claiming that there are a higher percentage of male teachers now than in the past? You got a reference for that please?


Actually, I wasn't claiming anything...I was asking a question.  The clue for that was the question mark at the end of the sentence.  ;)  I do think there are a lot more men who are the primary caregiver, ie stay at home dads, of their children now than ever before.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 26, 2005, 02:19 PM
Yes, its phrased as a rhetorical question. Such as:

We are all on a discussion forum, aren't we?

Do you personally beleive that there are a higher percentage of male teachers today than in the past?

"A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?"
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 26, 2005, 02:23 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Yes, its phrased as a rhetorical question. Such as:

We are all on a discussion forum, aren't we?

Do you personally beleive that there are a higher percentage of male teachers today than in the past?

"A lot more men *are* participating in the raising and education of children these days than ever in the past, aren't they?"


LOL, I don't have a "personal belief" about percentages of people in occupations...that's rather a factual assessment as opposed to a subjective opinion.  I really don't *know* if there is or not...when I get a chance this evening, I will snoop around on the 'net and see what I can come up with.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 26, 2005, 02:25 PM
Feminists are always passing off personal opinions as facts.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Double Jeopardy on Aug 26, 2005, 04:42 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Feminists are always passing off personal opinions as facts.


My bullshit radar has picked up on the "If women in these professions fell off the face of the earth mankind would shit itself, if there is anything wrong with the outcome of these people and their impact on children, remember there are men there so I am alluding all fuckups to men....but not really...wink wink..."

You're right Mr. Benn, there is a lot of sidestepping going on here.
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: lkanneg on Aug 27, 2005, 09:08 AM
Quote from: "Double Jeopardy"
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Feminists are always passing off personal opinions as facts.


My bullshit radar has picked up on the "If women in these professions fell off the face of the earth mankind would shit itself, if there is anything wrong with the outcome of these people and their impact on children, remember there are men there so I am alluding all fuckups to men....but not really...wink wink..."


That'd be true, if only I'd ever said I thought there were more fuckups in today's childrearing and education than in the past...I'm pretty sure I didn't, though, because I don't think there are.  :)
Title: What's the deal with feminist myths?
Post by: Mr Benn on Aug 28, 2005, 07:21 AM
One of the original goals of feminism was the destruction of the family, which is regarded as patriarchal oppression. This has been largely achieved, and what is left of the family in the West is now more unstable than ever. The next step is probably going to be the increased control over child-raising by the government.