Stand Your Ground

For about the first half of the last century, the media - which heavily influence the way that people think and, hence, behave - was very much in the control of the governing elite.

For the second half of the last century, the media expanded, and women and feminists managed to dominate the agenda and the propaganda that emanated therefrom.

But now the internet has arrived.

And it is managing to exert a huge force.

And some 80% of the political activists on the internet are men.

Tra la la la la!

The only thing keeping feminism alive is chivalry, even though feminists will, all at the same time whine and bitch that it's dead, say they are oppressed by it, and then do whatever they can to keep it alive.

My eyes were first opened by the Internet.  I started on CNN (their message boards are long since gone) and then the MS boards (heavily radical feminist) - they told me to go to SheThinks, and then Dr. Evil announced the opening of his board.

I've really learned a lot from the Internet - also from your site, Angryharry.

For about the first half of the last century, the media - which heavily influence the way that people think and, hence, behave - was very much in the control of the governing elite.

For the second half of the last century, the media expanded, and women and feminists managed to dominate the agenda and the propaganda that emanated therefrom.

But now the internet has arrived.

And it is managing to exert a huge force.

And some 80% of the political activists on the internet are men.

Tra la la la la!

lmao, fantasy in cyberspace!

So what is your goal... world domination? Wait... men already do?

OK, what could it be? Not have to pay child support?

Every woman a June Cleaver?

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

I agree, the internet has been a boon to our movement. As men, we are raised to be problem solvers, self reliant and not to whine. To "take it like a man" if you will. Unlike many women, we tend to revel in the fact that we can solve our own problems without assistance from others. This strength, has also been our weakness, as we stood idly by while our rights were eroded and didn't band together sooner.

While I have always been politically active, being part of this movement and discussing men's issues publicly still carries a certain stigma. The 'net has given me the tools to stay current w/ regards to men's issues and to have at the tip of my tongue facts and statistics to counter the standard feminist rhetoric that gets spewed whenever we bring up our issues.

Thanks Al Gore!

SG

Quote from: "angryharry"

For about the first half of the last century, the media - which heavily influence the way that people think and, hence, behave - was very much in the control of the governing elite.

For the second half of the last century, the media expanded, and women and feminists managed to dominate the agenda and the propaganda that emanated therefrom.

But now the internet has arrived.

And it is managing to exert a huge force.

And some 80% of the political activists on the internet are men.

Tra la la la la!

lmao, fantasy in cyberspace!

So what is your goal... world domination? Wait... men already do?

OK, what could it be? Not have to pay child support?

Every woman a June Cleaver?

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

Define equality:   :idea:

Every woman a June Cleaver?

It's either 1950's America or 1950's Russia.

Why always the absolutes?

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

I wonder if, as a feminist, you could help us come up with some solutions to get women into the dangerous high paying jobs that men work to support their families. You know, the ones that can kill you, such as electricians, saturation divers, high rise steel workers, mining, oil rig workers, etc.

Men make up over 90% of annual workplace fatalities. How do we get this number down to 50% so we have equality?

Affirmative action? Hiring quotas?

SG

We all have equal opportunity to pursue our goals and dreams, and are not restricted by virtue of our gender.

We all have equal opportunity to pursue our goals and dreams, and are not restricted by virtue of our gender.

So what's your goal, what are your dreams?

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

Which means we are far better off without feminism, which has an objective of anything but equality.

Hi Woof

You wanted a definition of equality - and I have found one! ...

We all have equal opportunity to pursue our goals and dreams, and are not restricted by virtue of our gender.

And how, and where can't women pursue their dreams and goals today?

Quote

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

I wonder if, as a feminist, you could help us come up with some solutions to get women into the dangerous high paying jobs that men work to support their families. You know, the ones that can kill you, such as electricians, saturation divers, high rise steel workers, mining, oil rig workers, etc.

Men make up over 90% of annual workplace fatalities. How do we get this number down to 50% so we have equality?

Affirmative action? Hiring quotas?

SG

I wired 90% of my home, built probably 70% of it. a friend of mine built a 2400 square foot addition on her home. She also spent a summer on a Habitat For Humanity all woman crew. Next question?

Hi Harry,

thanks for the laugh..... :D

"I wired 90% of my home, built probably 70% of it. a friend of mine built a 2400 square foot addition on her home. She also spent a summer on a Habitat For Humanity all woman crew. Next question?"

I'm not talking about Mickey Mouse construction. Not only have I done the HFH thing(which is a joke), I've built a hospital, two hotels and a hundred million dollar casino. Ninety-nine point nine percent of the skilled trades in the field were men.  The company I worked for had a man fall to his death six months in to the casino project. You aren't likely to die passing out lemonade to a HFH crew...

SG

Quote from: "SouthernGuy"

Quote

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

I wonder if, as a feminist, you could help us come up with some solutions to get women into the dangerous high paying jobs that men work to support their families. You know, the ones that can kill you, such as electricians, saturation divers, high rise steel workers, mining, oil rig workers, etc.

Men make up over 90% of annual workplace fatalities. How do we get this number down to 50% so we have equality?

Affirmative action? Hiring quotas?

SG

I wired 90% of my home, built probably 70% of it. a friend of mine built a 2400 square foot addition on her home. She also spent a summer on a Habitat For Humanity all woman crew. Next question?

What's that got to do with it? I type at 90 wpm and do all my own office work. That doesn't change the fact that over 90% of secretarial work is done by women does it?

I wired 90% of my home, built probably 70% of it. a friend of mine built a 2400 square foot addition on her home. She also spent a summer on a Habitat For Humanity all woman crew. Next question?

What does this answer or prove?

Not only that, the above work isn't done every day for a living to support a family and it doesn't tell us how you're going to make all work related injuries sickness and death 50-50.

I know, next time a feminist complains women do most 'domestic' work, I'll prove her wrong by telling her that I just washed my dishes and that I do so every day, plus, I got a guy friend who does the dishes as well.  I even know how to sew!

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

No.

Quote from: "natalie clifford barney"

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

No.

Hi TestSubject

I think men have more to gain from real equality than women actually. Feminism has been about taking all the good points of being a man and keeping all the good points of being a woman, which leaves men with zilch.

True equality would mean women paying for their own dinner, men having choices about having babies or staying at home looking after children; and women fighting for their own country even if thousands of them died.

True equality would mean women paying for their own dinner, men having choices about having babies or staying at home looking after children; and women fighting for their own country even if thousands of them died.

It would also mean they don't automatically get to keep the children and the house if they cheat on their husband and trade him in for a younger model. Boy, would the number of divorces filed by women drop like a stone then!

It would also mean an end to alimony, and child support, since then men would be seen as equals as far as raising their kids, and we will have shared parenting.

It would also mean an end to alimony, and child support, since then men would be seen as equals as far as raising their kids, and we will have shared parenting.

Or at least who ever takes soul custody takes soul responsibility.



Here is something I've been thinking about.  A woman divorces, take's half or whatever then get's child support.  Finds a new guy and moves in and marries him.  He also supports her children.  Good economics in my mind.  

I'm sure it's not always the case, but...

Which means we are far better off without feminism, which has an objective of anything but equality.

Interesting... would you mind pointing out where I am not for equality? Or do you search out the most radical opinion you can find and then assign that as the beliefs of us all?

Quote from: "brian44"

Which means we are far better off without feminism, which has an objective of anything but equality.

Interesting... would you mind pointing out where I am not for equality? Or do you search out the most radical opinion you can find and then assign that as the beliefs of us all?

I have no idea about you as a person, only what feminism has achieved and tried to achieve in the last 50 year or so.

Here is something I've been thinking about. A woman divorces, take's half or whatever then get's child support. Finds a new guy and moves in and marries him. He also supports her children. Good economics in my mind.

Yep, so she ends up having two men support her kids with neither one having any real say in how they're raised. Ever try to discipline another woman's child? She gets all the power and control, the guys get the bill. What a deal...

SG

Quote from: "natalie clifford barney"

We all have equal opportunity to pursue our goals and dreams, and are not restricted by virtue of our gender.

And how, and where can't women pursue their dreams and goals today?

Can a woman play in the Masters? How many women are in boardrooms, in Congress? Yes we can run, but we are at a huge disadvantage. The good ole boy network frequently encourages the candidates it wants to run, and they aren't women.

How many men do you see worrying over whether they can have a career *and* a family? How many men walk down a dark and deserted street and worry if a woman suddenly is walking behind him? Tell me about property inheritance rights in some Islamic countries... how they treat women who are raped... would you support a simple amendment to the American Constitution that says men and women are equal? What of baby girls slaughtered in China? Is Linda Loaiza being treated justly in Latin America?

Are men who run for office routinely dissed for what they wear and their overall appearance? Do you routinely use the word feminazi? Why? How about being asked to wear form fitting clothes and to wear make up at work? How many men suffer unwanted advances? We won't even go into domestic abuse and rape statistics, and before you go ballistic, I fully recognise that the vast, vast majority of men are not abusers or rapists. Pornography is primarily of women, and it is primarily viewed by men, though I certainly know dykes that are not adverse!

It's not equal We have come a long way (in the US) from the days when women were not allowed to attend school, but there is still work to be done. We lost ground from roughly 1930-1965, and if we don't take care, it could happen again.

"I wired 90% of my home, built probably 70% of it. a friend of mine built a 2400 square foot addition on her home. She also spent a summer on a Habitat For Humanity all woman crew. Next question?"

I'm not talking about Mickey Mouse construction. Not only have I done the HFH thing(which is a joke), I've built a hospital, two hotels and a hundred million dollar casino. Ninety-nine point nine percent of the skilled trades in the field were men.  The company I worked for had a man fall to his death six months in to the casino project. You aren't likely to die passing out lemonade to a HFH crew...

SG

My work was hardly mickey mouse work, and neither was hers. Is this all about who has the biggest and the baddest, or is it or isn't it about construction? Damn this need to compare is goofy. You are skilled, I am skilled, good enough... or does it not stop until one has worked on the tallest building in the world, building it single handedly?

Yes most in the field are men, but women have shown they can do the work, they certainly did in WWWII until men came back and chased them away from their jobs.

[


What does this answer or prove?

Not only that, the above work isn't done every day for a living to support a family and it doesn't tell us how you're going to make all work related injuries sickness and death 50-50.

I know, next time a feminist complains women do most 'domestic' work, I'll prove her wrong by telling her that I just washed my dishes and that I do so every day, plus, I got a guy friend who does the dishes as well.  I even know how to sew!

So this *is* all about thumping your chests and tarzan yells... hmmm. My point is I have such skill and many other women do as well. Is there some badge of honour for working in contruction over some other trade? Does it make one more manly? Are men forced into such labour, and that is why the issue is raised?

The fact is women do do more domestic work, even if both work full time jobs. It has narrowed in recent years, but the numbers aren't there yet. Women work to support families every bit as much as men do.

I think men have more to gain from real equality than women actually. Feminism has been about taking all the good points of being a man and keeping all the good points of being a woman, which leaves men with zilch.

Sounds impressive... but do explain what is "taken from a man" and what women keep that leaves men with nothing and women everything?

And how does that jive with the attitude some men express over how women are after 'their' assets? If a man has nothing, what is there to 'take?'

It would also mean an end to alimony, and child support, since then men would be seen as equals as far as raising their kids, and we will have shared parenting.

I'm not sure which country you are in, but in the US, men are treated equitably in divorce court and with child support issues. Yeah, I've no doubt you can dredge up horror stories, but don't bother unless you have either an impartial source or both points of view. My understanding is he UK needs some work in this regard.

Men certainly should have joint custody... and there should have to be compelling reason to shut either parent out.

Is this all about who has the biggest and the baddest, or is it or isn't it about construction? Damn this need to compare is goofy.

There is a HUGE distinction between residential and commercial construction, anyone who has spent any time in the indistry knows this. Adding a room to your home doesn't even remotely compare to the daily grind of real commercial work. Apples and oranges...

You are skilled, I am skilled, good enough... or does it not stop until one has worked on the tallest building in the world, building it single handedly?

Five years ago, I slipped and almost fell four stories straight down the elevator shaft of Marriot Hotel I was building as a project manager. I barely caught myself and had to suck up the butterflies and continue my workday, hands still shaking because i had to support my family. What's the worst that can happen in residential work, a piece of sheet rock could fall over on you?

SG

An exception does not disprove the rule.

How many women are in boardrooms, in Congress? Yes we can run, but we are at a huge disadvantage. The good ole boy network frequently encourages the candidates it wants to run, and they aren't women.

Well, in the UK we had a lady Primeminister in 1979. She won the election because so many women voted for her because she was a woman rather than what she stood for.

How many men do you see worrying over whether they can have a career *and* a family?

How many women get kicked out of their home and away from their children even though it was their partner who committed adultery?

How many men walk down a dark and deserted street and worry if a woman suddenly is walking behind him?

Men don't worry about women attacking them, they worry about men attacking them, which is more likely than a woman being attacked by a man.

How about being asked to wear form fitting clothes and to wear make up at work?  

I once worked as a temp in an investment bank. I arrived without a tie and was told to go out and buy one or get another job. The women didn't have to wear ties, in fact as long as the didn't wear jeans they could get away with a hell of a lot more than the men.

How many men suffer unwanted advances?

I have on two occasions. Being a mature adult I shrugged it off and put it down to experience rather than suing the crap out of the company I worked for.

We won't even go into domestic abuse and rape statistics, and before you go ballistic, I fully recognise that the vast, vast majority of men are not abusers or rapists.

My wife hit me on a number of occasions, she had a mean left hook that used to connect with my right ear and was very painful. I never hit her once, or any of my other girlfriends.

Pornography is primarily of women, and it is primarily viewed by men, though I certainly know dykes that are not adverse!

Are you serious? In the UK, it is women who go out and watch strippers these days. Men feel ashamed when they do it, women go and have a great time looking at male strippers. They have mags as well.

Who buys the most sex toys?

Who buys the most sex toys?

Good point. We have blow up dolls, but their use certainly isn't very popular. If most men had electric fannies in their top drawer how would women feel?

It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts.

It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts.

How do I put my name on the waiting list?

Quote from: "Mr Benn"

It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts.

How do I put my name on the waiting list?

Beer? I can't. I'm on a diet.

How many men walk down a dark and deserted street and worry if a woman suddenly is walking behind him? How many men suffer unwanted advances?

Erm, well, I'm one.  Maybe I'm an exception.  Women "flirt" with me all the time when it would be in their best interest not to do so.  I'm guessing it's because I'm a pretty innocent guy (22, never been kissed, never had a gf), causing some women to take a sort of "fresh meat" or "ripe for the pickings" attitude toward me.

I confess though, I don't worry about women in dark alleys because they can just jump me in broad daylight and easily make it look like I was the perpetrator.

It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts.

I don't know, part of the fun of women is disarming and conquering them...  with love, of course.  ;-)  I don't think I could bang a 'bot.

Quote from: "Mr Benn"

It won't be long until there are perfect looking robot sex dolls who are gorgeous, compliant, never smell, and squirt cold beer out of their c*nts.

I don't know, part of the fun of women is disarming and conquering them...  with love, of course.  ;-)  I don't think I could bang a 'bot.

Believe me, if you saw the state of some of the women in London, you would consider banging a 'bot

Believe me, if you saw the state of some of the women in London, you would consider banging a 'bot

How do you mean Brian? In terms of them looking more androgenous?

Quote from: "brian44"

Quote from: "TestSubject"

Believe me, if you saw the state of some of the women in London, you would consider banging a 'bot

How do you mean Brian? In terms of them looking more androgenous?

Most of them act like men and many are overweight or generally unhealthy. The good looking ones have their heads so far up their own backsides they can't see daylight.

How do you think most of them view feminism?

How do you think most of them view feminism?

Most of the younger ones just seem to care about getting drunk and shagging lots of men.

Sounds about typical. Its called 'enjoying their independance'. What it mostly boils down to is enjoying their ability to wind almost any man around their little finger and obtain 24/7 clitoral pampering. Its one big ego-trip mind-game. What kinds of mothers and wives would such womyn make? Its not a pretty thought.

Most of the younger ones just seem to care about getting drunk and shagging lots of men.

Works for me. I don't plan on getting married again and as long as I'm still pulling young chicks, I'll take advantage of it...:twisted:

SG

Quote

Most of the younger ones just seem to care about getting drunk and shagging lots of men.

Works for me. I don't plan on getting married again and as long as I'm still pulling young chicks, I'll take advantage of it...:twisted:

SG

I'd take a look at them first. In London women are not that abundant, so even ugly ones get to shag lots of men. The men here are the least fussy I've ever known. Personally I find most London women so unattractive that they make an empty bed seem like a very attractive proposition.

Brian,

Have you ever looked into ways of working outside of London? Its extremely do-able these days, especially if you can work for yourself and especially with high-speed internet and so on. You could also make a decent amount of money if you own a property in London and move out.

Personally I find most London women so unattractive that they make an empty bed seem like a very attractive proposition.

That bad, huh?

I've lived in Los Angeles, but here in Louisiana we have some of the finest southern belles you've ever set your eyes upon, I swear. They're used to being spoiled though...

SG

There is a HUGE distinction between residential and commercial construction, anyone who has spent any time in the indistry knows this. Adding a room to your home doesn't even remotely compare to the daily grind of real commercial work. Apples and oranges...

Quote

You are skilled, I am skilled, good enough... or does it not stop until one has worked on the tallest building in the world, building it single handedly?

Five years ago, I slipped and almost fell four stories straight down the elevator shaft of Marriot Hotel I was building as a project manager. I barely caught myself and had to suck up the butterflies and continue my workday, hands still shaking because i had to support my family. What's the worst that can happen in residential work, a piece of sheet rock could fall over on you?

SG

Once again, it's about who builds the most impressive structure, uses the most dangerous tools, and is in the most dangerous workspace?

Did you choose this field, or were you selected for it?

I can cite my (non construction) work skills, but what relevance does it have? Women are capable of doing this work, and they have done this work. I'm comfortable in an office and equally comfortable with a sawsall, so are many men and women... but men choose this field... so long as it's open to women, no problem, and in fact... never said there was one.

Brian,

Have you ever looked into ways of working outside of London? Its extremely do-able these days, especially if you can work for yourself and especially with high-speed internet and so on. You could also make a decent amount of money if you own a property in London and move out.

Hello Mr Benn

Yeah, I'm working very hard to get the money together to do just that (which is why I don't get much time to contribute here). I can't wait to leave this place...

I've lived in Los Angeles, but here in Louisiana we have some of the finest southern belles you've ever set your eyes upon, I swear. They're used to being spoiled though...

SG

Its more like Hell's Belles in most places these days.

Quote

Personally I find most London women so unattractive that they make an empty bed seem like a very attractive proposition.

That bad, huh?

I've lived in Los Angeles, but here in Louisiana we have some of the finest southern belles you've ever set your eyes upon, I swear. They're used to being spoiled though...

SG

A couple of my colleagues just got back from a stint working in LA and said there were so many good looking women out there it was unbelievable. Sure sounds tempting.

Well, in the UK we had a lady Primeminister in 1979. She won the election because so many women voted for her because she was a woman rather than what she stood for.

You're sure of this... no one voted for her because of her views? Hmmm.


How many women get kicked out of their home and away from their children even though it was their partner who committed adultery?

I mentioned somewhere, don't know if it was in this thread, but yeah... y'all have it a bit different in the UK, and that has to change. It's not like that in the US. Y'all have my sympathy there... but there are also the cases where one knocks down their ex's door, and that stuff is simply unacceptable as well.


Men don't worry about women attacking them, they worry about men attacking them, which is more likely than a woman being attacked by a man.

My point exactly. Women however... do have to worry about it.


I once worked as a temp in an investment bank. I arrived without a tie and was told to go out and buy one or get another job. The women didn't have to wear ties, in fact as long as the didn't wear jeans they could get away with a hell of a lot more than the men.

I do believe expecting someone to wear business attire, be it for men or women, is quite different than make up and form fitting clothing, eh? If you felt there was an injustice, why not raise the issue?

I have on two occasions. Being a mature adult I shrugged it off and put it down to experience rather than suing the crap out of the company I worked for.

So a woman put her hands on you? Totally inappropriate.



My wife hit me on a number of occasions, she had a mean left hook that used to connect with my right ear and was very painful. I never hit her once, or any of my other girlfriends.


Again, completely unacceptable, she was flat out wrong and needs anger management therapy... but more abuse is committed by men, and even men are victims of male on male violence, the incidence with lesbians are far less than with gay men. This is not to slam men, all abuse is wrong, and all of it needs to be addressed and stopped, and men shouldn't be stigmatised for speaking up... (which is representative of patriarchy, slamming men for doing so.


Are you serious? In the UK, it is women who go out and watch strippers these days. Men feel ashamed when they do it, women go and have a great time looking at male strippers. They have mags as well.

Ya won't catch me doing so... and if I may ask... are men saying anything about it? Are you willing to work together to work to at least diminish the sex industry?

A couple of my colleagues just got back from a stint working in LA and said there were so many good looking women out there it was unbelievable. Sure sounds tempting.

Dude they're everywhere, even the church girls are freaks. Sometimes I wish I could live without them, but alas....

SG

The sex industry flourishes as in the feminist era sex is increasingly de-coupled from love and a solid, committed mariage.

As Western womyn increasingly have divested themselves of the feminine charms all thats left to attract men is their body. This is why womyn have become more and more vampish in appearance. Many would rather have plastic surgery to attract a man than be pleasant.

Feminism is the cause of this, not the solution.

"I wired 90% of my home, built probably 70% of it. a friend of mine built a 2400 square foot addition on her home. She also spent a summer on a Habitat For Humanity all woman crew. Next question?"


Well you're either a liar, or perhaps you're a cellular hermaphrodite ( a female with male cells), or perhaps both..

Every feminist has some mythical person they can whistle up to "prove" their point.

This why I love biology so much, it cuts through the bullshit, such as the notion that men and women are equal.

I swear sometimes I think the higher brain functions of humans are a curse instead of a blessing. Animals go about their business and deal with what is, they don't sit around thinking of new ways to delude themselves.

Man definitely makes his own hell.

Once again, it's about who builds the most impressive structure, uses the most dangerous tools, and is in the most dangerous workspace?

But we have put up with years and years of your whinging.. Isn't it about time you started to listen a bit more?

Can a woman play in the Masters? How many women are in boardrooms, in Congress? Yes we can run, but we are at a huge disadvantage. The good ole boy network frequently encourages the candidates it wants to run, and they aren't women.

Can men play in the LPGA? Can a man join a "women only" gym like women fought to be able to join men only gyms (thus pretty much taking them out of the market). Can male sportscasters go into the female locker rooms to interview female athletes? What abot the good ol sister network in Human Resources? Ever worked in an office with mostly women? They don't have their cliques? Yeah, the political  parties pick more men, they pick who toes their line and who they think will get them votes.

How many men do you see worrying over whether they can have a career *and* a family? How many men walk down a dark and deserted street and worry if a woman suddenly is walking behind him? Tell me about property inheritance rights in some Islamic countries... how they treat women who are raped... would you support a simple amendment to the American Constitution that says men and women are equal? What of baby girls slaughtered in China? Is Linda Loaiza being treated justly in Latin America?

Seriously? Given the past 10-20 years, I'm betting a lot worry about it. Many of us Gen X and Y types grew up in broken homes or witnessed it with others worry. I don't fear marriage, I fear divorce because it seems that if I don't hand over the reins completely to my wife, she can and human nature being what it is, will likely ruin me. Many worry about a balance of providing for the family but not being a workaholic to pay the bills for the wife's desires.

I'm not worried about a woman behind me, unless I perceive her to be acting in a threatening manner (say if she fit a "punk" stereotype or high on drugs), same as if a man did that. Also, the constitution already says we're all equal, although with legislation like VAWA apparently some are more equal than others.

Are men who run for office routinely dissed for what they wear and their overall appearance? Do you routinely use the word feminazi? Why? How about being asked to wear form fitting clothes and to wear make up at work? How many men suffer unwanted advances? We won't even go into domestic abuse and rape statistics, and before you go ballistic, I fully recognise that the vast, vast majority of men are not abusers or rapists. Pornography is primarily of women, and it is primarily viewed by men, though I certainly know dykes that are not adverse!

No, men aren't dissed for what they wear usually. I don't "diss" women politicians if they aren't looking absolutely perfect. I diss them if I think they're full of shit.  Fashion sense, I've long been told is something women have and very few men have. Women seem to be the one's hung up on dissing people for what they wear. Most men don't care too much (except perhaps if the person looks like a total idiot :)). I care about what he's saying not that he's a slick willie in a nice armani.

Pornography (as in the visual kind) is primarily viewed by men.. yes. What is pornography though? What is smut? What about romance novels that many women love? Women lean towards the emotional side of romance/sex, men lean towards the physical/visual. That doesn't mean that men and women only think that way. I'm frankly tired of being stereotyped that all I care about is Tn'A. Keep treating me like that and it'll come true because I'll finally realize that if I'm being castigated as a dog, I may as well act like one and enjoy what I can.

Russ,

I've found through the years that its largely a waste of time discussing gender issues with womyn online. This is because, as you point out, they always *claim* that their experience is different to what your talking about.

"Oh but *I'M* not like that!"

They cry!

The conversation is also always brought back to THEM. Their personal circumstances. Their life.

Most of them are bi-sexual or in traditional male jobs and have a chip on their shoulder against all heterosexual women not being enough like them.

Angry Harry-

That picture is the best damn example of 'equality' I've seen in a long time !!!

HAHA !

Notice how this feminist womyn is trying to mock men for their competitive nature.

But think of it like this: Do we want our economies to be composed of people who are competitive about their work or not?

What happens when an economy composed mainly of competitive workers enters into competition with an economy composed mainly of non-competitive workers?

How does civilisation advance without the competitive spirit of man?

I hear you Mr. Benn,

I've been around the game a long time and I have actually taking the time to read through a lot of their material. Forget sources and facts, forget logic or even obvious reality... putting aside the idiot followers that just vomit the usual feminist mantras (our problems are the patriarchy blah blah), the leadership is comprised of individuals who I would diagnose has having severe ego/identity problems.

Their enemy is nature and the very existence of gender. They don't identify with female characteristics but covet male characterisitics of direct power. They are about sex reversal which is why they abhor masculine men and feminine women. Give them a feminine man and a masculine woman and they are all smiles and laughter.

I think it was Patricia Ireland that admitted that over 40% of NOW was lesbian.

Lesbianism is the result of a fetal developmental error- cells orienting in reverse in response to androgen hormone which should not have been present.

I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't such A-holes.

So this *is* all about thumping your chests and tarzan yells... hmmm. My point is I have such skill and many other women do as well. Is there some badge of honour for working in contruction over some other trade? Does it make one more manly? Are men forced into such labour, and that is why the issue is raised?

The fact is women do do more domestic work, even if both work full time jobs. It has narrowed in recent years, but the numbers aren't there yet. Women work to support families every bit as much as men do.

Someone asked you about the disparity between men and women getting sick, injuried and killed at work and you reply saying you've done such and such work on a house, and know a friend who has as well.

My point was that just because I wash dishes and know how to sew, does not therefore change the fact that women do, what feminists define as "domestic" work, more so than men.  

You pointing at some construction work you've done does nothing to change the fact men make up most work related injuries, sickness, and deaths.

Then you turned it into me (who claimed to know how to sew) thumping my chest with tarzan yells.

Okay....

Notice how this feminist womyn is trying to mock men for their competitive nature.

But think of it like this: Do we want our economies to be composed of people who are competitive about their work or not?

What happens when an economy composed mainly of competitive workers enters into competition with an economy composed mainly of non-competitive workers?

How does civilisation advance without the competitive spirit of man?

it does not

witch is a major reason why ours is regressing

If the "sex industry" is 'exploitive' then why not all industry?  {notice~men make up more than 90% of all work related injuries, sickness, and deaths-- whereas-- in the "sex industry", worker's bodies are usually simply naked in a picture or movie, for a man to buy and release sexual tension.}  

And if men only make up most injuries, sickness and deaths because of the work they choose, then how is it possible that those in the "sex industry" are not choosing that kind of work too?  

And if all industry is exploitive then why is it that women are given a special status of those who are exploited?  Especially when it's men's bodies that are mostly damaged, or killed, in industry.

{also, by the way, I am not a supporter of capitalism....or marxism for that  matter}

Can men play in the LPGA? Can a man join a "women only" gym like women fought to be able to join men only gyms (thus pretty much taking them out of the market). Can male sportscasters go into the female locker rooms to interview female athletes? What abot the good ol sister network in Human Resources? Ever worked in an office with mostly women? They don't have their cliques? Yeah, the political  parties pick more men, they pick who toes their line and who they think will get them votes.

Reasonable questions, and point taken on the LPGA. Male sportscasters should take that particular issue up with the individual sports. Personally, I'd rather all reporters stay out of locker rooms and have an interview room for this purpose.

Seriously? Given the past 10-20 years, I'm betting a lot worry about it. Many of us Gen X and Y types grew up in broken homes or witnessed it with others worry. I don't fear marriage, I fear divorce because it seems that if I don't hand over the reins completely to my wife, she can and human nature being what it is, will likely ruin me. Many worry about a balance of providing for the family but not being a workaholic to pay the bills for the wife's desires.

That is a very jaded view of marriage. Most divorces are initiated by women for one reason... the person they married was not in fact who they were married to later. Men dislike many things women like, but women go into marriage thinking the man who has been wooing them is representative... nope, not, he's been romantic to win her over. When a man not inclined to open up and communicate what is inside reaches this point, he withdraws and frustrates the heck out of his partner.

Partners need space, men and women both... it's healthy to pursue one's own interests... but at the end of the day, sharing of that day is a good thing. Sharing of fears, dreams, frustrations, of sadness happiness... and being empathetic to her in return.. these things help build a strong relationship.


I'm not worried about a woman behind me, unless I perceive her to be acting in a threatening manner (say if she fit a "punk" stereotype or high on drugs), same as if a man did that. Also, the constitution already says we're all equal, although with legislation like VAWA apparently some are more equal than others.

VAWA uis an unfortunate title, and it would be wise to expand it to include men, though it tacitly already does, the title works against such inclusion... and it doesn't help men run like the wind from admitting they are abused. Women do as well, but think women are more inclined to speak up now.


No, men aren't dissed for what they wear usually. I don't "diss" women politicians if they aren't looking absolutely perfect. I diss them if I think they're full of shit.  Fashion sense, I've long been told is something women have and very few men have. Women seem to be the one's hung up on dissing people for what they wear. Most men don't care too much (except perhaps if the person looks like a total idiot :)). I care about what he's saying not that he's a slick willie in a nice armani.

In my experience, the Janet Reno's, Hillary Clintons, and Katherine Harris' of this world are dissed for their appearance, unlike men... and yes, women do occasionally do this as well, but it is usually men I hear or see making off colour remarks about them.

Pornography (as in the visual kind) is primarily viewed by men.. yes. What is pornography though? What is smut? What about romance novels that many women love? Women lean towards the emotional side of romance/sex, men lean towards the physical/visual. That doesn't mean that men and women only think that way. I'm frankly tired of being stereotyped that all I care about is Tn'A. Keep treating me like that and it'll come true because I'll finally realize that if I'm being castigated as a dog, I may as well act like one and enjoy what I can.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with being visual, but there is also a line that is crossed that takes it from visual to objectification... which is not a good thing, it dehumanises. Men and women have to be more respectful of each other. I certainly try like hell to do so, even though men are not a big part of my world... i.e don't date men, etc. There are certainly men in this world who are very dear to me.

There is nothing wrong with being visual, but there is also a line that is crossed that takes it from visual to objectification... which is not a good thing, it dehumanises. Men and women have to be more respectful of each other. I certainly try like hell to do so, even though men are not a big part of my world...

Is the fact that men are in the type of jobs that do most damage to their bodies, sometimes to the point of and early death, not objectification of men's bodies?

And if it is, does this not show the sexism of the feminists when they care more about men looking at naked pictures of women, than they do about men being hurt and killed at work?

Most heterosexual women WANT to be owned, objectified and possessed by a man. It turns them on and fulfills them.

Is the fact that men are in the type of jobs that do most damage to their bodies, sometimes to the point of and early death, not objectification of men's bodies?

I don't know... is it? Do you object to this? Do you speak against it? If it bothered me, I sure as hell would speak up and work to change it. No one should suffer such working conditions, we've an oblgation to have the best of safety standards and rules in all workplaces. In the US, we would hear this trashed as liberal nonsense.

And if it is, does this not show the sexism of the feminists when they care more about men looking at naked pictures of women, than they do about men being hurt and killed at work?

Feminists speak within a feminist context.. that does not mean that is the entire range of our interests, only our views on that issue. Most of us are pretty liberal and all for changing such things.

Most heterosexual women WANT to be owned, objectified and possessed by a man. It turns them on and fulfills them.

Oh, really? Learn something new every day! Thank goddess I am not hetero <phew> Oops... forgot about how many guys think they can "straighten us dykes out."

Bukowksi (me) wrote---"And if it is {objectification of men}, does this not show the sexism of the feminists when they care more about men looking at naked pictures of women, than they do about men being hurt and killed at work?"





Feminists speak within a feminist context.. that does not mean that is the entire range of our interests, only our views on that issue. Most of us are pretty liberal and all for changing such things.

So then the "feminist context" is sexist because it chooses to value the female context over the male context?

Most heterosexual women WANT to be owned, objectified and possessed by a man. It turns them on and fulfills them.

I love how some women (often the ugly ones no one wants to look at anyways) like to complain about being objectified.  Funny thing is, if we as men ever actually stopped desiring and objectifying women sexually, for even one day, there would be a nationwide emotional breakdown.

Women get a huge amount of their self worth from being wanted by men. Many men measure themselves by what they can do/accomplish, while many women measure themselves by what they can get MEN to do/accomplish for them. Women know what their sexuality gets them...

SG

quote="bukowski"--Is the fact that men are in the type of jobs that do most damage to their bodies, sometimes to the point of and early death, not objectification of men's bodies?




"I don't know... is it? Do you object to this? Do you speak against it? If it bothered me, I sure as hell would speak up and work to change it. No one should suffer such working conditions, we've an oblgation to have the best of safety standards and rules in all workplaces. In the US, we would hear this trashed as liberal nonsense."

I asked you if it was.  It seems you are saying the sex industry objectifies women's bodies.

Since most feminists speak, and care more, about women's bodies in industry, rather than men's (while men's bodies are more in danger), would that not mean they don't care about men as much as they do women?

I asked you if it was.  It seems you are saying the sex industry objectifies women's bodies.

Since most feminists speak, and care more, about women's bodies in industry, rather than men's (while men's bodies are more in danger), would that not mean they don't care about men as much as they do women?

Feminists speak about feminism... must we cite all our views beyond feminism each time we speak? I've a broad range of interests, and feminism is but one part of them... I'm passionate about politics and about lgbt issues. As part of my political outlook, you bet I am concerned about the safety of workers in the workplace.

It's freakin' amazing how one young dyke with a couple of Womynz' Studies classes under her snatch can hijack an entire thread!

Natalie --- Oh, really? Learn something new every day! Thank goddess I am not hetero <phew> Oops... forgot about how many guys think they can "straighten us dykes out."

(And, BTW, can you imagine being married to a hetero-version of this chick? Every day more miserable than the last.... I'd like to interview her last three lesbian partners.... )

Which brings us back to Angry Harry's initial point, and at the same time poses some real challenges for MRAs....

(Sorry to dismiss you Natalie.... but you are entirely irrelevant to any actual praxis here.... I'm sure you get the postmodernist lingo ....)

A.H. was proposing that the Internet is becoming a major medium and political lever for men.

I'm still not so sure.

It could just as easily become a "pressure-release-valve" where all the potential for political momentum gets derailed and flushed into cyberspace by .... oh, maybe.... vacuous faux-intellectual dykes with a semi-reliable spell-checker and a certificate from Habitat for Humanity?

A.H., you might wish to weigh in now, if only to refresh everyone's memory about "organisms."

Yes?

Feminists speak about feminism... must we cite all our views beyond feminism each time we speak? I've a broad range of interests, and feminism is but one part of them...

So you say feminism speaks about feminism?  You do say? Really?....

This is basically the second time you've said this. What I hear is, "feminism speaks about women".  Therefore not about equality because it places the "female context" in a hierarchy over the context of men.  

By you asking, "must we cite all our views beyond feminism each time we speak?", with my questions about indsutry objectifying men, you place the "context of men" outside of feminism.  Feminism is then exclusive, not inclusive of everyone (this is explicit by feminism's very name).  And so the very thing feminists obsessively deny, and hate, within themselves, sexism.

As part of my political outlook, you bet I am concerned about the safety of workers in the workplace.

That wasn't really my question/s.

It is a waste of time to try to change a feminist's mind. They are hardliners.

What does our new feminist think about shelters and counselling for battered husbands? Why do feminists fight to deny battered husbands the same services that battered wives are entitled to?

Why do feminists lie and pretend that there are no battered husbands and even pretend that that there is no violence in lesbian relationships? Why do they hurt so many people by witholding social services that are funded by our tax dollars?

PaulGuelph --

Why do feminists lie? ......

Feminists do not lie.

They believe every sentence that comes out of their mouths.

To be capable of telling a lie, one must have a conscience, and a small quotient of ethical reasoning.... required to distinguish a spoken truth from a spoken lie.

Feminists have found a way to avoid this cruel existential dilemma.

It is very simple, and very effective.

At all times, believe what you say.

At all times, deny that what you may have said contradicted what you are saying now.

At all times whenever you are confronted with even a little "cognitive dissonance," blame the Evil Patriarchy.

Above all, swear your allegiance to being a moral and intellectual infant, for your entire life.

( i.e. -- "I'm a Victim! I am NOT responsible for my own choices!)

There's more to the feminist pathology.....

But if you want to go down into this dark and dank basement of gender warfare, you have to read evil works by Freud and Jung and Kant.....

It just gets uglier and more hopeless the deeper you go....

I am shocked, Natalie the feminist is a lesbian- how rare....


"There is nothing wrong with being visual, but there is also a line that is crossed that takes it from visual to objectification... which is not a good thing, it dehumanises. Men and women have to be more respectful of each other. I certainly try like hell to do so, even though men are not a big part of my world... i.e don't date men, etc. There are certainly men in this world who are very dear to me. "


Um yeah right, what the hell does cross the line mean? Let's see now, if a man looks at a woman for a second but no more then maybe it's ok, but if he looks for say 5 seconds it's "objectification" and leering, and if it's 10 or more seconds it's "sexual harrassment."

What Natalie really means by men and women being more respectful to each other is for men to stop all that dehumanizing hetersexual lusting and pursuing of women (which biologically we were designed to do).



"Most heterosexual women WANT to be owned, objectified and possessed by a man. It turns them on and fulfills them. "


"I love how some women (often the ugly ones no one wants to look at anyways) like to complain about being objectified. Funny thing is, if we as men ever actually stopped desiring and objectifying women sexually, for even one day, there would be a nationwide emotional breakdown.

Women get a huge amount of their self worth from being wanted by men. Many men measure themselves by what they can do/accomplish, while many women measure themselves by what they can get MEN to do/accomplish for them. Women know what their sexuality gets them... "


Right on the money guys- to the point, no bullshit

Let's be clear about this ----

A heterosexual man debating with a lesbian is like a gelding trying to mount a bull.

It makes no sense, no way, no how.

But, ya gotta say .....

It can be amusing!  :wink:

Interesting responses!

What I've not seen, after one entire day of engaging the members of this forum, is exactly what it is you are *for*.

When I speak of feminist issues, can cite my goals, my concerns, and issues. Same with lgbt issues ( I am particularly concerned about our young not having to go through what we did... yet too many are tossed from their homes. Ah, I digress.)

Why is it you are here? What do you wish to accomplish? Is it simply to stop feminism? Or is the goal a bit more altruistic and noble? To better society? What wrongs have you experienced that has led you here?

Ok, now... you can deride my orientation, but it changes nothing except weaken your point of view. You can engage in a higher level of debate than focusing on my personal orientation.

My goal is to show the hypocrisy, the bias against men, and the scapegoating of men by feminism.  And I think I did a little bit of that good deed today.

Generally speaking, our goal is to destroy the bankrupt self-contradictory destructive sexist ideologies of feminism and political correctness.

by the way, we don't have to answer to you for your approval.  You came to us.

Natalie, Natalie, Natalie....

What I've not seen, after one entire day of engaging the members of this forum, is exactly what it is you are *for*.

Speaking only for myself, I am "for" you to not ever, ever....

try to "engage" any man's attention.... ever, ever.

Anymore.

Please?

Excuse me if indeed you are now "engaged" to one of our posters.

That would be a hoot!   :wink:

Interesting responses!

Yeah, there's a good cross section here of the movement. From the bitter, to the stoic, to the humorous. I usually post at askmen because it has more traffic, but when it comes to intelligent debate, I read/post here. I probably will a lot more since it's picked up.

What I've not seen, after one entire day of engaging the members of this forum, is exactly what it is you are *for*.

Have you read the FAQ?

What wrongs have you experienced that has led you here?

From the start of my divorce proceeding, I had a bad day. For a couple years...

Ok, now... you can deride my orientation, but it changes nothing except weaken your point of view.

Mark this on your calendar, because this is probably the only time I'll ever agree with you. I am one part progressive open minded and one part old school conservative southern man. One thing I haven't seen the mods here do is condone any sort of villification of LBTG people. That only gives YOUR side ammunition to use against us and quite frankly, you don't deserve it, our issues are too important.

SG

My goal is to show the hypocrisy, the bias against men, and the scapegoating of men by feminism.  And I think I did a little bit of that good deed today.

Ah, but not in response to me... so here's your chance. Enlighten me.

Generally speaking, our goal is to destroy the bankrupt self-contradictory destructive sexist ideologies of feminism and political correctness.

Once again, do enlighten me. How so? What is political correctness?

A.H. --

Generally speaking, our goal is to destroy the bankrupt self-contradictory destructive sexist ideologies of feminism and political correctne

While we're at it, could we please ban camera angles that make dwarfs like Tony and George-the-Shrub look really tall when they're toghether on Tee-Vee?

I just hate it when ideology wins because of a low camera angle....

Silly obsession.

Leni Reifenstahl taught me to be cynical.....

bukowski wrote:
My goal is to show the hypocrisy, the bias against men, and the scapegoating of men by feminism. And I think I did a little bit of that good deed today.

Ah, but not in response to me... so here's your chance. Enlighten me.

Instead of stating that I didn't, you would have had to respond to my criticisms with logic to prove that I did not show the hypocrisy and, bias, within feminism.

by the way, we don't have to answer to you for your approval.  You came to us.

Yes, and I can waltz right back out, no harm, no foul.

You can remain silent, answer, or pontificate...

Natalie, Natalie, Natalie....

Quote

What I've not seen, after one entire day of engaging the members of this forum, is exactly what it is you are *for*.

Speaking only for myself, I am "for" you to not ever, ever....

try to "engage" any man's attention.... ever, ever.

Anymore.

Please?

Excuse me if indeed you are now "engaged" to one of our posters.

That would be a hoot!   :wink:

No worries there, rest assured.

Hello NCB ...

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

Natalie ---

Yes, and I can waltz right back out....

Are you sure can do the waltz?

It is a dance that requires that an actual MAN leads!   :lol:

It is a dance that requires that an actual MAN leads!

Gold :lol:

SG

Southern Guy....

I actually like Natalie.... I'm a sucker for feminist women who are repressed and trying to find a way out....

But N. is committed to her "socially-constructed-gender," and so I have little to offer her other than a very poor dance......

Now, if Natalie could only do a samba!!!!   :wink:

(The girlies get to lead every now and again in this little charade....)

Political correctness is a form of fascism, it has its roots in Communism (and the industrialists behind it) and its power began with the feminist, black and homosexual movements tailored off of the Democratic party and has evolved into what it is today thanks mostly to lawyers and a corrupt legal sytem.

I would like to see the ridiculous racial divides end (we are all men and women, race is nothing more then isolated breeding groups and can be breed in or out at our leisure).

I want feminism to die its rightful death and for respect of sex differences and sex roles to return.

A woman's primary role is mother/nurturer

A man's is protector/provider

Culturally I would let the chips fall where they may for normal occupations with the understanding that men and women naturally choose different paths and have very different abilities. No quotas, no affirmative action, nothing but merit.

As for the death professions- military, police, and fire departments etc they should be exclusively all male for obvious biological reasons and should be celebrated as such with no apologies to anyone.

Our culture would be efficient and would reinforce male and female sexual identities. The union and complimentary relationship between men and women through our differences would enhance the quality of life instead of the chaos we have today.

That's pretty much where I come from

Russ2D --  

Our culture would be efficient and would reinforce male and female sexual identities.

Wow!

You want a tiny little world!

Tell me please, how all the "reinforcing" would happen?

You're an unamibiguous MALE, right?   :lol:

Hello NCB ...

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

Hello, Harry...

Russ,

I've found through the years that its largely a waste of time discussing gender issues with womyn online. This is because, as you point out, they always *claim* that their experience is different to what your talking about.

"Oh but *I'M* not like that!"

They cry!

The conversation is also always brought back to THEM. Their personal circumstances. Their life.

Most of them are bi-sexual or in traditional male jobs and have a chip on their shoulder against all heterosexual women not being enough like them.

Exactly. Its a waste of time going in circles.
Stally

Interesting responses!

What I've not seen, after one entire day of engaging the members of this forum, is exactly what it is you are *for*.

When I speak of feminist issues, can cite my goals, my concerns, and issues. Same with lgbt issues ( I am particularly concerned about our young not having to go through what we did... yet too many are tossed from their homes. Ah, I digress.)

Why is it you are here? What do you wish to accomplish? Is it simply to stop feminism? Or is the goal a bit more altruistic and noble? To better society? What wrongs have you experienced that has led you here?

Ok, now... you can deride my orientation, but it changes nothing except weaken your point of view. You can engage in a higher level of debate than focusing on my personal orientation.

If your really sincere about the answers to these questons, read the past threads.
Stally

This is tiresome, but here you go:

We are for:

- shelters and counselling for battered husbands
- rights of children and fathers to see each other after divorce
- equality under the law - areas such as Domestic violence, rape, child molestation, divorce proceedings
- equal respect for men and boys in the media, school, workplace
- equal funding for medical reseach of male illnesses as female funding (example prostate cancer vs breast cancer)
- ending circumcision

I could write a book.  that is an initial sampling of what we are for.

What do you wish to accomplish? Is it simply to stop feminism? Or is the goal a bit more altruistic and noble?

Who are you to say stopping feminism isn't altruistic and noble?   :?

Quote

Are you sure can do the waltz?

It is a dance that requires that an actual MAN leads!

Gold :lol:

SG

GOLD!

Political correctness is a form of fascism, it has its roots in Communism (and the industrialists behind it) and its power began with the feminist, black and homosexual movements tailored off of the Democratic party and has evolved into what it is today thanks mostly to lawyers and a corrupt legal sytem.

As Sister Mary Elephant would say "thank you."

In order for one to debate the issue, one first has to frame the issue to be debated. Your view of pc is quite a bit different from mine. Yassee, pc for me is about basic respect.. we don't put people down for skin colour, orientation, gender, religion, ethnicity...

yet you see it as fascism with roots in communism, a dichotomy if ever there was one. Not to say your idea lacks merit, merely stating a surface observation...

funny that black people, and homosexuals, and feminists are thought to have arisen based on a corrupt legal system, since it was a corrupt society that put them down to begin with. OK, I will grant some leeway in evolving from agrarian to industrial society, but for African Americans, surely we can blame society for how they ended up being considered less thans.

So why is it respect for each other is such a tough thing? Why is wishing for us to live together in harmony fascism? Is there something inherently wrong with African Americans, with women, with dykes that they cannot be a part of a greater society? How does my partnering with another woman adversely impact you?

I can tell you how evangelist Christians who seek to declare me second class citizens adversely impact me, but there is no corresponding reciprocation. And my issue with them ends when they leave me alone.

I would like to see the ridiculous racial divides end (we are all men and women, race is nothing more then isolated breeding groups and can be breed in or out at our leisure).

Thank you, then you are with me on part of this.

I want feminism to die its rightful death and for respect of sex differences and sex roles to return.

How so? What sex differences? Heterosexual intercourse requires one partner to have a penis, the other a vagina... but I don't think you use your penis at work... so genitalia is irrelevant in a work environment. If strength is needed, than strength is a requirement. I know of no woman that would argue against legitimate requirements... most I know in the military don't wish there to be separate standards.

Aside from sex, what requires sex differentation? Surely a man can parent as well as a woman, and both are competent in the workplace, so why this need? Why not let water seek it's own level individually? Not all men have desire to be macho dudes, nor all women housewives. Why can't each of us pursue our own dreams and interests?

A woman's primary role is mother/nurturer

A man's is protector/provider

Um, that is an outdated social construct. Now it may be you are comfortable in that role, and no problems there... do what works for you. Just don't impose that on others who see life differently. I'm a huge believer in each of us reaching our full potential, being all we wish to be. If this be your dream, and if someone shares it, fine with me. And we should make sure our young are free to follow their own path.

Culturally I would let the chips fall where they may for normal occupations with the understanding that men and women naturally choose different paths and have very different abilities. No quotas, no affirmative action, nothing but merit.

Affirmative action has it's place, though as time goes on they become less and less necessary. For the most part, women have made inroads into the workforce, but we still have serious issues facing African Americans, a systemic problem going back 150 years, because we didn't do it right then. We have a duty to find solutions, and yes, African Americans have a duty to find the solutions and work toward them. I'm an admirer of Nelson Mandela, who believes the way to go is through education, and indeed that is the case... but we have to help a culture that prides itself on education develop, and we have to see to it the tools are there... that class sizes are much smaller than now, kids thrive on individual attention... and by the way, this is the approach that will help young men refocus on education.

As for the death professions- military, police, and fire departments etc they should be exclusively all male for obvious biological reasons and should be celebrated as such with no apologies to anyone.

No way. It's that simple. You meet the qualifications, you're in, no gender restrictions in any way, shape, or form. Women are half this country, with a corresponding place in it, participatory or otherwise. Any new draft should be of men and women.

By the way, women are gaining ground on men in things like marathons, and I've seen some suggest that a time will come in the future when women might pass men in such events, because biologically they are predisposed to having more endurance. We are a ways away, but the differences have narrowed markedly in thirty years. And look at how far women have come in one generation of basketball, with no mentor network.

Our culture would be efficient and would reinforce male and female sexual identities. The union and complimentary relationship between men and women through our differences would enhance the quality of life instead of the chaos we have today.

That's pretty much where I come from.

I do thank you for taking time to share your views, this makes it a whole lot better than throwing water balloons back and forth! Obviously I disagree, but nonetheless admire you for putting in the effort.

nelle

This is tiresome, but here you go:

We are for:

- shelters and counselling for battered husbands
- rights of children and fathers to see each other after divorce
- equality under the law - areas such as Domestic violence, rape, child molestation, divorce proceedings
- equal respect for men and boys in the media, school, workplace
- equal funding for medical reseach of male illnesses as female funding (example prostate cancer vs breast cancer)
- ending circumcision

I could write a book.  that is an initial sampling of what we are for.

Ok, so do you have anyone lobbying for shelters? Are you trying to organise and set one up in *your* community? It's a good and worthy goal, so hopefully you are taking action.

Fathers in the US by and large have joint legal custody unless there is compelling reason otherwise... for you in the UK, you do have some work ahead of you. And divorce proceedings are also quite fair in the US.

I don't know of anyone that disses a man for being a man, and goddess knows teachers work tirelessly to educate all in their charge. I would like to see more fathers present at meetings with teachers, most of the time it was predominantly the moms who are there. Be involved!

As for illness, the focus has been on men for moons, and women have only recently begun to get their due... for too long studies figured what applied to men applied to women, and we now know that is a major boo boo. I do believe we need to do *more* medical research, and that we should address such issues equally and comprehensively.

If you wish to end circumcision, I'm totally with you... but please do not try to equate it with FGM, which is far more harmful and invasive.

I'm not such an evil old witch, eh?

This girl is a hoot!

She is like the rhetorical equivalent of when you tried to get your girlfriend's bra off in the front seat at a drive-in in 1973!

Too much effort for too little reward......

Intellectually, that is.

(I was referring to a bad movie.... not the breastfully possibilities....)

Quote from: "The Purple Dinosaur"

What do you wish to accomplish? Is it simply to stop feminism? Or is the goal a bit more altruistic and noble?

Who are you to say stopping feminism isn't altruistic and noble?   :?

If you believe Valerie Solanas is the incarnation of feminism, why yeah, I can see why you would be a bit unnerved... but that is fallacy, trying to demonise femonism... powerful forces do not much care for change, even if it is to equality and nothing more.

If you wish to end circumcision, I'm totally with you... but please do not try to equate it with FGM, which is far more harmful and invasive.

It sure is a good thing you, as woman living in the West, had absolutely no chance of a knife cutting any piece of your genitals off for no legitimate medical reason.

This girl is a hoot!

She is like the rhetorical equivalent of when you tried to get your girlfriend's bra off in the front seat at a drive-in in 1973!

Too much effort for too little reward......

Intellectually, that is.

(I was referring to a bad movie.... not the breastfully possibilities....)

If someone chooses to poke their friends and point fingers and chuckle about someone they perceive as different, in my experience that person is trying desperately to fit in, and deathly afraid they will be confronted over whatever fears lie within them.

It also likely means they have precious little insight to offer, or have nothing to put forth to add to a debate. I admire Russ for taking the time and effort to debate, to put his thoughts out here... once again, if this board is for male socialising, then I am intruding in your space, and shall leave. If it is debate, and you are truly willing to debate, dispense with the insults and put your ideas out here. I won't suffer this game for long, it is not my nature to even bother debating men on their own turf, so if all i continue to get are insults, then you shall have your wish, and I will be out of your space.

Natalie....

Let us agree to cut to the chase. OK?

If you, as a self-proclaimed lesbian, have no particular passion for men....

What source of delight do you seek here?

Quote

If you wish to end circumcision, I'm totally with you... but please do not try to equate it with FGM, which is far more harmful and invasive.

It sure is a good thing you, as woman living in the West, had absolutely no chance of a knife cutting any piece of your genitals off for no legitimate medical reason.

Earlier today, a comment was made to me about "how would I know what it is like to have a penis... I let it go, it wasn't necessary to go into.

And now your comment. Well... it's like this. Yassee, I am a male to female transsexual, and I was circumcised at birth. And I also happened to have a vasectomy many years ago. And beyond that, I pay child support, $600 a month.

I've been where you are... the reverse is likely not true.

hmmmm hmmmm

*imagines a few stunned faces*

:shock:

SG

PaulGuelph --

Quote

Why do feminists lie? ......

Feminists do not lie.

They believe every sentence that comes out of their mouths.
.

This is very true.  However not confined to just feminists or women for that matter.

The entire dialogue is verbatum "1984".   Which if you looked at 'Julia', she was a rank 'feminist/socialist'.  I guess 'FemSoc' could be her name.  Now granted she bunkeneered from the 'status quo', but if you look at what the female characters of 1984 were doing they rang very true of current day feminists today.  All accept the whole lesbian thing of course.

Everything goes down the memory hole and they believe their lives are getting better but are in fact getting worse.  Instead of Goldstein being the enemy or the 'Osam bin Laden', the primary target is the male gender, as was the jews with Nazism and the list goes on for other political movements. ( I'm personally hoping the men's movement does not turn into a mirror reflection of this diatribe.)

But in the end feminism is rather easy to follow.  The work is already laid out for us to watch and understand.  Just look at the historical works (hopefully before their changed that is).  I suggest every book written by Ed Hunter.  His work was done in the 40's and 50's.  He was literally the one who coined the phrase 'Brainwashed'.  

Now I know that my last paragraph may seem like humour, and it is kind of funny, but trust me on this, this guy wrote the book, and what feminists are doing here in America they already did in China 50 some odd years ago.

This girl here is a classic example.  It's like studying the animal network or something.  We can watch one in the wild, study its habits, learn from its traits and so on.  We even get to interact with it.  Which I might add was solely forbidden in '1984', the act of communicating with the enemy ie Eurasians and Oceanaians for instance.

What you seem to forget is that the exact same thing is happening, except you are observing but two, and we are observing many. ;-)

I am a male to female transsexual

...

Is there a conspiracy to kill this website?

How many more trans-neo-queer-ambivalent???? posters can we suffer?

If Dr. Evil declares that he's a woman, I'll just have to kill myself.

Quote from: "bukowski"

Quote

If you wish to end circumcision, I'm totally with you... but please do not try to equate it with FGM, which is far more harmful and invasive.

It sure is a good thing you, as woman living in the West, had absolutely no chance of a knife cutting any piece of your genitals off for no legitimate medical reason.

Earlier today, a comment was made to me about "how would I know what it is like to have a penis... I let it go, it wasn't necessary to go into.

And now your comment. Well... it's like this. Yassee, I am a male to female transsexual, and I was circumcised at birth. And I also happened to have a vasectomy many years ago. And beyond that, I pay child support, $600 a month.

I've been where you are... the reverse is likely not true.

I am sorry, but I am a bit confused and I hope this is not inappropriate to ask, but does this mean you are actually a straight guy?

Earlier today, a comment was made to me about "how would I know what it is like to have a penis... I let it go, it wasn't necessary to go into.

And now your comment. Well... it's like this. Yassee, I am a male to female transsexual, and I was circumcised at birth. And I also happened to have a vasectomy many years ago. And beyond that, I pay child support, $600 a month.

I've been where you are... the reverse is likely not true.

A former man being, or a man not being, a male to female transexual would not change the fact that as a man he would be at risk of having a knife being taken to his genitals and part of it cut off for no medical reason.  This also does not change the fact that a woman, born in the West, has almost abosultely no chance of that being done to their genitals.

I am sorry, but I am a bit confused and I hope this is not inappropriate to ask, but does this mean you are actually a straight guy?

Noooo, I am a transsexual, which makes me a woman and a dyke.

Nelson Mandela

I wonder if you would still like Mandela if you knew exactly how many accused rapists he got of the hook?

Kind of a 'Harper Lee' thang goin on, but hey.  

:D

A former man being, or a man not being, a male to female transexual would not change the fact that as a man he would be at risk of having a knife being taken to his genitals and part of it cut off for no medical reason.  This also does not change the fact that a woman, born in the West, has almost abosultely no chance of that being done to their genitals.

Um, I believe it was mentioned I was circumsised? And you are correct women in the west don't face this issue, but a whole bunch of women around the world do. It's brutal. And I've expressed support for ending the male variety, so we really have nothing to debate.

Is there a conspiracy to kill this website?

I knew and two of the mods knew. I left it up to them to say anything, as I felt it wasn't my place. I had a slight amount of cognitive dissonance over not  letting people have the whole picture. I left the ball in a certain mods court as to whether it would ever be brought up in debate if it somehow put an SYG'er in an awkard position.

The mod, correctly I believe, left it up to nelle. When nelle goes back to her homebase, she will have no stories of being ostracized or villified by those "evil" or "whacko" MRA's. Only reasonable people who are fed up with what is happening to our rights. I think this is a plus for us...

SG

What you seem to forget is that the exact same thing is happening, except you are observing but two, and we are observing many. ;-)

Who are you addressing this too, and wtf do you mean?

You said not to compare FGM with MGM and that is what is done when one is against routine circumcision.  It has no medical purpos therefore it is mutilation, thus MGM.

I for one, am happy I'm circumsized.

SG

I guess that answers the question of if "she's hot or not".

This thread may be a testimony for why the men's rights movement is such a joke.

Can you imagine this thread as a transcript before Congress?

No offense implied.....

Just a lickle reality check.

Quote from: "TestSubject"

Quote from: "The Purple Dinosaur"

What do you wish to accomplish? Is it simply to stop feminism? Or is the goal a bit more altruistic and noble?

Who are you to say stopping feminism isn't altruistic and noble?   :?

If you believe Valerie Solanas is the incarnation of feminism, why yeah, I can see why you would be a bit unnerved... but that is fallacy, trying to demonise femonism... powerful forces do not much care for change, even if it is to equality and nothing more.

That doesn't answer my question.

Can you imagine this thread as a transcript before Congress?

I'd accomplish more by slapping them in the face with my dick.

In order for one to debate the issue, one first has to frame the issue to
be debated. Your view of pc is quite a bit different from mine. Yassee, pc
for me is about basic respect.. we don't put people down for skin colour,
orientation, gender, religion, ethnicity...

yet you see it as fascism with roots in communism, a dichotomy if ever
there was one. Not to say your idea lacks merit, merely stating a surface
observation...

funny that black people, and homosexuals, and feminists are thought to have
arisen based on a corrupt legal system, since it was a corrupt society that
put them down to begin with. OK, I will grant some leeway in evolving from
agrarian to industrial society, but for African Americans, surely we can
blame society for how they ended up being considered less thans.

So why is it respect for each other is such a tough thing? Why is wishing
for us to live together in harmony fascism? Is there something inherently
wrong with African Americans, with women, with dykes that they cannot be a
part of a greater society? How does my partnering with another woman
adversely impact you?

I can tell you how evangelist Christians who seek to declare me second
class citizens adversely impact me, but there is no corresponding
reciprocation. And my issue with them ends when they leave me alone.

I am all for living together peacefully. PC however is not the way to do
it. It may be respect to you but it's censorship and thought control to me.

I want feminism to die its rightful death and for respect of sex
differences and sex roles to return.

How so? What sex differences? Heterosexual intercourse requires one
partner to have a penis, the other a vagina... but I don't think you use
your penis at work... so genitalia is irrelevant in a work environment. If
strength is needed, than strength is a requirement. I know of no woman that
would argue against legitimate requirements... most I know in the military
don't wish there to be separate standards.

Aside from sex, what requires sex differentation? Surely a man can parent
as well as a woman, and both are competent in the workplace, so why this
need? Why not let water seek it's own level individually? Not all men have
desire to be macho dudes, nor all women housewives. Why can't each of us
pursue our own dreams and interests?

A woman's primary role is mother/nurturer

A man's is protector/provider

Um, that is an outdated social construct. Now it may be you are
comfortable in that role, and no problems there... do what works for you.
Just don't impose that on others who see life differently. I'm a huge
believer in each of us reaching our full potential, being all we wish to
be. If this be your dream, and if someone shares it, fine with me. And we
should make sure our young are free to follow their own path.


We disagree. You call it an outdated social construct, I call it obvious
biological reality.

Culturally I would let the chips fall where they may for normal occupations
with the understanding that men and women naturally choose different paths
and have very different abilities. No quotas, no affirmative action,
nothing but merit.
Affirmative action has it's place, though as time goes on they become
less and less necessary. For the most part, women have made inroads into
the workforce, but we still have serious issues facing African Americans, a
systemic problem going back 150 years, because we didn't do it right then.
We have a duty to find solutions, and yes, African Americans have a duty to
find the solutions and work toward them. I'm an admirer of Nelson Mandela,
who believes the way to go is through education, and indeed that is the
case... but we have to help a culture that prides itself on education
develop, and we have to see to it the tools are there... that class sizes
are much smaller than now, kids thrive on individual attention... and by
the way, this is the approach that will help young men refocus on
education.


Affirmative action creates resentment for the simple reason it punishes
those who have not committed the crime. I am in favor of helping out those
based on class, not race. If most of the poor in a particular area happen
to be black then so be it, but it shouldn't come in the form of an outright
quota.

As for the death professions- military, police, and fire departments etc
they should be exclusively all male for obvious biological reasons and
should be celebrated as such with no apologies to anyone.

No way. It's that simple. You meet the qualifications, you're in, no
gender restrictions in any way, shape, or form. Women are half this
country, with a corresponding place in it, participatory or otherwise. Any
new draft should be of men and women.

By the way, women are gaining ground on men in things like marathons, and
I've seen some suggest that a time will come in the future when women might
pass men in such events, because biologically they are predisposed to
having more endurance. We are a ways away, but the differences have
narrowed markedly in thirty years. And look at how far women have come in
one generation of basketball, with no mentor network.

The facts do not agree with you. The U.S., Canada, Israel and Britain as well as the former Soviet Union and
some recent stuff out of the Netherlands have done sex based performance
research. Cutting to the quick, the very top percent of women score only within the
bottom range of men. In other words for every level that a woman performs
at, no matter what that level is, there are tens of thousands of men who
can do it better. The qualifications in the military are bullshit and
everyone knows it. They can set the standard anywhere they want, a normal
healthy woman cannot compete with her relative normal healthy male
counterpart.

As far as the endurance thing goes, that's a myth that has creeping around
since the late 70's. It's long been debunked, but many books do not update
either their sources or the info gathered from said sources so this fallacy
reappears once in a while. The rationale for the myth was actually rather
absurd. You are also wrong about marathon times but this again is all academic. The truth is the very best female athletes are the way they are because they were exposed inappropriately to male hormone in utero. They excel because of male cells. Add to this the many 'females' who use synthetic Testosterone and what you have is someone who can no longer rationally be called 'female'.

Male cells+male hormone= male characteristics. Conversly female cells+female hormones= female characteristics.

I do thank you for taking time to share your views, this makes it a whole
lot better than throwing water balloons back and forth! Obviously I
disagree, but nonetheless admire you for putting in the effort.
No problem

Political Correctness actually is a soviet term.  It was used to silence people more than protect them.

For example with hate speech laws today.

If a board like this speaks out against 'Feminism', than we are blasted for our alleged anti-social behavior against women aka hate speech.  But if in reality, feminism doesn't really speak for all women, and is really just a masked form of marxism than we are really speaking out against marxism, but are uniquely being silenced through hate speech laws.

Let's say we have a grievance against 'equiatable worth pay' laws.  Which is fundementally a socialist concept.  It's obvious that feminism is being used to slip this into place with their 'wage gap' conspiracy.  Is it hate speech or is it opposition to a failed socialist concept which is trying to back door itself into law through gender differences and is silencing opposition with 'hate speech laws'?

Pretty crafty huh?

By the way, did my mumble jumble make sense?  I'm kind of tired and....

It makes sense Conspiracy but we need to move into the avenue of naming names now.

Who exactly is pushing these agendas? ... I agree as you that there are wealthy industrialists pulling the big strings and then there are smaller groups like feminism pushing their own agendas and altogether they move in a similar direction.

Who alive are the big players? We need to make a big enemy/ally list

It makes sense Conspiracy but we need to move into the avenue of naming names now.

Who exactly is pushing these agendas? ... I agree as you that there are wealthy industrialists pulling the big strings and then there are smaller groups like feminism pushing their own agendas and altogether they move in a similar direction.

Who alive are the big players? We need to make a big enemy/ally list

Lot's of people are out there naming names.  My suggestion is to look at the roster list of the UN and go from there.

It's always the same.  Environmentalism = more control over the environment for the elite.  

The new "Ocean laws" or whatever it's called which is stated to have more protection from pirates at sea.  A def. noteworthy subject, but in the end it's the same elite group trying to gain control.  

Granted, environmentalism is probably important, but the hilerity of it all is that the people who finance it are the same people who do most of the damage.  

Feminism is just a way to control culture, population, the family and so on.

All these things are splinters of the same big globalist plot of world government.   Personally I don't have a problem with globalism or world government,  however, I do have a problem with who currently is trying to get it, and what it is they are trying to achieve.  

It's no coincidence that communism seeks to have a single central bank.

Now maybe it is true that Marx and Engels were on the up and up, and that international bankers looked and the philosophies and decided 'hey this will work for us'.  Thus handing the world over to them as an 'asset'.  Which it pretty much is.

Feminism is a Weapon of Mass Destruction in places like Africa.  Who promotes it there 'the 'IMF'.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/officers.htm

You start following these people and you start coming across the same names over and over again.  

Morgan and Chase.  Rockefeller, Rothschild etc...

The world really does become a small place after a while.

To them communism is just state controlled monopoly.  



As for the 'small feminist groups'.  They have absolutely no voice.  Unless they come up with an idea that coincides with the overall plan, their voice is shut down.  They recieve no burseries or media of any kind.  

For example, say there was a woman's movement to promote inalienable rights to having children.  It will not fly, because the movement is for depopulation.  Especially in places where feminism is used as a weapon for war.  Abortions are killing more offspring than soldeirs ever could,  all legal, and all lauded as a contribution to society.  Meanwhile insidiously they are wiping them out with extreme prejuduce.  Or is that 'without prejduce'?

Either way they've used reverse psychology to have the population clammering to extinct themselves.  On the surface it reads as women's rights, but underneath it's annihalation.  It's a means of war, a weapon, a tank, bio-warfare, psychological warfare, whatever comparison you need to see that it's a weapon used to divide and conquer an entire nation.

The girls from here are going there thinking they are giving these women "help".  They are in fact killing them.  Using these missionaries as a spreadable virus.  A psycho political virus.  It's genocide.  

See Margaret Sanger:

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Eugenics is ... the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
[no source available at this time...]

As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation....
On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.

"The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."
Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.

"The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.

Well, in the UK we had a lady Primeminister in 1979. She won the election because so many women voted for her because she was a woman rather than what she stood for.

You're sure of this... no one voted for her because of her views? Hmmm.

You deliberately misinterpreted me there. I didn't say no one voted because of her views, I said she won the election because of the huge numbers of women voting for her because she was a woman. Even lifelong Labour voters voted for her purely because she was a woman.

Men don't worry about women attacking them, they worry about men attacking them, which is more likely than a woman being attacked by a man.

My point exactly. Women however... do have to worry about it.  

My point is that men have more to worry about when it comes to being attacked. They are far more likely to be attacked than a woman.

Most divorces are initiated by women for one reason... the person they married was not in fact who they were married to later. Men dislike many things women like, but women go into marriage thinking the man who has been wooing them is representative... nope, not, he's been romantic to win her over. When a man not inclined to open up and communicate what is inside reaches this point, he withdraws and frustrates the heck out of his partner.

[/color]

Totally disagree. More divorces are initiated by women because they have nothing to lose. When a man falls out of love with a woman he has to consider whether he wants the carry on having a full relationship with his kids and whether he wants to continue using his house. If there was true equality in the divorce courts, there would be an avalanche of men filing for divorce.

Quote from: "natalie clifford barney"

Quote from: "bukowski"

Quote

If you wish to end circumcision, I'm totally with you... but please do not try to equate it with FGM, which is far more harmful and invasive.

It sure is a good thing you, as woman living in the West, had absolutely no chance of a knife cutting any piece of your genitals off for no legitimate medical reason.

Earlier today, a comment was made to me about "how would I know what it is like to have a penis... I let it go, it wasn't necessary to go into.

And now your comment. Well... it's like this. Yassee, I am a male to female transsexual, and I was circumcised at birth. And I also happened to have a vasectomy many years ago. And beyond that, I pay child support, $600 a month.

I've been where you are... the reverse is likely not true.

I am sorry, but I am a bit confused and I hope this is not inappropriate to ask, but does this mean you are actually a straight guy?

I think he/she was a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

We all have equal opportunity to pursue our goals and dreams, and are not restricted by virtue of our gender.

Except when not 'enough' women are in top paying jobs, or when not 'enough' women choose to be scientists etc etc etc.  Then all of a sudden there is bias and discrimination against them, right?  However, when it comes to the topic of equal representation amongst garbage collectors, well then "We all have equal opportunity to pursue our goals and dreams, and are not restricted by virtue of our gender".

Uh huh.

Except when not 'enough' women are in top paying jobs, or when not 'enough' women choose to be scientists etc etc etc.  Then all of a sudden there is bias and discrimination against them, right?  However, when it comes to the topic of equal representation amongst garbage collectors, well then "We all have equal opportunity to pursue our goals and dreams, and are not restricted by virtue of our gender".

Uh huh.

One thing I've learnt about feminists is that they always interpret positive differences as somehow indicating the genetic superiority of women, and negative differences as a sign that there is a patriachal conspiracy.

The only thing keeping feminism alive is chivalry, even though feminists will, all at the same time whine and bitch that it's dead, say they are oppressed by it, and then do whatever they can to keep it alive.

That's an interesting pov...I can't figure out where it could have come from, though, could you provide an example where (a) something feminist is promoting through chivalry and then (b) the feminists involved in it complained that there was no chivalry present and then (c) those feminists said that there was actually chivalry there and said it was oppressing them and then (d) presented their plan of action to keep the chivalry in place?

[I wonder if, as a feminist, you could help us come up with some solutions to get women into the dangerous high paying jobs that men work to support their families. You know, the ones that can kill you, such as electricians, saturation divers, high rise steel workers, mining, oil rig workers, etc.

Actually, as a feminist, I would love to see more women in the skilled trades, which are often highest paying jobs available to those without a degree (and about 3/4 of the US adult population doesn't have a degree--I think, that stat may be a little old).

Five years ago, I slipped and almost fell four stories straight down the elevator shaft of Marriot Hotel I was building as a project manager. I barely caught myself and had to suck up the butterflies and continue my workday, hands still shaking because i had to support my family. What's the worst that can happen in residential work, a piece of sheet rock could fall over on you?

If it's any consolation...the industry I work in, biotech, is about 50% female...not just overall and not just in HR or Quality, but 50% in Manufacturing.  We work with a lot of dangerous equipment and chemicals at the very large scale.  The worst workplace accident that's occured at my job site happened to a woman--she was transporting a steel vat filled with hot caustic from one room to another and it tipped over backwards and fell on her.  Admittedly she didn't come back to work for a while...they'd had to medevac her out, she was pretty messed up...but she came back once she was physically able to work again and she still works here.

Their enemy is nature and the very existence of gender. They don't identify with female characteristics but covet male characterisitics of direct power. They are about sex reversal which is why they abhor masculine men and feminine women. Give them a feminine man and a masculine woman and they are all smiles and laughter.

If by "they" you mean "feminists," I have to disagree with you.  Some feminists love to be feminine women and love to be with masculine men.  Really!  :)

This is tiresome, but here you go:

We are for:

- shelters and counselling for battered husbands
- rights of children and fathers to see each other after divorce
- equality under the law - areas such as Domestic violence, rape, child molestation, divorce proceedings
- equal respect for men and boys in the media, school, workplace
- equal funding for medical reseach of male illnesses as female funding (example prostate cancer vs breast cancer)
- ending circumcision

I could write a book.  that is an initial sampling of what we are for.

All that sounds great to me...maybe I'm missing what the problem is?

The problem is most women today, whether they consciously consider themselves feminists or just apathetically say "whatever", couldn't care less about these types of issues; they're more concerned about (nonexistent) wage gaps, lack of funding (in fields which women get mroe funding), lack of representation (in fields few women go into), feelings that women are somehow treated worse than men when anyone who opens their eyes sees at least as much if not more poor tretament of men, etc.

Quote from: "angryharry"

For about the first half of the last century, the media - which heavily influence the way that people think and, hence, behave - was very much in the control of the governing elite.

For the second half of the last century, the media expanded, and women and feminists managed to dominate the agenda and the propaganda that emanated therefrom.

But now the internet has arrived.

And it is managing to exert a huge force.

And some 80% of the political activists on the internet are men.

Tra la la la la!

lmao, fantasy in cyberspace!

So what is your goal... world domination? Wait... men already do?

OK, what could it be? Not have to pay child support?

Every woman a June Cleaver?

Come on... isn't a whole lot better to work for solutions that move everyone toward equality?

I have to ask

What is your meaning of "Equality"

Maatkare finds that to be difficult

since the Creator saw fit to make us unequal,

And some 80% of the political activists on the internet are men.

Could it be more time on their hands?

Seriously. Historically amongst the privileged, it was women who have taken on "charity events' have had the time to take on the concerns of the underprivileged etc.

Today I can't seem to find female only boards yet there seem to be multitudes of men only boards (many of which are members only). I can only conclude that men have more time to pursuit complaining about their grievances then women have.

On the internet it seems that men should congratulate themselves. They now have more venues to emote (does this make them more emotional?).

Quote

And some 80% of the political activists on the internet are men.

Could it be more time on their hands?

Seriously. Historically amongst the privileged, it was women who have taken on "charity events' have had the time to take on the concerns of the underprivileged etc.

Today I can't seem to find female only boards yet there seem to be multitudes of men only boards (many of which are members only). I can only conclude that men have more time to pursuit complaining about their grievances then women have.

On the internet it seems that men should congratulate themselves. They now have more venues to emote (does this make them more emotional?).

Women are probably too busy watching afternoon TV, or gossiping over tea and biscuits, or getting their hair done, or their nails, or just shopping for more new shoes or........

Instead of spending their time bitching about men on an internet forum?

Instead of spending their time bitching about men on an internet forum?

Maybe younger generation women don't feel the need to bitch about men all the time?

Bitching about men? I thought that was the purpose of daytime TV...

Maybe younger generation women don't feel the need to bitch about men all the time?

??????

How could that possibly be when they are all by your own stigmatism feminazi's?

Bitching about men? I thought that was the purpose of daytime TV...

Today I can't seem to find female only boards yet there seem to be multitudes of men only boards (many of which are members only)

Awesome!  :D

Actually most of them have government funded buildings to go to, where they have seminars, lectures and guests from all over.  Or, they go in teams to Judges, police stations, lawyers, schools (all grade  groups) and tell their story.  

Go to any school in Hamilton right now, and if there is any class talking about violence in dating I guarentee you that 100% of it is about male on female.

Eventually every student hears it.  All government funded and sanctioned.

So.... who needs the internet?

Quote from: "devia"

Instead of spending their time bitching about men on an internet forum?

Maybe younger generation women don't feel the need to bitch about men all the time?

Maatkare thought the latter generations of women are the one's ya'll getting all riled up about?

Uhhhh... without trying to state the obvious.... because women can bitch about men ANYWHERE (home, work, bar, grocery store, nail salon, restuarant, etc.) they please, and men can't bitch about women ANYWHERE women might hear them!!!

So while Sally is bitching abotu men whenevr and wherever she wants, 24-7, with her girlfriends and anyone else who will listen/sympathize- Sam has to sneak a few spare minutes here and there to do it somewhat anonymously on the internet.


Male bashing= pop culture, especially for women it's just part fo everyday life.

But as soon as a male points out anything at all unflattering about women the "misogynist chauvinist wifebeater sex pig" alarm goes off....

Uhhhh... without trying to state the obvious.... because women can bitch about men ANYWHERE (home, work, bar, grocery store, nail salon, restuarant, etc.) they please, and men can't bitch about women ANYWHERE women might hear them!!!

So while Sally is bitching abotu men whenevr and wherever she wants, 24-7, with her girlfriends and anyone else who will listen/sympathize- Sam has to sneak a few spare minutes here and there to do it somewhat anonymously on the internet.


Male bashing= pop culture, especially for women it's just part fo everyday life.

But as soon as a male points out anything at all unflattering about women the "misogynist chauvinist wifebeater sex pig" alarm goes off....

I was wondering--are you talking about men b*tching about women in general, or men b*tching about specific women?

Russ2d wrote:
Their enemy is nature and the very existence of gender. They don't identify with female characteristics but covet male characterisitics of direct power. They are about sex reversal which is why they abhor masculine men and feminine women. Give them a feminine man and a masculine woman and they are all smiles and laughter.


lkanneg:

If by "they" you mean "feminists," I have to disagree with you. Some feminists love to be feminine women and love to be with masculine men. Really!


I am not sure what brand of feminism you think you are Ikanneg but you are out of touch with your leadership. Feminine feminists? Loving masculine men? Um, yeah, you do realize that you are speaking to someone who has actually read what feminist leaders say and demand? Regardless if I have read your posts correctly you support equality as a product of culturally enforced androgyny. In other words the artifical 50/50 mentality that ignores physical facts and/or seeks to overcome them with quotas, set asides etc.

To be sure we do indeed disagree.

Just because many women identify themselves as feminists or support 'feminism', it does not follow that they have a clue about what feminism is really about nor about its consequences.

I have seen so-called 'feminists' promoting just about every view under the Sun.

For many young women, the word 'feminist' seems to be just a label which they apply to themselves to sound 'cool'.

Russ2d wrote:
Their enemy is nature and the very existence of gender. They don't identify with female characteristics but covet male characterisitics of direct power. They are about sex reversal which is why they abhor masculine men and feminine women. Give them a feminine man and a masculine woman and they are all smiles and laughter.


lkanneg:

If by "they" you mean "feminists," I have to disagree with you. Some feminists love to be feminine women and love to be with masculine men. Really!


I am not sure what brand of feminism you think you are Ikanneg but you are out of touch with your leadership. Feminine feminists? Loving masculine men? Um, yeah, you do realize that you are speaking to someone who has actually read what feminist leaders say and demand? Regardless if I have read your posts correctly you support equality as a product of culturally enforced androgyny. In other words the artifical 50/50 mentality that ignores physical facts and/or seeks to overcome them with quotas, set asides etc.

To be sure we do indeed disagree.

My leadership?  LOL, they must've forgotten to notify me personally of their existence, and give me *any* reason why I should report to them in any way, shape or form.  I arrived at the conclusion that I was a feminist via Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

As I support and promote that theory, then I figured I must be a feminist.  

Where have I said on here that I support quotas or set-asides?

What is "culturally enforced androgyny?"  Is it anything like "culturally enforced gender roles?"

I'm a feminist and I think that women should worship the ground men walk on as part of their activism.

I'm a feminist and I think that women should worship the ground men walk on as part of their activism.

When "men" stop looking like 12 year old boys then we can discuss the issue. Untill then frankly it's kind of ikky.

Quote

I'm a feminist and I think that women should worship the ground men walk on as part of their activism.

When "men" stop looking like 12 year old boys then we can discuss the issue. Untill then frankly it's kind of ikky.

Are these personal attacks , Devia?

:D

Can a woman play in the Masters? How many women are in boardrooms, in Congress? Yes we can run, but we are at a huge disadvantage. The good ole boy network frequently encourages the candidates it wants to run, and they aren't women.

Just wondering. Have you ever seen a woman who could or can hit a ball as far as say "Tiger Woods" or "Jack Nicklaus"?

Women can't play in the masters because currently they are not good enough  to compete on that level. Get over it.

My leadership? LOL, they must've forgotten to notify me personally of their existence, and give me *any* reason why I should report to them in any way, shape or form. I arrived at the conclusion that I was a feminist via Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

As I support and promote that theory, then I figured I must be a feminist.

Where have I said on here that I support quotas or set-asides?

What is "culturally enforced androgyny?" Is it anything like "culturally enforced gender roles?"



Brilliant thinking Ikanneg-  you might want to check with the agendas of the nationally recognized leaders of feminists- the National Organization of Women and their myriad of chapters and the Fund for the Feminist Majority- you know those people who teach and recruit at Universities and who actually lobby Congress; those people who created the modern feminist.

If you oppose quotas then you are against a fundamental of feminism- affirmative action for women is very important to them. Is that what you are saying? And if so how do you expect to get your 50/50 'perfect' world?

Culturally enforced androgyny is affirmative action, quotas, set asides, special programs and groups for women- or do you actually deny such things exist?

Conspiracy:

"I'm a feminist and I think that women should worship the ground men walk on as part of their activism."




Hehe, why not? If feminism is nothing more then what we want it to be at any particular point in time.

"Just wondering. Have you ever seen a woman who could or can hit a ball as far as say "Tiger Woods" or "Jack Nicklaus"? "

Actually, Laura Davies in her prime could hit a 300 plus ball.  She was unreal to watch.  Had no short game, but damn could she hit.

Al

Quote from: "devia"

Quote

I'm a feminist and I think that women should worship the ground men walk on as part of their activism.

When "men" stop looking like 12 year old boys then we can discuss the issue. Untill then frankly it's kind of ikky.

Are these personal attacks , Devia?

:D

Dude, she's just hot for you.  Don't let it wear you down.

I'm a feminist and I think that women should worship the ground men walk on as part of their activism.

Or at least recognize steak and bj day...

SG

Brilliant thinking Ikanneg-  you might want to check with the agendas of the nationally recognized leaders of feminists- the National Organization of Women and their myriad of chapters and the Fund for the Feminist Majority- you know those people who teach and recruit at Universities and who actually lobby Congress; those people who created the modern feminist.

I've skimmed over their stuff now and then.

If you oppose quotas then you are against a fundamental of feminism- affirmative action for women is very important to them. Is that what you are saying? And if so how do you expect to get your 50/50 'perfect' world?

Hmm...you know, honestly, I'm very unfamiliar with affirmative action.  I've never been anywhere scholastically or professionally that practiced it, so I've never encountered it personally.  All I know about it is hearsay.  I have no idea if gender-based affirmative action is common or uncommon, nor where it's located or how it operates.    If you'd like to point me towards any Internet sources that are good comprehensive FAIRLY SUMMARIZED (lol, please, no 100 page essays) info on the subject, that would be great.  Til I know what it is in reality...outside of the hearsay...I can't really form a good working stance on the subject.

"My 50/50 perfect world?"  LOL.  I *don't* expect to get it.  I don't expect there's any such thing.  I spose my ideal would be, everybody achieving to their maximum desire and ability without hindrance from the prejudices of others.

Dude, she's just hot for you.  Don't let it wear you down.

I know.

She's always been hot for me.  But that's okay, lately I'm kinda into red heads.  So would seriously like to get into a red head.

I spose my ideal would be, everybody achieving to their maximum desire and ability without hindrance from the prejudices of others.

My biggest complaint with feminism is that it tends to finance its desire by profiting in the hindrance of prejudice.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

I spose my ideal would be, everybody achieving to their maximum desire and ability without hindrance from the prejudices of others.

My biggest complaint with feminism is that it tends to finance its desire by profiting in the hindrance of prejudice.

To me, feminism is about handing out balloons to dead fish at Coney Island.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

I spose my ideal would be, everybody achieving to their maximum desire and ability without hindrance from the prejudices of others.

My biggest complaint with feminism is that it tends to finance its desire by profiting in the hindrance of prejudice.

How so?

Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"

Dude, she's just hot for you.  Don't let it wear you down.

I know.

She's always been hot for me.  But that's okay, lately I'm kinda into red heads.  So would seriously like to get into a red head.

Dude, that's awesome!  What's mine say?

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"

Dude, she's just hot for you.  Don't let it wear you down.

I know.

She's always been hot for me.  But that's okay, lately I'm kinda into red heads.  So would seriously like to get into a red head.

Dude, that's awesome!  What's mine say?

Your horoscope?

Well, that's not the queue I meant but, sure, my horoscope if you have it.

Sweet!  What does mine say?

Dude!

Hmm...you know, honestly, I'm very unfamiliar with affirmative action. I've never been anywhere scholastically or professionally that practiced it, so I've never encountered it personally. All I know about it is hearsay. I have no idea if gender-based affirmative action is common or uncommon, nor where it's located or how it operates. If you'd like to point me towards any Internet sources that are good comprehensive FAIRLY SUMMARIZED (lol, please, no 100 page essays) info on the subject, that would be great. Til I know what it is in reality...outside of the hearsay...I can't really form a good working stance on the subject.
"My 50/50 perfect world?" LOL. I *don't* expect to get it. I don't expect there's any such thing. I spose my ideal would be, everybody achieving to their maximum desire and ability without hindrance from the prejudices of others.


On your first point, I would have to say that you are being disingenuous.
To say that as a white woman you have never benifited from AA simply because it was "supposidly" never overtly made available to you is BullS##.  Its always present, whether made obvious or not.
White Women are the #1 benificiaries of AA. (Quotas, whatever)
And I compare this to me being black and saying the same thing. It would also be Bull. There has been times when Ive been offered a job, and althought AA was never mentioned, I knew the deal.

On the second, one can simply look at the distibution of the sexes employed in various occupations, (ranging from office to labor/construction to white and blue collar) and see that 50/50  only applies to jobs women deign to perform.

Stally

bukowski wrote:
"The only thing keeping feminism alive is chivalry, even though feminists will, all at the same time whine and bitch that it's dead, say they are oppressed by it, and then do whatever they can to keep it alive."

-------

That's an interesting pov...I can't figure out where it could have come from, though, could you provide an example where (a) something feminist is promoting through chivalry and then (b) the feminists involved in it complained that there was no chivalry present and then (c) those feminists said that there was actually chivalry there and said it was oppressing them and then (d) presented their plan of action to keep the chivalry in place?

VAWA is promoted through chivalry.  Men are more at risk of having violenec against them but then they have create VAWA for women and iniate it using chivalrous politicians.


-----

I got to Democraticunderground all the time and I have had no trouble noticing the fact that women who are feminist orientated would expect men to keep to their traditional roles. The provider role.  They wish for men to keep protecting women while women no longer have the responsibilities of their traditional role.  Men are even shamed for not living up to their traditional roles.  With some roles that means being called a "deadbeat dad".

----

You've never heard a feminist state that chivalry oppresses women?  That it is paternalistic and therefore makes women into children?  I have.


-----

"(d) presented their plan of action to keep the chivalry in place?"

Playing the victim when they are not a victim, or even when they are a victim, they make women's victimhood on a hierarchy above men's victimhood.  Which can be seen on this thread. (at least one of thhese threads.  I can't keep up anymore.  Or I odn't care enough to keep up with them.)

White Women are the #1 benificiaries of AA. (Quotas, whatever)

In the UK it is black women, because they score more pc points. We call it positive discrimination here, though to me, any discrimination that isn't based on ability can only be negative discrimination.

Brian44,

I was wondering who quoted your signature over the weekend, after referncing it in a conversation. Nice to see you're using it here, as I tend to quote it quite a lot. I did a quick search on Doris Lessing and found this quote too:

What the feminists want of me is something they haven't examined because it comes from religion. They want me to bear witness. What they would really like me to say is, 'Ha, sisters, I stand with you side by side in your struggle toward the golden dawn where all those beastly men are no more.' Do they really want people to make oversimplified statements about men and women? In fact, they do. I've come with great regret to this conclusion.

Bit long for a signature though ;)

Hi bukowski,

I did read the text of VAWA a while ago, and though the title and some subsection titles contain the word "woman," the text of the act itself, in regards to investigation and prosecution of crime, victim services, etc. etc. all appeared to be gender-neutral.  Am I mistaken?

Lisa

Hi Stally,

<shrug> It's true--I haven't ever paid much attention to affirmative action.  I really don't care about it much one way or the other.  Sorry.  :)  I'm more than willing TO care about it, though, if someone can show me that it's this widespread, dreadful, pervasive thing that's harming men left and right.  Anyone?

Lisa

... the text of the act itself, in regards to investigation and prosecution of crime, victim services, etc. etc. all appeared to be gender-neutral.  Am I mistaken?

This thread:

http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5879&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

has information on the new amendments to VAWA, in fact the precise wording.

Here is what I wrote about that (on that thread):

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

There is an outline of the new provisions on Biden's website. Here are a few of the problematic additions:

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=238601

Title III on youth and children includes measures to: (1) promote collaboration between domestic violence experts and child welfare agencies; and (2) enhance to $15 million a year grants to reduce violence against women on college campuses.

Title IV aimed at prevention strategies includes programs supporting home visitations and specifically engaging men and boys in efforts to end domestic and sexual violence.

Title VI eases the housing problems for battered women by, including (1) $20 million grant programs to facilitate collaboration between domestic violence organizations and housing providers; (2) programs to combat family violence in public and assisted housing, including new requirements that domestic violence victims may not be evicted or cut off from voucher services because of the violence; and (3) enhancements to transitional housing resources.

Title VII helps abused women maintain secure employment by permitting battered women to take limited (up to 10 days) employment leave to address domestic violence, such as attend court proceedings, or move to a shelter. Because the type of leave needed can differ significantly from leave covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act -- and often will be non-medical -- these provisions do not amend the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in any way; however, the notice and certification requirements are very similar to those required under the FMLA.

Title VIII improves and expands the immigration protections for battered women. In addition, it would ensure that victims of trafficking are supported with measures such as permitting their families to join them in certain circumstances, expanding the duration of a T-visa, and providing resources to victims who assist in investigations or prosecutions of trafficking cases brought by state or federal authorities.

Title IX focuses more closely on violence against Native American women by creating a new tribal Deputy Director in the Office on Violence Against Women dedicated to coordinating federal policy and tribal grants. Authorizes tribal governments to access and upload domestic violence and protection order data on criminal databases, as well as create tribal sex offender registries, and strengthens available criminal penalties.


[My emphasis]

Now in response to that post of mine, a guy named Ampersand didn't believe it, even though it was from Biden's office.  He demanded the full text, so here is my post on that (on the next page of the thread I cited above):

OK, Ampersand, here's the actual bill "Violence against Women Act 2005":

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/VAWAReauthorization2005--Senate--6-08-05.pdf

Go to page 105, and you will see that what I said about Title III is absolutely true. They talk about how much money will be spent on PROGRAMS TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ON CAMPUSES.

That's not only the title of the section, you also see further down (at the bottom of page 105), after they talk about how much money goes where, that it is to be spent on violence against women on campus (just like what was described in the summary above). The document is locked, or I would copy and paste it here.

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

I only gave one example, but if you want to wade through the document, you can see point-by-point that there are many areas in which they ONLY talk about how many millions are going to be devoted for women here, how many for women there.

Now in response to that post of mine, a guy named Ampersand didn't believe it, even though it was from Biden's office.  He demanded the full text, so here is my post on that (on the next page of the thread I cited above):

OK, Ampersand, here's the actual bill "Violence against Women Act 2005":

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/VAWAReauthorization2005--Senate--6-08-05.pdf

Go to page 105, and you will see that what I said about Title III is absolutely true. They talk about how much money will be spent on PROGRAMS TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ON CAMPUSES.

That's not only the title of the section, you also see further down (at the bottom of page 105), after they talk about how much money goes where, that it is to be spent on violence against women on campus (just like what was described in the summary above). The document is locked, or I would copy and paste it here.

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

I only gave one example, but if you want to wade through the document, you can see point-by-point that there are many areas in which they ONLY talk about how many millions are going to be devoted for women here, how many for women there.

Well, I definitely can't support legislation that provides aid *only* to women victims of violence, not men.  I'm hesitant to slam the idea of domestic/sexual violence legislation IN GENERAL, because it may well be a very good thing--but the language needs to be completely gender-neutral.  JMO

Not only the language, but the implementation and allocation of funds...

For example, the *langauge* currently on the books regarding divorce and child support is fairly gender neutral for the most part- the IMPLEMENTATION by our gender-biased legal system is quite a different matter.

The *langauge* currently on the books regarding divorce and child support is fairly gender neutral for the most part- the IMPLEMENTATION by our gender-biased legal system is quite a different matter.

If the letter of the law does not provide bias or favoritism towards one gender over another, how does it work out in fact that one gender is favored over another?  I don't have any personal experience with this--my ex-husband and I basically bypassed the judicial system in regards to child custody and support.  I've read a fair amount about it, but like my reading on domestic violence in regards to gender, it all seems so wildly contradictory I don't know *what* to think and I haven't really found an unbiased source...everything out there seems to be written either by women's interest groups or men's interest groups.

If the letter of the law does not provide bias or favoritism towards one gender over another, how does it work out in fact that one gender is favored over another?

"The law" is not just statutes on the books.  Case law is also binding law in a particular jurisdiction, just as binding as statutes.  A lot of the family law statutes are actually quite vague (they give a list of things to take into account in distributing property, for instance, but it's up to the judge to weigh those - or not weigh them and just do what he or she wants).  Case law tends to lean more toward "men's responsibilities", more so than anything legislatures today would dare write in a new statute.

In fact, the further you go away from statutes ("laws on the books") the more you can get gender bias.

Statutes ---> Case law ---> Non-binding (pursuasive) case law --> Procedures of specific courts --> Typical actions of courts and judges in a jurisdiction --> Typical actions of a particular judge --> Actions of the judge in YOUR case

Probably the best you can do as a man in a family court dispute is to get a non-feminist female judge.  The worst that can happen to you is to get a chivalristic male judge.

The objective female judge is going to see through her (your soon-to-be-ex-wife's) tears and dramatics.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

If the letter of the law does not provide bias or favoritism towards one gender over another, how does it work out in fact that one gender is favored over another?

"The law" is not just statutes on the books.  Case law is also binding law in a particular jurisdiction, just as binding as statutes.  A lot of the family law statutes are actually quite vague (they give a list of things to take into account in distributing property, for instance, but it's up to the judge to weigh those - or not weigh them and just do what he or she wants).  Case law tends to lean more toward "men's responsibilities", more so than anything legislatures today would dare write in a new statute.

In fact, the further you go away from statutes ("laws on the books") the more you can get gender bias.

Statutes ---> Case law ---> Non-binding (pursuasive) case law --> Procedures of specific courts --> Typical actions of courts and judges in a jurisdiction --> Typical actions of a particular judge --> Actions of the judge in YOUR case

Hmm...if all this is often enough the case that a clear pattern of gender bias discrimination emerges...how to solve it?  Can it be solved in any other way than changing the law?  If changing the law is the only solution, how could it be changed and still retain gender neutrality?

If the letter of the law does not provide bias or favoritism towards one gender over another, how does it work out in fact that one gender is favored over another?

Welcome IKanneg.  I think I was out of town when you arrived.  My apologies if I hadn't welcomed you before.

This is a good question and one worth looking into.

The VAWA is a good example.  It started as a feminist run endeavor and is heavily adminstered and directed by feminists many of whom seem to be radical feminists.  Their ideology from the start was that men were the perps and women the victims.  These ideas permeated the trainings, the shelters, the administration, everything.  Since its inception in 1994 congress has tried to bring the VAWA into a more gender neutral stance and has changed the language of the bill to reflect this.  BFD.  Even with the legislation being somewhat gender neutral it doesn't stop them from using their status quo power to deny applications for anything looking like a program that might be of help to men and boys.  It doesn't stop them from continuing their bigoted programs and getting billions of dollars in funding to "train" police, judges etc.  It simply marches on because the people in charge are bigoted and hateful.  Until this is recognized by our legislators we are sunk.  

I have been to the VAWA public hearings in DC.  I can tell you that these people have been told repeatedly that men are victims of DV and don't have services.  I can also tell you that they have done nearly nothing in the past 3 years to even lift a finger to help out male victims.  In fact they have blocked things when they could.

It is simply unbelievable that such hatred is allowed to administer such large sums of  money.  There is no outrage.

Hi Dr. Evil (nice name, btw! :) )

If that is really how it's done with VAWA, then things really need to change--it's inexcusable.  As I said somewhere else, I don't oppose legislation against domestic/sexual violence and for its victims, but I see no reason, no reason at ALL that it should be gender-specific.  Actually, as I think about it, all I can come up with are more and more reasons why being gender-specific is a terrible idea.  

Lisa

... but I see no reason, no reason at ALL that it should be gender-specific.  Actually, as I think about it, all I can come up with are more and more reasons why being gender-specific is a terrible idea.  

So there ARE some reasonable feminists - but I'm starting to think more and more that you aren't really a feminist.

There are different kinds of feminists, just as there are different kinds of MRAs.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

... but I see no reason, no reason at ALL that it should be gender-specific.  Actually, as I think about it, all I can come up with are more and more reasons why being gender-specific is a terrible idea.  

So there ARE some reasonable feminists - but I'm starting to think more and more that you aren't really a feminist.

LOL, I dunno, I fit the dictionary definition...this is OT, hope you don't mind me asking--does your choice of username have anything to do with Ayn Rand?

There are different kinds of feminists, just as there are different kinds of MRAs.

Yeah, well, maybe.

My test is that it's a feminist if my bile involuntarily comes up in my throat.

... this is OT, hope you don't mind me asking--does your choice of username have anything to do with Ayn Rand?

Probably, my user name on the precursor to this board (SheThinks) was JGalt.

John Galt was a good engineer.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

... this is OT, hope you don't mind me asking--does your choice of username have anything to do with Ayn Rand?

Probably, my user name on the precursor to this board (SheThinks) was JGalt.

:)  I love her novels (except for Anthem--I understand the point she was trying to make with the pronoun usage, but it really makes it hard for me to get into the story) and those essays of hers that I've read.  I don't actually meet too many people of my generation who've read her work...assuming we're of the same generation...doesn't someone else on here use an AR quote in his siggy?

:)  I love her novels (except for Anthem--I understand the point she was trying to make with the pronoun usage, but it really makes it hard for me to get into the story) and those essays of hers that I've read.  I don't actually meet too many people of my generation who've read her...assuming we're of the same generation...

Among the "big two", I always thought that Atlas Shrugged was a lot better than the Fountainhead.

Sometimes she drones on and on, but she is powerful in parts in Atlas Shrugged.  Every budding young communist should read it.

Among the "big two", I always thought that Atlas Shrugged was a lot better than the Fountainhead.

I agree, though I do find that the greater subtlety of the message in The Fountainhead makes it a little more readable as a "story."  If I were recommending her to someone, I'd recommend The Fountainhead first, Atlas Shrugged second.

Sometimes she drones on and on, but she is powerful in parts in Atlas Shrugged.  

It is possible that I'd read the book several times before I actually soldiered through Galt's WHOLE ENTIRE radio broadcast speech without any skipping whatsoever.    :oops:

Quote from: "Russ2d"

Russ2d wrote:
Their enemy is nature and the very existence of gender. They don't identify with female characteristics but covet male characterisitics of direct power. They are about sex reversal which is why they abhor masculine men and feminine women. Give them a feminine man and a masculine woman and they are all smiles and laughter.


lkanneg:

If by "they" you mean "feminists," I have to disagree with you. Some feminists love to be feminine women and love to be with masculine men. Really!


I am not sure what brand of feminism you think you are Ikanneg but you are out of touch with your leadership. Feminine feminists? Loving masculine men? Um, yeah, you do realize that you are speaking to someone who has actually read what feminist leaders say and demand? Regardless if I have read your posts correctly you support equality as a product of culturally enforced androgyny. In other words the artifical 50/50 mentality that ignores physical facts and/or seeks to overcome them with quotas, set asides etc.

To be sure we do indeed disagree.

My leadership?  LOL, they must've forgotten to notify me personally of their existence, and give me *any* reason why I should report to them in any way, shape or form.  I arrived at the conclusion that I was a feminist via Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

As I support and promote that theory, then I figured I must be a feminist.  

Where have I said on here that I support quotas or set-asides?

For a long time now I've been thinking that Merriam-Webster and others need to update their definition of feminism because, frankly, it's not correct.

Feminism does not support "equality of the sexes," it supports superiority of women; and in lieu of that, at the very least, parity of women with men when it's to women's advantage and special privilege of women to avoid disadvantageous circumstances and outcomes.  

Feminists in general do support quotas and set-asides (as provided by, e.g., affirmative action and special women-only programs),  therefore, if you don't support those things then Ikanneg, I hate to break this to you, but you're probably not a feminist.

IMO you sound like most of us here at SYG, i.e., like a humanist.

I'd have to say that an accurate contemporary definition of feminism would have to include some reference to class distinction.

Feminism:  the point of view that men as a class oppress women as a class.

IMO you sound like most of us here at SYG, i.e., like a humanist.

you mean humynist

:(  No, no, I think you *have* to consider me a feminist...I do think women have been oppressed in the past in Western culture and that they are still often oppressed today in the developing countries...

I do think women have been oppressed in the past in Western culture and that they are still often oppressed today in the developing countries...

Welcome to SYG lkanneg, your statement above needs some examples for clarification. Please list for us a few examples to you women were OPPRESSED in the past and are still OPRESSED today. Thanks


DLove

Quote from: "lkanneg

I do think women have been oppressed in the past in Western culture and that they are still often oppressed today in the developing countries...

Welcome to SYG lkanneg, your statement above needs some examples for clarification. Please list for us a few examples to you women were OPPRESSED in the past and are still OPRESSED today. Thanks


DLove

There's a gigantic, enormous thread involving me and voting rights, um...oh dear, I can't remember which thread it is now.  Just a sec, let me check---it's "What's the deal with feminist myths?"

But now the internet has arrived.

And it is managing to exert a huge force.

And some 80% of the political activists on the internet are men.

Tra la la la la!

This sounds very nice, BUT:

1) Of these 80% you don't know how many are actually men's-rights activists/masculists. It could be 50%/40% but it could also be 1% or 2%

2) As I have pointed out before. "Real-life" activism beats online-activism with its hands tied down. There is (at the moment??) hardly any "real-life" activism from men and there is plenty from feminism, so feminism wins here.

I doubt feminism will ever dissapear, since "the common man" hardly cares about what is being said about them or what is being done against them. I will diminsh though but mostly because less and less "common women" support it/care about it.
I just hope some day its influence will have diminished so much, that it will not be able to affect governments' actions and policies anymore.

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"

IMO you sound like most of us here at SYG, i.e., like a humanist.

you mean humynist

LOL!

[
There's a gigantic, enormous thread involving me and voting rights, um...oh dear, I can't remember which thread it is now.  Just a sec, let me check---it's "What's the deal with feminist myths?"

I read that thread BUT that is is only 1 and I believe that at one time only property owners be they male or female were the only ones able to vote. I would hardly call this single issue that affected both males and females an exclusive right for women to call themselves oppressed. Please give us more(better) examples of how women were/are oppressed. Thanks


DLove

There's a gigantic, enormous thread involving me and voting rights, um...oh dear, I can't remember which thread it is now.  Just a sec, let me check---it's "What's the deal with feminist myths?"

Um, Lisa, women have been able to vote for close to 100 years now.

Try again.   :)

Quote from: "Ikanneg"

There's a gigantic, enormous thread involving me and voting rights, um...oh dear, I can't remember which thread it is now.  Just a sec, let me check---it's "What's the deal with feminist myths?"

Um, Lisa, women have been able to vote for close to 100 years now.

Try again.   :)

;) Why?  That was my example of women being oppressed in the past...well, actually, the questioner asked for *more* examples of women being oppressed in the past and I haven't gotten to that yet, I was thinking about being lazy again and directing him to the property rights stuff on the same thread...

I do also owe example(s) of women being oppressed in the present, but I pretty much have to get those from other countries...haven't done that yet...homework!  :)

Hello Gerard

Back again with your off-putting pessimism again, I see ...

1) Of these 80% you don't know how many are actually men's-rights activists/masculists. It could be 50%/40% but it could also be 1% or 2%

You are quite right Gerard. I do not know the percentage of political activists who are concerned about men's rights - except that it is small.

The difference between you and me, however, is that I am trying to increase this percentage, whereas you seem to be trying to tell men that the effort is not worthwhile, and so undermining such effort.

Furthermore, the fact that you keep appearing on this forum suggests to me that you think that YOUR words will make some kind of difference - but not, apparently, anyone else's.

2) As I have pointed out before. "Real-life" activism beats online-activism with its hands tied down. There is (at the moment??) hardly any "real-life" activism from men and there is plenty from feminism, so feminism wins here.

For "Real-life" activism to occur, people need to have some psychological impetus to engage in it. How do YOU suggest we try to engender this?

Given that the mainstream media does not promote our viewpoint so allowing men can see what is going on, how else are we supposed get across our message except through the internet?

I have engaged in both real-life activism and online activism.

Have you?

I read the entire thread lkanneg and I am asking you, for you to please give me some better examples of women being oppressed. Please help me understand just what the widely used term "oppressed women" means and some valid examples. Now when one speaks of slavery...now that is oppression, being forced to work with no pay or being savagely beaten or even killed with no legal recourse...yeah I think would be considered oppression. My thanks to you in advance.

DLove

Dear AngryHarry,

I don't try to put off the people here. I am a dear proponent of masulism and men's rights. I visit your website too weekly by the way. I think it is a good website.
All i said was i doubt the way things are going now is the best way, but apparently all you people think things are going great so good for all u.

By the way, AH, I have always been wondering. Why did u wanted to stop with your website recently?? U didn't explain, all u said, well a message on your website said it very briefly, was u wanted to engage in other activism??
Why did u wanted to stop?

I read the entire thread and I am asking you, for you to give me some better examples of women being oppressed. Please help me understand just what the widely used term "oppressed women" means and some valid examples. Now when one speaks of slavery...now that is oppression, being forced to work with no pay or being savagely beaten or even killed with no legal recourse...yeah I think would be considered oppression. My thanks to you in advance.

DLove

This is a really good question and I am responding right now to let you know I am going to get to it definitely today!!  just kind of pressed for time right this very second (sigh) BUT I will definitely respond later.

Women have never been oppressed more wholey than their male counterparts.

Women have had hardships and men have had hardships.  Most of the issues were related to class and or race.

If women were oppressed in certain areas then it's typically because they had advantage in others.

Survival is a necessity.  For women today to go around saying "We want the oppurtunity to do whatever our hearts desire" is really a statement of priviledge.  And quite frankly probably falls more in line with upping University admissions for women at an age where pregnancy is probably more a real issue.  It's a sales pitch.

And to further the success of the sales pitch they added an oppressor, the 'male'.  

Everyone from tobbacco companies to politicians is using this formula.  And that's all it is, a formula.

Sad, but true.

I would like to study closer the voting rights though.  Why women's votes were revoked.

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"

Quote from: "Ikanneg"

There's a gigantic, enormous thread involving me and voting rights, um...oh dear, I can't remember which thread it is now.  Just a sec, let me check---it's "What's the deal with feminist myths?"

Um, Lisa, women have been able to vote for close to 100 years now.

Try again.   :)

;) Why?  That was my example of women being oppressed in the past...well, actually, the questioner asked for *more* examples of women being oppressed in the past and I haven't gotten to that yet, I was thinking about being lazy again and directing him to the property rights stuff on the same thread...

I do also owe example(s) of women being oppressed in the present, but I pretty much have to get those from other countries...haven't done that yet...homework!  :)

Ah, Ok.  But the way I read the question, it asked about past and present oppression and I picked up on the present oppression, so I suppose you answered half the question.  But as Dan Lynch points out, men were also oppressed in the past (we couldn't vote either yet had to fight in wars) and most of the oppression was based on class and race, not gender.   Further, I agree with Dan that men were oppressed at least as much as women in the past, and IMO for any given period of time on-balance men have endured more oppression than women.  E.g., comparing contemporary men to women in the past is not valid.  Apples and oranges.  I'm not saying you're doing this, but I'm not 100% sure that you aren't either.  

Many feminists will use the male CEO vs. the woman who cleans his office as a comparison of 'oppression,' but never consider the comparison of the CEO's wife vs. the female housekeepr's husband.  Compare the male CEO 's life with that of his wife, or the female housekeeper's with her (e.g., garbage man) husband's, but don't mix them.

I would like to study closer the voting rights though.  Why women's votes were revoked.

Well, somebody mentioned New Jersey as a place where, for a time, women had the vote--here's the info I found on the web:

Did you know that New Jersey women voted in the 1790s?
by Bob Blythe

Everyone knows that American women first got the vote in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment. Right? Wrong! Some New Jersey women voted as early as 1776. Historians argue about just what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues meant when they declared "that all men are created equal." Did the founders mean males only or were there some situations when "men" could mean all humans? What natural or political rights, in their view, did women possess? The unique case of women voters in New Jersey offers some clues.

The framers of New Jersey's first constitution in 1776 gave the vote to "all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds ... and have resided within the county ... for twelve months." The other twelve new states restricted voting to men. Although some have argued that this gender-neutral language was a mistake, most historians agree that the clear intention was to allow some women to vote. Because married women had no property in their own names and were assumed to be represented by their husbands' votes, only single women voted in New Jersey. But, in the 1790s and 1800s, large numbers of unmarried New Jersey women regularly participated in elections and spoke out on political issues.

In 1807, the state's legislature ignored the constitution and restricted suffrage to white male citizens who paid taxes. This was largely a result of the Democratic-Republican Party's attempt to unify its factions for the 1808 presidential election. A faction within the party wanted to deny the vote to aliens and the non-tax-paying poor. The liberal faction within the party gave way on this, but also took the vote from women, who tended to vote for the Federalist Party. In this way, New Jersey's 30-year experiment with female suffrage ended-not mainly because of opposition to the idea of women voting, but for reasons of party politics. A renewed focus on the importance of women in the home (as opposed to the public realm) may also have been a factor in the change.

Some historians have viewed the New Jersey episode as evidence that the founders entertained the possibility that women could have political rights. The emphasis on liberty and natural rights in the Revolutionary period brought previously excluded groups into the political process. For example, women took the lead in organizing boycotts of British goods in the disputes over colonial rights that led up to the Revolution. The writers of New Jersey's 1776 constitution took the natural rights sentiment further than other states were willing to go. Pretty clearly then, the idea of some women voting was considered one possibility among others in the Revolutionary era. By 1807, Revolutionary fervor was a distant memory, and New Jersey fell into line with the practice of the other states.

http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/voting_rights.html

I'm not sure which country you are in, but in the US, men are treated equitably in divorce court and with child support issues. Yeah, I've no doubt you can dredge up horror stories, but don't bother unless you have either an impartial source or both points of view. My understanding is he UK needs some work in this regard.

Are you for real?

no2fembots is convinced that you have little or no skills or abilities as a researcher to espouse such drivel.  Hell, you're ear can not even be near to the ground!  

Bah!   :x

I read the entire thread lkanneg and I am asking you, for you to please give me some better examples of women being oppressed. Please help me understand just what the widely used term "oppressed women" means and some valid examples. Now when one speaks of slavery...now that is oppression, being forced to work with no pay or being savagely beaten or even killed with no legal recourse...yeah I think would be considered oppression. My thanks to you in advance.

DLove

Okay, here I am (finally, sorry, lol).  

For the definition of "oppressed," let's look at my friend Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: op·press
1:  to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority  

I think the key phrase here is "abuse of power or authority."  Which means, in order for women to be oppressed by men, (a) the men had to have power or authority over them and (b) the men had to abuse that power/authority.  

"Power or authority" is most commonly granted, and easiest to see when it is granted, legally.  So the question would be, were there laws that (a) granted men power/authority over women and (b) was that power/authority abused?  

I think this post is getting unwieldy so I'll just pick one example, from the past...how about marital rape?  Until VERY recently in the past, there was no such legal concept as "marital rape."  The legal outlook on this was, once a woman consents to marriage, she can never refuse to have sex with her husband.  The legal definition of rape was, "sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without her consent." So, men were granted complete sexual power/authority over their wives...and when that authority was abused, she had no legal recourse at all.

Well, somebody mentioned New Jersey as a place where, for a time, women had the vote--here's the info I found on the web:tml

Thank you lkanneg.

It was basically what I had suspected.

Both parties at the core are essentially the same.  Even in tandem against federalism it appears that way.

I think the author makes a few assumptions and those people who don't know where the word man and woman come from are clearly illiterates.  The word "man" does not disinclude women.  I wonder why they made that assertion?  

I guess unmarried women would participate in the elections.  My belief is because for one house there was one vote.  Being tied to property rights yet again.  No one can say for certain that it was the man of the house who decided who they voted for.  And, I"m sure it was a woman in some cases who did the voting for the family.

Thanks again.

I think this post is getting unwieldy so I'll just pick one example, from the past...how about marital rape?  Until VERY recently in the past, there was no such legal concept as "marital rape."  The legal outlook on this was, once a woman consents to marriage, she can never refuse to have sex with her husband.  The legal definition of rape was, "sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without her consent." So, men were granted complete sexual power/authority over their wives...and when that authority was abused, she had no legal recourse at all.

That's becaus you don't understand the original definition of the term 'rape'.

The term rape was implied only in cases in which a man had relations with a woman that was not his wife.   It in fact it didn't even signifiy concent or non-concent.

So simply because the term was not applicable or used in cases of forced intercourse with his own wife, doesn't mean it was addressed.  As usual feminists pop the corn on another false assertion about alledged male privilidge.

And there was legal recourse for women, as there always has been.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

But as Dan Lynch points out, men were also oppressed in the past (we couldn't vote either yet had to fight in wars) and most of the oppression was based on class and race, not gender.

Problem with that: Men *as a gender* have never been disenfranchised.  Men not fitting certain other criteria have been...men without property, men of a certain race, etc. etc.  However, those criteria (property, race) always applied to both genders *equally* (women of that race or women without property also could not vote).  Men, *all* men, without exception, have never been legally disenfranchised in the US.  Women, *all* women, without exception, based solely upon their gender and no other factor, have.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

That's becaus you don't understand the original definition of the term 'rape'.

The term rape was implied only in cases in which a man had relations with a woman that was not his wife.   It in fact it didn't even signifiy concent or non-concent.

Rape didn't signify consent or non-consent?  If you could find some facts to back up that assertion...which I've never heard before...that'd be great.

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

So simply because the term was not applicable or used in cases of forced intercourse with his own wife, doesn't mean it was addressed.  As usual feminists pop the corn on another false assertion about alledged male privilidge. And there was legal recourse for women, as there always has been.

What legal recourse did women have, prior to forced intercourse with a spouse legally being considered "rape?"

<< That's becaus you don't understand the original definition of the term 'rape'. >>

That's rather patronising, don't you think?

Can anyone tell me, does the defintion of rape in US now include oral and anal intercolurse as it does here in UK since the amendment to the Sexual Offences Act in 2003 (only came into force in 2004)

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

Quote from: "lkanneg"

That's becaus you don't understand the original definition of the term 'rape'.

The term rape was implied only in cases in which a man had relations with a woman that was not his wife.   It in fact it didn't even signifiy concent or non-concent.

Rape didn't signify consent or non-consent?  If you could find some facts to back up that assertion...which I've never heard before...that'd be great.

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

So simply because the term was not applicable or used in cases of forced intercourse with his own wife, doesn't mean it was addressed.  As usual feminists pop the corn on another false assertion about alledged male privilidge. And there was legal recourse for women, as there always has been.

What legal recourse did women have, prior to forced intercourse with a spouse legally being considered "rape?"

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/Belfort_Bax.html


This link will give you a great deal of information about law in regards to the sexes.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

Quote from: "lkanneg"

That's becaus you don't understand the original definition of the term 'rape'.

The term rape was implied only in cases in which a man had relations with a woman that was not his wife.   It in fact it didn't even signifiy concent or non-concent.

Rape didn't signify consent or non-consent?  If you could find some facts to back up that assertion...which I've never heard before...that'd be great.

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

So simply because the term was not applicable or used in cases of forced intercourse with his own wife, doesn't mean it was addressed.  As usual feminists pop the corn on another false assertion about alledged male privilidge. And there was legal recourse for women, as there always has been.

What legal recourse did women have, prior to forced intercourse with a spouse legally being considered "rape?"

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/Belfort_Bax.html


This link will give you a great deal of information about law in regards to the sexes.

LOL, let me guess.  You post that because you know nobody's gonna read a 68 page essay for the sake of a message board thread.  :)

Seriously though...there's nothing in there at all about any legal recourse a wife could have if she were forced to have sexual intercourse with her husband, nor was there anything in there about how rape legally has nothing to do with consent or nonconsent.  If either of those *is* in there and I simply missed it, could you possibly point them out?

19th century Feminism in America
Feminism has put a lot of importance upon the past as a propaganda tool. Here I hope to correct some of the myths and inaccuracies that are put about, and give the other side of the story on a number of points. As is often the case with this sort of re-balancing the evidence provided is not intended to be a balanced picture all by itself. It is assumed that the reader has already heard an inbalanced account of the history of feminism from feminist sources. To the issues then:

"Feminist" from here on, refers to feminists of 19th century America.

http://www.angelfire.com/nb/feminism/history/index.html


Another interesting site.

Seriously though...there's nothing in there at all about any legal recourse a wife could have if she were forced to have sexual intercourse with her husband, nor was there anything in there about how rape legally has nothing to do with consent or nonconsent.  If either of those *is* in there and I simply missed it, could you possibly point them out?

I might, if I get so inclined.  I know what I am saying is true, but I have to ask, what do you care?

You're focusing on things that are specifically targetted to one group.

The statements are anti-marriage, and really only serve to justify a few things.  One thing is increased fascist control over the family.  The demonization of marriage as a concept.

It's like controlling history for control of the future.  Why do you focus on it?  What does it mean to you?  Why do you care?

Lastly, do you really think all those beautiful images of blissful marriages and the one special day, all through out history would have been projected that way if men were honestly that bastardly towards women as a whole?

This is the reason I believe feminism is a total fraud.  It uses all the key elements of former movements trying to assert the exact same things.  The only difference is instead it's gender.  

In all those countries where they tried to despell this people became more poor, not less.  More inhuman acts happened, not less.  More people were imprisoned not less.  Power was a premium held by elites who controlled the mouthpieces of society.

I personally don't care what you do or believe in, but hey, why not at least admit it.  If not to us, then to yourselves.

Your entire diatribe is a specific targetting of a perticular group.  This makes you part of an hate movement.   You exemplify each and every element of a hate movement.  Why?  What do you care?  Did you attend some meeting?  Did you volunteer for some group service?  Do you go to a 'women's studies' program?

Let's say you wanted to end domestic violence how would you go about doing it?

Wow, lkanneg!

You do an awsome impression of Kirsten. Right down being an engineer and the pulling out the dictionary routine. I'm waiting for the cries of "not all" and demands to prove that water is wet.

:lol:

Quote from: "lkanneg"

Seriously though...there's nothing in there at all about any legal recourse a wife could have if she were forced to have sexual intercourse with her husband, nor was there anything in there about how rape legally has nothing to do with consent or nonconsent.  If either of those *is* in there and I simply missed it, could you possibly point them out?

I might, if I get so inclined.  I know what I am saying is true, but I have to ask, what do you care?

Seems obvious to me but well, okay...we are having a debate...I raised a point...you said my point was false...I asked for a factual reference demonstrating that from you...you provided one...however I couldn't find any reference to the debate point in it...so I don't care as deeply as, say, I care about getting my car fixed, lol, but that's why I care at *all.*  However, I don't mind going off on the other tangents you spend the rest of your post presenting.  Let's go!  :)

The statements are anti-marriage, and really only serve to justify a few things.  One thing is increased fascist control over the family.  The demonization of marriage as a concept.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here...what statement is anti-marriage?

It's like controlling history for control of the future.  Why do you focus on it?  What does it mean to you?  Why do you care?

I can't *control* history; however, I can learn from it, and that's why it interests me.  

Lastly, do you really think all those beautiful images of blissful marriages and the one special day, all through out history would have been projected that way if men were honestly that bastardly towards women as a whole?

Well, let me try to figure out what you're saying...if you're saying I think that *all* men have mistreated *all* women at *all* times, then you're incorrect--I don't think that.  I do believe that women, as a gender, were legally subordinated to men, as a gender, historically, and unfortunately there *is* no situation I can think of where, when one group is legally subordinated to another, that abuses of that power do not take place.  (sigh) human nature, perhaps...

In all those countries where they tried to despell this people became more poor, not less.  More inhuman acts happened, not less.  More people were imprisoned not less.  Power was a premium held by elites who controlled the mouthpieces of society.

? Where who tried to dispel what?

Let's say you wanted to end domestic violence how would you go about doing it?

Oh, DON'T ask me that question!!  I don't *have* a solution...I don't actually have a solution about how to end *any* kind of crime totally, tbh.  Good ways to reduce crime:  education of potential victims and law enforcement officials about the crime itself, who is likely to commit it, how to recognize situations where it is more likely to occur, try to figure out what the motivator for the perp is and do what you can to combat that...

Seriously though...there's nothing in there at all about any legal recourse a wife could have if she were forced to have sexual intercourse with her husband, nor was there anything in there about how rape legally has nothing to do with consent or nonconsent.  If either of those *is* in there and I simply missed it, could you possibly point them out?

Likewise, there is nothing in there at all about the legal recourse a man could have in regard to adulterine bastards, because he was presumed to be the father of all children born to his wife, and was required to support them and his wife, and faced jail if he refused to.  Or the legal recourse he might havge when his wife swore she "had the sponge in" and kept turning out children the man had to labor to feed.

Like the infamous "Women in the middle ages were forced to marry for dynastic reasons rather than love" it ignores the fact that it was no bed of roses for the other side of that equation either - young lords and princes hardly had a parade of eligible bachelorettes to choose from, they were picked for them by their parents.

Seems obvious to me but well, okay...we are having a debate...I raised a point...you said my point was false...I asked for a factual reference demonstrating that from you...you provided one...however I couldn't find any reference to the debate point in it...so I don't care as deeply as, say, I care about getting my car fixed, lol, but that's why I care at *all.*  However, I don't mind going off on the other tangents you spend the rest of your post presenting.  Let's go!  :)

That's not what I meant.  I meant in general.  Why do you care about these issues?  Why feminist issues?  

I'm not sure what you're referring to here...what statement is anti-marriage?

The statement "Marital Rape" is anti-marriage.  The discussion is anti-marriage and its purpose by those who use it is for anti-marriage reasons.

I can't *control* history; however, I can learn from it, and that's why it interests me.

Other people can control history.  And I question your version of history along with all the typical feminist historical inacuracies.  

Well, let me try to figure out what you're saying...if you're saying I think that *all* men have mistreated *all* women at *all* times, then you're incorrect--I don't think that.  I do believe that women, as a gender, were legally subordinated to men, as a gender, historically, and unfortunately there *is* no situation I can think of where, when one group is legally subordinated to another, that abuses of that power do not take place.  (sigh) human nature, perhaps...

Well, I agree women are suborinated to men, but this is biology, this is nature.  Moses knew this, so do the people who push feminism.

In all those countries where they tried to despell this people became more poor, not less.  More inhuman acts happened, not less.  More people were imprisoned not less.  Power was a premium held by elites who controlled the mouthpieces of society.

? Where who tried to dispel what?

I'm talking about communists/socialists/fascists.  My claim that current day feminism only advocates for these ideals.  Wether it's Nazi like eugenics or the communist free market destruction plan, feminists only advocate these issues.  

Again, what exactly do feminists advocate for that doesn't increase government?

Oh, DON'T ask me that question!!  I don't *have* a solution...I don't actually have a solution about how to end *any* kind of crime totally, tbh.  Good ways to reduce crime:  education of potential victims and law enforcement officials about the crime itself, who is likely to commit it, how to recognize situations where it is more likely to occur, try to figure out what the motivator for the perp is and do what you can to combat that...

I agree those are good ideas.  Rarely do I hear leftwingers try to push things like "profiling".

Like the infamous "Women in the middle ages were forced to marry for dynastic reasons rather than love" it ignores the fact that it was no bed of roses for the other side of that equation either - young lords and princes hardly had a parade of eligible bachelorettes to choose from, they were picked for them by their parents.

This is not an attack at you Gonzo, but what is the point of this line of thinking?

I mean, feminists pour out how bad it was to get married for women in the year ..... Constantly reaffirming that line of thinking.  What is the point of it all?  And why do women of this generation give two shits?

Anyways, women did have recourse.  She could have the husband expelled from their home based on her word.  It would have been considered an act of violence.

If there was no recourse then there was no police to do anything.  I guess she could shot him in his sleep like they do legally here and now.

Quote from: "Gonzokid"

Like the infamous "Women in the middle ages were forced to marry for dynastic reasons rather than love" it ignores the fact that it was no bed of roses for the other side of that equation either - young lords and princes hardly had a parade of eligible bachelorettes to choose from, they were picked for them by their parents.

This is not an attack at you Gonzo, but what is the point of this line of thinking?

I mean, feminists pour out how bad it was to get married for women in the year ..... Constantly reaffirming that line of thinking.  What is the point of it all?  And why do women of this generation give two shits?

Anyways, women did have recourse.  She could have the husband expelled from their home based on her word.  It would have been considered an act of violence.

If there was no recourse then there was no police to do anything.  I guess she could shot him in his sleep like they do legally here and now.

The point is that the litany of feminist horror stories about "how bad women have had it" have always left out half the story.  It's called "not telling the whole truth."  Which is another way of saying "Lying."

The litany of feminist horror stories about "how bad women have had it" have always left out half the story.

Amen to that!  :shock:

I mean, feminists pour out how bad it was to get married for women in the year ..... Constantly reaffirming that line of thinking.  What is the point of it all?  And why do women of this generation give two shits?

Because they can use it to continue to shame men - and it works on a lot of men.  Power through victimhood (even if it's only victimhood-by-proxy).  Why else do you think that feminists are only interested in the part of history they can present as oppression of women.  AND, they don't really care what the reality was, which can lead to exaggeration or lying, because only the perception is needed to shame men.

That's how you get 18-year-old college girls mindlessly spouting, "I've been oppressed for thousands of years" (while daddy is paying for everything for her).

That's also why you see feminists in the Western world (especially US and UK) suddenly getting concerned about Saudi women not being able to drive.

They are just running out of things to shame men with, so they have to look to the past or look to foreign countries now.  They are "importing" a victim stance.

That's how you get 18-year-old college girls mindlessly spouting, "I've been oppressed for thousands of years" (while daddy is paying for everything for her).

How many of these 18-year-old girls actually know the first thing about the history of our species?

It always fascinates me, the arbitrary claims about the past that are made. Sometimes its 'Hundreds of years', sometimes its 'thousands of years' and sometimes they get very specific and claim that its exactly '2000 years', as though the birth of Christ marked a watershed in history when men suddenly rose up and began oppressing their women 24/7.

That's how you get 18-year-old college girls mindlessly spouting, "I've been oppressed for thousands of years" (while daddy is paying for everything for her).

I think there are less 18 year old girls in college whose daddies are paying for everything for her than you think..;)

That's also why you see feminists in the Western world (especially US and UK) suddenly getting concerned about Saudi women not being able to drive.

They are just running out of things to shame men with, so they have to look to the past or look to foreign countries now.  They are "importing" a victim stance.

Actually, I know a lot of guys who think that the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia is really shameful.

lkanneg thought:

I think there are less 18 year old girls in college whose daddies are paying for everything for her than you think..

Uh oh. Looks like we got a 'thinking' competition on our hands!

On your marks... Get set... THINK!!!

That's not what I meant.  I meant in general.  Why do you care about these issues?  Why feminist issues?  

Quote

I care about lots of issues, not just feminist issues...why do I care about "issues" in general?  Um, that would be a really long answer, full of philosophical ruminating....not sure you actually *want* me to go into that kind of detail, lol.

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

The statement "Marital Rape" is anti-marriage.  The discussion is anti-marriage and its purpose by those who use it is for anti-marriage reasons.

Quote

That's a strange point of view.  I agree that the *act* of marital rape is anti-marriage, but the act of attempting to eliminate it certainly isnt.  A marriage without rape is a much stronger marriage than a marriage with rape, wouldn't you think?

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

Well, I agree women are suborinated to men, but this is biology, this is nature.  Moses knew this, so do the people who push feminism.

Quote

Oh, now, that's silly.  My biology does not subordinate me to men.  It makes me *different* from a man, but not *less* than one.  I don't really know what Moses thought about biology and I bet it wasn't anything useful in the 21st century, lol.  

[

lkanneg thought:

Quote

I think there are less 18 year old girls in college whose daddies are paying for everything for her than you think..

Uh oh. Looks like we got a 'thinking' competition on our hands!

On your marks... Get set... THINK!!!

I like your sense of humor.   :lol:

lkanneg wrote:

Actually, I know a lot of guys who think that the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia is really shameful.

I'm sure that there are a lot of Saudi Men who think English men are treated shamefully.

The question is now, whose culture is correct?

I like your sense of humor.  :lol:  

Less  :lol: and more thinking!  :wink:

Pardon the interuption folks, I have been following every post on this thread, it has been most interesting!

I applaud all involved for remaining civil for 17 pages. On the average message board, after 17 pages thread-drift would be rampant, and Godwin's Law would have been invoked numerous times.

And I'd have to say, were this same "debate" happening on, oh, say, Trish's, or Hugo's, or Amp's, there would be flaming galore by the favored.

Again, hats off to everyone here for being able to raise and discuss these issues civilly!

:oh-yeah:

And lkanneg, my hat is off to you especially: you are asking really good questions which challenge a lot of the common beliefs around here, and you're doing it with great humor and patience!

Thanks everyone -- this is how we prove that we can have this discourse on a higher level. This speaks volumes for our character!

Anyway, please continue!

:popcorn:

I think the way some American women have treated Iraqi men is shameful.

Quote from: "DLove"

I read the entire thread lkanneg and I am asking you, for you to please give me some better examples of women being oppressed. Please help me understand just what the widely used term "oppressed women" means and some valid examples. Now when one speaks of slavery...now that is oppression, being forced to work with no pay or being savagely beaten or even killed with no legal recourse...yeah I think would be considered oppression. My thanks to you in advance.

DLove

Okay, here I am (finally, sorry, lol).  

For the definition of "oppressed," let's look at my friend Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: op·press
1:  to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority  

I think the key phrase here is "abuse of power or authority."  Which means, in order for women to be oppressed by men, (a) the men had to have power or authority over them and (b) the men had to abuse that power/authority.  

"Power or authority" is most commonly granted, and easiest to see when it is granted, legally.  So the question would be, were there laws that (a) granted men power/authority over women and (b) was that power/authority abused?  

I think this post is getting unwieldy so I'll just pick one example, from the past...how about marital rape?  Until VERY recently in the past, there was no such legal concept as "marital rape."  The legal outlook on this was, once a woman consents to marriage, she can never refuse to have sex with her husband.  The legal definition of rape was, "sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without her consent." So, men were granted complete sexual power/authority over their wives...and when that authority was abused, she had no legal recourse at all.

I think my biggest problem with most feminist doctrine is that it so often presents circular logic:

person 1: "Men oppressed women in the Western world."

person2: "How so?"

person1:  "Unitl recently, women didn't have the same legal rights as men, such as with ownership of property."

person2:  "Why was that?"

person1:  "Because men oppressed women in the Western world."

So I'd like to ask lkanneg -- as an academic exercise -- what else do you know about English Commonlaw and its evolution?  How'd it start?  How were property disputes and legal disputes handled?

It just seems to me that most people know precious little else about historical context other than a small bit of detail which supports their initial assumption.


A good book on the subject is "1215:  the Year of Magna Carta."

Here's a page with lots of relevant stuff regarding women and English common law:

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/english_common_law.html

Thanks lkanneg, I proposed to you a difficult question for most feminist to answer and although you chose to marital rape as the only 1 example to prove your point of how women were oppressed, I find it a poor example. No one really knows what transpires behind the closed door of a bedroom in the 18/19th century and just because modern law has expanded the legal definition of rape to include a wife that receives unwanted advances from her husband, this 21st legal definition can not be used in a debate that says "since women (wives) did not have a 21st century law and recourse for said unwanted advances (even if it was never needed) therefore they were oppressed (abuse of power or authority). The idea of a husband forcing himself on his wife is a visual; image used by feminist to demonstrate a mans power, however in reality, as a man you know that if you injure or hurt your bed mate you will suffer many, many unpleasant nights in the future. I believe you can do better than that.

DLove

I care about lots of issues, not just feminist issues...why do I care about "issues" in general?  Um, that would be a really long answer, full of philosophical ruminating....not sure you actually *want* me to go into that kind of detail, lol.

Oh, so evade the question.  Okay.  

That's a strange point of view.  I agree that the *act* of marital rape is anti-marriage, but the act of attempting to eliminate it certainly isnt.  A marriage without rape is a much stronger marriage than a marriage with rape, wouldn't you think?

It's not a strange point of view.  It's right on target to the intended purpose.  The issue isn't brought up to eliminate it at all.  None of the issues feminists have brought have been eliminated.  Even when their proven wrong they go out of their way to mislead us yet again to keep the racket going.  

If the stated goal in the very beginning was "Marriage must be done away with", than everything after that has led to that ends.  

It's the constant focusing on the negative aspects.  The constant power play within the dynamics of marriage.  It's all very incremental.  It's conditioning.

Oh, now, that's silly.  My biology does not subordinate me to men.  It makes me *different* from a man, but not *less* than one.  I don't really know what Moses thought about biology and I bet it wasn't anything useful in the 21st century, lol.

Sure it does.  I don't think you're less than a man by any means, but to day you're subordinated to men I think is quite accurate.  Women depend on men, they always have and they always will.

I don't make this statement because of sexism, or mysoginy or any other reason than objectivity.  

Genesis really knew what it was talking about.  Women by nature are dependants.  The whole feminist movement states that fact each and every single day.  Even though I don't for a second think feminism as it is today has anything to do with women specifically other than a means to an ends for a select few.

My real feelings are that women and men are two halves of the same pea, and were meant to be together.  Thus counterbalancing eachother's points.

Ikanneg's views are classic feminism-

She wants to redefine nature from what it is to what she thinks it should be.

Female dependency and submissiveness is obvious to those who have the stomach to be really honest.

A cursory examination of our hormones and our cells reactions to said hormones on the brain and the body clearly show this.

Feminism is all about pretending that there is no order to the world, and then they seek laws and rules to force everyone to conform to this rather pathetic illusion.

Ikanneg's views are classic feminism-

She wants to redefine nature from what it is to what she thinks it should be.

Female dependency and submissiveness is obvious to those who have the stomach to be really honest.

A cursory examination of our hormones and our cells reactions to said hormones on the brain and the body clearly show this.

Feminism is all about pretending that there is no order to the world, and then they seek laws and rules to force everyone to conform to this rather pathetic illusion.

Other's call it 'Darwinism'.  

Communists/Socialists etc... like this because they believe they can mold the world into their desired image.  Since those movements have failed they threw in feminism to try again.  I wonder if this is their last leg.

As far as I can tell they are winning...


There is a true backlash alive and kicking but it is going to be hard battle

Sounds about typical. Its called 'enjoying their independance'. What it mostly boils down to is enjoying their ability to wind almost any man around their little finger and obtain 24/7 clitoral pampering. Its one big ego-trip mind-game. What kinds of mothers and wives would such womyn make? Its not a pretty thought.

These are largely the same women who indulge heavilly in 'binge drinking' - unfortunatley for them their livers are not as robust as ours and in about twenty or thirty years *POW* - men will have to drink a LOT more just to close the gap back to parity in death rates! The 'sisters are doing it TO themselves'!

Quote from: "Galt"

That's also why you see feminists in the Western world (especially US and UK) suddenly getting concerned about Saudi women not being able to drive.

They are just running out of things to shame men with, so they have to look to the past or look to foreign countries now.  They are "importing" a victim stance.

Actually, I know a lot of guys who think that the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia is really shameful.

Oh it is always easy to cherry pick from another culture what *you* don't like about it whilst hypocritically remaining blind to the glaring faults in ones own culture.

As far as I can tell they are winning...


There is a true backlash alive and kicking but it is going to be hard battle

I agree.

My perception is that when the eugenics programs ramp up they will nullify male ingenuity, rebelliousness and create all around apthothetic individuals as slaves.

I'm sure women will have certain roles, either way it will still be gender roles,  but we'll be far more placated as a society.  I'm sure history books (if there are any) will make it all out to be 'advancement' in society.  The end of barbarity.  Designer 'serfs' if you will.

Hey, I think I just came up with a great idea for a porno.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

Quote from: "Galt"

That's also why you see feminists in the Western world (especially US and UK) suddenly getting concerned about Saudi women not being able to drive.

They are just running out of things to shame men with, so they have to look to the past or look to foreign countries now.  They are "importing" a victim stance.

Actually, I know a lot of guys who think that the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia is really shameful.

Oh it is always easy to cherry pick from another culture what *you* don't like about it whilst hypocritically remaining blind to the glaring faults in ones own culture.

Not to mention the full story within that culture.  ie the disregard for male hardships.

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"

I would like to study closer the voting rights though.  Why women's votes were revoked.

Well, somebody mentioned New Jersey as a place where, for a time, women had the vote--here's the info I found on the web:

Did you know that New Jersey women voted in the 1790s?
by Bob Blythe

Everyone knows that American women first got the vote in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment. Right? Wrong! Some New Jersey women voted as early as 1776. Historians argue about just what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues meant when they declared "that all men are created equal." Did the founders mean males only or were there some situations when "men" could mean all humans? What natural or political rights, in their view, did women possess? The unique case of women voters in New Jersey offers some clues.

The framers of New Jersey's first constitution in 1776 gave the vote to "all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds ... and have resided within the county ... for twelve months." The other twelve new states restricted voting to men. Although some have argued that this gender-neutral language was a mistake, most historians agree that the clear intention was to allow some women to vote. Because married women had no property in their own names and were assumed to be represented by their husbands' votes, only single women voted in New Jersey. But, in the 1790s and 1800s, large numbers of unmarried New Jersey women regularly participated in elections and spoke out on political issues.

In 1807, the state's legislature ignored the constitution and restricted suffrage to white male citizens who paid taxes. This was largely a result of the Democratic-Republican Party's attempt to unify its factions for the 1808 presidential election. A faction within the party wanted to deny the vote to aliens and the non-tax-paying poor. The liberal faction within the party gave way on this, but also took the vote from women, who tended to vote for the Federalist Party. In this way, New Jersey's 30-year experiment with female suffrage ended-not mainly because of opposition to the idea of women voting, but for reasons of party politics. A renewed focus on the importance of women in the home (as opposed to the public realm) may also have been a factor in the change.

Some historians have viewed the New Jersey episode as evidence that the founders entertained the possibility that women could have political rights. The emphasis on liberty and natural rights in the Revolutionary period brought previously excluded groups into the political process. For example, women took the lead in organizing boycotts of British goods in the disputes over colonial rights that led up to the Revolution. The writers of New Jersey's 1776 constitution took the natural rights sentiment further than other states were willing to go. Pretty clearly then, the idea of some women voting was considered one possibility among others in the Revolutionary era. By 1807, Revolutionary fervor was a distant memory, and New Jersey fell into line with the practice of the other states.

http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/voting_rights.html

Are you aware that civilisation as we know it didn't just fall out of the sky?
Every flagstone of civilisation was paid for with the blood, sweat and tears mainly of men. It has been a very difficult birth and in historical terms women were granted the privilege of the vote in hardly ANY TIME AT ALL and without having to pay the full price in blood.
:roll:

Are you aware that civilisation as we know it didn't just fall out of the sky?
Every flagstone of civilisation was paid for with the blood, sweat and tears mainly of men. It has been a very difficult birth and in historical terms women were granted the privilege of the vote in hardly ANY TIME AT ALL and without having to pay the full price in blood.
:roll:

Come on.  To say women weren't there labouring and sacrificing so insignificantly is delusional.  I know feminists paint a false picture, but geez, we don't have to cut women out of the picture completely.  It was a joint effort and if it wasn't it wouldn't have survived.  Without balance things fall over.  Think about it.

I'm sure that there are a lot of Saudi Men who think English men are treated shamefully.

The question is now, whose culture is correct?

That's easy...the culture with the greatest amount of gender, racial, ethnic etc equality, both de jure and de facto, is "correct."  JMO

And I'd have to say, were this same "debate" happening on, oh, say, Trish's, or Hugo's, or Amp's, there would be flaming galore by the favored.

Dying of curiosity...who are Trish, Hugo or Amp?  I think I've seen references to Hugo at least on this board...

And lkanneg, my hat is off to you especially: you are asking really good questions which challenge a lot of the common beliefs around here, and you're doing it with great humor and patience!

aw, feelin warm and fuzzy.... :oops:

But seriously, thanks!  I was really interested in finding out what you-all thought and felt, NOT in doing the troll thang.  Hopefully I am succeeding.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

I care about lots of issues, not just feminist issues...why do I care about "issues" in general?  Um, that would be a really long answer, full of philosophical ruminating....not sure you actually *want* me to go into that kind of detail, lol.

Oh, so evade the question.  Okay.  

I wasn't evading, I swear--or rather, I WAS evading, but not the question--I was evading a 50 page answer.  My motives are deep and convoluted and most importantly, long winded.  lol  In short...I will try to be in short...I care because I think life is hard enough without people sticking it to each other making it even harder.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

That's a strange point of view.  I agree that the *act* of marital rape is anti-marriage, but the act of attempting to eliminate it certainly isnt.  A marriage without rape is a much stronger marriage than a marriage with rape, wouldn't you think?

It's not a strange point of view.  It's right on target to the intended purpose.  The issue isn't brought up to eliminate it at all.  None of the issues feminists have brought have been eliminated.

Of course marital rape was brought up to attempt to at least REDUCE it--what issues are *ever* completely eliminated?  Making rape within marriage an actual crime is nothing BUT an attempt to eliminate it, as making anything else illegal is of course always an attempt to eliminate it.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

Oh, now, that's silly.  My biology does not subordinate me to men.  It makes me *different* from a man, but not *less* than one.  I don't really know what Moses thought about biology and I bet it wasn't anything useful in the 21st century, lol.

Sure it does.  I don't think you're less than a man by any means, but to day you're subordinated to men I think is quite accurate.  Women depend on men, they always have and they always will.

I don't make this statement because of sexism, or mysoginy or any other reason than objectivity.  

Genesis really knew what it was talking about.  Women by nature are dependants.  

(sigh) This is where you lose credibility..."women by nature are dependent upon men."  Well, no.  I'm a woman, and I am not by nature dependent upon *anybody,* male or female.  Do I *want* men in my life?  Oh, heck yes.  Do I NEED men in my life..?  Well, no.  I don't *need* anybody--I believe that's called "codependency."  Am I subordinate to the men in my life?  Oh, heck no.  ;) would they like me to be...?  Well, sometimes yes, I think.  Do I ever *want* to be.  OH NO!  :)  Seriously, not ever the slightest urge to be dependent upon anybody else, therefore, it's not "natural" to me, and since I am a woman...no.  Women are not "naturally subordinate," as a whole gender with no other criteria, to men, as a whole gender with no other criteria.

lkanneg said:

That's easy...the culture with the greatest amount of gender, racial, ethnic etc equality, both de jure and de facto, is "correct." JMO

Well actually it's not that easy. So the country with the most 'equality' can dictate to anyone how to behave? Remember the Prime Directive from Star Trek TNG? We don't have the right to tell any other culture how to behave or act. The idea that having 'equality' makes us better than them is very arrogant. In that respect you should take all your advice from Communist China.

What's next? Sailing into the Amazon and dictating to any tribes we find how to behave?

lkanneg said:

Quote

That's easy...the culture with the greatest amount of gender, racial, ethnic etc equality, both de jure and de facto, is "correct." JMO

Well actually it's not that easy. So the country with the most 'equality' can dictate to anyone how to behave? What's next? Sailing into the Amazon and dictating to any tribes we find how to behave?

Nope, that's a different question, the question being, "Should the culture you consider most correct have the right to march into other culture's countries and *make* them follow the mores of the more correct culture.."  My answer to that question would be, "No."  I thought, originally, you were just asking me which culture I thought was more correct.

lkanneg said:

Nope, that's a different question, the question being, "Should the culture you consider most correct have the right to march into other culture's countries and *make* them follow the mores of the more correct culture.." My answer to that question would be, "No." I thought, originally, you were just asking me which culture I thought was more correct.

Good point. But you still grade countries by equility though? So a communist country would do better than a capitalist country, for example?

You beat me to it, Neonsamurai.

Communism (at least theoretically) is the more "equal" society.

In practice, everyone is equal because they are all dirt poor (except for a few Bozos high up in the party), because there's no incentive to work.

Aside from that, I suppose we should encourage women to pee standing up and men to try to get pregnant.

lkanneg said:

Quote

Nope, that's a different question, the question being, "Should the culture you consider most correct have the right to march into other culture's countries and *make* them follow the mores of the more correct culture.." My answer to that question would be, "No." I thought, originally, you were just asking me which culture I thought was more correct.

Good point. But you still grade countries by equility though? So a communist country would do better than a capitalist country, for example?

Hmm...there are the *principles* of communism, and there are countries that currently and historically have *called* themselves "communist."  NOT quite the same thing...do I grade countries by equality?  Yes.  Is gender equality the *only* equality?  No, and I believe that the countries that historically/currently call themselves "communist" practice rampant forms of inequality all over the place (tbh, I have no idea what their records on *gender* equality are--hardly need to, though, considering how hideous their records on all other forms of equal treatment are--they've ALREADY failed without even *looking* at gender equality, lol)

Actually, your "equality" statement would be a good sound bite (maybe on Oprah), but if the statement is taken literally, then you would prefer a communist country in which the government is very oppressive, but equally oppressive to everyone, to a country in which there was less equality.

I don't think you mean that.

And sorry for the run-on sentence above.

Actually, your "equality" statement would be a good sound bite (maybe on Oprah), but if the statement is taken literally, then you would prefer a communist country in which the government is very oppressive, but equally oppressive to everyone, to a country in which there was less equality.

I don't think you mean that.

And sorry for the run-on sentence above.

I was sort of thinking along the same lines after I posted...actually, I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself.  For instance, I think in many respects capitalism, which in of itself doesn't really address the issue of gender equality, often RESULTS in it, naturally--and a natural result is by far the best result, most likely to become a fully integrated part of that culture.

Of course marital rape was brought up to attempt to at least REDUCE it--what issues are *ever* completely eliminated?  Making rape within marriage an actual crime is nothing BUT an attempt to eliminate it, as making anything else illegal is of course always an attempt to eliminate it.

Not considering its source.  The CPUSA used to spout this crapola constantly.  And they were professional liars.  Their goal was to eradicate marriage altogether.  The CPUSA is basically the founding father of 2nd wave feminism is America.  

This is why they want to have constant connotations with something that is a violent assault to equate to things like "marriage" and "dating".  It had nothing to do with ending or reducing the perticular crime but ending the relationship culture between men and women.  Which is the biggest impetus towards gaining a socialist/communist country. Emphasis theirs.

(sigh) This is where you lose credibility..."women by nature are dependent upon men."  Well, no.  I'm a woman, and I am not by nature dependent upon *anybody,* male or female.  Do I *want* men in my life?  Oh, heck yes.  Do I NEED men in my life..?  Well, no.  I don't *need* anybody--I believe that's called "codependency."  Am I subordinate to the men in my life?  Oh, heck no.  ;) would they like me to be...?  Well, sometimes yes, I think.  Do I ever *want* to be.  OH NO!  :)  Seriously, not ever the slightest urge to be dependent upon anybody else, therefore, it's not "natural" to me, and since I am a woman...no.  Women are not "naturally subordinate," as a whole gender with no other criteria, to men, as a whole gender with no other criteria.

We live in a simbiotic relationship to eachother.  Women are dependant on men, men are dependant on women.  Our species is bound that way.  Which is why communists hate the relationships between men and women thus create such stupid movements like 'feminism'.  Totalists want total control, therefore want you to be dependant on them.  But the problem is, governments are illusory and mostly imaginary.  Based on ideas and opinions.  Ideas and opinions die, the gender construct is reality.

If you don't think you are dependant on men go outside and take a look around.  Your dependancy on the male gender is inherent.  Not to mention the resiliency of the Y chromosome.

Quote from: "lkanneg"

Of course marital rape was brought up to attempt to at least REDUCE it--what issues are *ever* completely eliminated?  Making rape within marriage an actual crime is nothing BUT an attempt to eliminate it, as making anything else illegal is of course always an attempt to eliminate it.

Not considering its source.  The CPUSA used to spout this crapola constantly.  And they were professional liars.  Their goal was to eradicate marriage altogether.  The CPUSA is basically the founding father of 2nd wave feminism is America.  

This is why they want to have constant connotations with something that is a violent assault to equate to things like "marriage" and "dating".  It had nothing to do with ending or reducing the perticular crime but ending the relationship culture between men and women.  Which is the biggest impetus towards gaining a socialist/communist country. Emphasis theirs.

Quote

(sigh) This is where you lose credibility..."women by nature are dependent upon men."  Well, no.  I'm a woman, and I am not by nature dependent upon *anybody,* male or female.  Do I *want* men in my life?  Oh, heck yes.  Do I NEED men in my life..?  Well, no.  I don't *need* anybody--I believe that's called "codependency."  Am I subordinate to the men in my life?  Oh, heck no.  ;) would they like me to be...?  Well, sometimes yes, I think.  Do I ever *want* to be.  OH NO!  :)  Seriously, not ever the slightest urge to be dependent upon anybody else, therefore, it's not "natural" to me, and since I am a woman...no.  Women are not "naturally subordinate," as a whole gender with no other criteria, to men, as a whole gender with no other criteria.

We live in a simbiotic relationship to eachother.  Women are dependant on men, men are dependant on women.  Our species is bound that way.  Which is why communists hate the relationships between men and women thus create such stupid movements like 'feminism'.  Totalists want total control, therefore want you to be dependant on them.  But the problem is, governments are illusory and mostly imaginary.  Based on ideas and opinions.  Ideas and opinions die, the gender construct is reality.

If you don't think you are dependant on men go outside and take a look around.  Your dependancy on the male gender is inherent.  Not to mention the resiliency of the Y chromosome.

Has someone explained  (in another thread perhaps) the link between Communism and Feminism? Maatkare often sees Communism slung around here on this board.

lkanneg said:

I was sort of thinking along the same lines after I posted...actually, I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself. For instance, I think in many respects capitalism, which in of itself doesn't really address the issue of gender equality, often RESULTS in it, naturally--and a natural result is by far the best result, most likely to become a fully integrated part of that culture.

Okay, but as Galt has pointed out a Communist society is by definition the most equal. Regardless of if it works or not, communism is about absolute equality, so therefore the most 'correct'.

Now I know that you're not a communist, otherwise you wouldn't have served you country, but saying that American men can pass judgement on the behaviour of Saudi men because the American society is the most equal, would mean that the Americans would have to look up to the communists. Now that don't ring true in my book.

I'm not an expert on societies, but I always thought a situation where everyone is brought DOWN to the same level (it can't work the other way) is counterproductive. Such a situation cannot happen naturally. Even the dumbest animals on the planet use the capitalist model, natures law of survival of the fittest.

There are more things to judge a society on than just equality, success for example.

lkanneg said:

Quote

I was sort of thinking along the same lines after I posted...actually, I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself. For instance, I think in many respects capitalism, which in of itself doesn't really address the issue of gender equality, often RESULTS in it, naturally--and a natural result is by far the best result, most likely to become a fully integrated part of that culture.

Okay, but as Galt has pointed out a Communist society is by definition the most equal. Regardless of if it works or not, communism is about absolute equality, so therefore the most 'correct'..

Read my post again...I said, "I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself."  Which lets out communism as it has been practiced in the 20th century and pretty much zeroes in on capitalism as we practice it.

lkanneg said:

Read my post again...I said, "I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself." Which lets out communism as it has been practiced in the 20th century and pretty much zeroes in on capitalism as we practice it.

True, but as I said equality isn't natural. The natural state is survival of the fittest, without that you don't have evolution.

The only reason we have 'equality' now is through anti discrimination laws, which is a step away from true capitalism, which is only a few steps away from anarchy, like the middleages. If true equality was natural for us then we would have had it for hundreds of years, rather than the steps towards it in the last 30. Our equality is enforced by laws and is therefore artificial.

As you've said communist societies fail. They have to, because they go against the human spirit, the drive we all have to do better. The only way such societies can exist is with harsh laws and LESS freedom. As governments intervene more, we lose the edge that pushed western society to where it is today.

Western countries keep TRYING to go in the direction of more socialism (with more restrictive laws), and then they get bumped back into reality when they find out that unemployment gets worse, people and companies start packing up and leaving etc.

Germany is facing that right now with 10-12% unemployment under a Red / Green government.  Even Sweden had to lower its taxes a while back.

Capitalism is the worst form of government for those that preach 'equality'.

The reason for this is because men and women are not equal and have different abilities and interests so a truly capitalist country (one without affirmative action, and other artifical set asides) will end up unequal in the extreme.

Our country is, unfortunately, moving more socialist then ever before for the myriad of reasons often discussed on this board.

lkanneg said:

Quote

Read my post again...I said, "I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself." Which lets out communism as it has been practiced in the 20th century and pretty much zeroes in on capitalism as we practice it.

True, but as I said equality isn't natural. The natural state is survival of the fittest, without that you don't have evolution.

The only reason we have 'equality' now is through anti discrimination laws, which is a step away from true capitalism, which is only a few steps away from anarchy, like the middleages. If true equality was natural for us then we would have had it for hundreds of years, rather than the steps towards it in the last 30. Our equality is enforced by laws and is therefore artificial.

I disagree that if *something* was natural to us, we would have had it for hundreds of years...the US's capitalistic democracy is very, very new, in the history of humankind---does that make it "unnatural?"  What do you mean by, "unnatural?"  Is murder "natural" and having laws against it "unnatural?"  Does that make having laws against murder "bad?"

I disagree that if *something* was natural to us, we would have had it for hundreds of years...the US's capitalistic democracy is very, very new, in the history of humankind---does that make it "unnatural?"  

the US bran dof democracy is new, but democracy in and of itself has been around since the ancient greeks. and even then, it only applied to the wealthy and the aristocracy, not the general public. i would have to agree that if something were indeed "natural", would see far greater instances of it, or at least attempts at it. but what appears to be the only "natural" order, that is an order with which we tend to fall into when all else fails, is survival of the fittest. within that is the element of group survival. it would be better to stay in a group and help others than to fend on your own. this is the only "system" that appears to be "natural." all other "systems" are merely political ploys.

Quote from: "neonsamurai"

lkanneg said:

Quote

Read my post again...I said, "I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself." Which lets out communism as it has been practiced in the 20th century and pretty much zeroes in on capitalism as we practice it.

True, but as I said equality isn't natural. The natural state is survival of the fittest, without that you don't have evolution.

The only reason we have 'equality' now is through anti discrimination laws, which is a step away from true capitalism, which is only a few steps away from anarchy, like the middleages. If true equality was natural for us then we would have had it for hundreds of years, rather than the steps towards it in the last 30. Our equality is enforced by laws and is therefore artificial.

I disagree that if *something* was natural to us, we would have had it for hundreds of years...the US's capitalistic democracy is very, very new, in the history of humankind---does that make it "unnatural?"  What do you mean by, "unnatural?"  Is murder "natural" and having laws against it "unnatural?"  Does that make having laws against murder "bad?"

Okay, I'm writing this on my mobile phone, on a train, so bear with me:

I think if something comes 'naturally' to a person then it would mean that they are good at it. Human's have lived together for thousands of years because that is what we naturally do. We have done that before we actually had laws, although we knew right from wrong.

In your example you give murder as an example of a law. But if you murder somebody is a matter of opinion. My grandfather killed Germans in WW2, he didn't murder them, because the army he joined told him to. To murder somebody is to kill a 'goodie' rather than a 'baddie'. Like Jaketk said, we a social creatures, we form tribes, so if you were to kill your own tribe, you would be putting yourself in danger. It's counterproductive. So laws against murder are good for the tribe as a whole.

Laws that require the tribe to impair its own chance of survival would be flawed. A law requiring the tribe not to mate (for example) would backfire. I'm not saying that societies don't need laws, just that if a law lessens the effectivity of it, they why should we have it?