Israeli shop opens only to women

[Gerard Velthuis]

Well I guess when something happens like they are forced to take paternity leave, or when they are forbidden to work more than 32 hours a week

I honestly think t is very likely this will happen in the future. Especially about the paternity leave. I believe I have read that something like this already has been discussed in Scandinavia (where else).
I would be surprised to see this in the nearby future. Also I wonder whether men will get paid for this. I don't think they will though, since this is not the case at the moment either.

I also believe in the nearby future policy-makers will somehow try to "forbid"  men to work more than 32 hours a week. Or maybe they will make it very hard for men to work more. Of course there will be a problem with managers since they simply have to work more than 32 hours a week.
I believe the solution will be to force companies to hire at least (of course) 50% women as managers.

Yes I honestly believe we will see this in the future.

[devia]

Devia, I will take a page from the feminist playbook and suggest that the reason this store doesn't bother you is that you are a woman and no one will ever accuse you of sexual misconduct because of anything you did while your pants were still on.

Considering it doesn't bother me that there are many places in Ultra-Orthadox Judism where women cannot go, and that I support the idea of male only clubs, ANY private biz catering to whatever cliental they wish and excluding whoever they wish etc.. I would say that your suggestion is wrong.

Question.. Do you really think feminists are happy that Ultra-Orthadox Jewish women are not "free" to take their hats off when it the company of men outside of their family?

I would argue that in a free society (as Israel is) women are free to choose to be ultra-orthadox or not, and have free understanding of the code of conduct under their religon. Feminists would argue that being raised within that enviroment leaves them little choice, I would argue that with the thinking brain that God has given them if they are unhappy they can choose to change their lives.

Taking your point in another way, the sexual misconduct view. An ultra-orthadox women  would be accused of sexual misconduct if she was immodest in public. Do you disagree?

[typhonblue]

Well I guess when something happens like they are forced to take paternity leave, or when they are forbidden to work more than 32 hours a week.

Yes, I'm sure that being forced to work only 32 hours a week and having paternity leave will be the straw that breaks the back of most men.

:?

[Gerard Velthuis]

Gerard Velthuis said

Well I guess when something happens like they are forced to take paternity leave, or when they are forbidden to work more than 32 hours a week.

TyphonBlue said:

Yes, I'm sure that being forced to work only 32 hours a week and having paternity leave will be the straw that breaks the back of most men.

Typhonblue, it is not about the fact that it will break the backs of men or it will not. It is the fact that it will be forced upon men (which I am sure will happen sometime in the future). Nowadays, men are being pushed around and forced or stimulated to do things by governments, media, by peer influence etc. Governments have the ability to actually force men into doing things.
Forcing people is simply wrong, I don't care what it is about.

Hey, I am sure it wouldn't break the backs of women if women were forced to leave the workforce 5 yrs after the birth of a child.
I am sure it wouldn't break the backs of women if they were forced to work no more than 20 hours a week. It worked in the past didn't it?
So how about implementing this too?

Typhonblue, the more I read of your messages, the more I feel you are not a MRA at all. I know you already said you weren't, you feel like you are somewhere in between, but I say you are not even close to being considered somewhat a MRA. I feel you are more a feminist, I think you would feel more comfortable in this position.

I hate discussing with feminists. A MRA or masculist can never debate with a feminist, since they believe in pretty much opposites and their beliefs are also very strong. So most of the time these are discussions that will never end (which is why I choose not to debate with feminists like Devia or Ikanneg). I hope you not a feminist like they are, but I feel that you come close.
I think it would be better for the men's movement to focus on the "common man" or the common mass, then to debate with feminists.
The common mass is influencable, and willing to compromise or adjust their ideas. That is why we should focus on them. For this it is necessary to provide good and adequate information.

To come back at your message. I guess it means you would also be fine with the fact that women are constrained by the above mentioned policies.
Of course, you are not. Just like everybody and everything, there should be NO restrictions on women WHATSOEVER. But for men it is totally fine.
This is not only a big double-standard but is also very insulting

[devia]

So Gerald.


Not being able to uncover their hair in front of strange men is not a restriction?

And frankly if I, not to mention Typhoon is labled a feminist in your eyes then I can't imagine any women on the planet not being one in your eyes.

[LibertyUNH]

Typhonblue, the more I read of your messages, the more I feel you are not a MRA at all. I know you already said you weren't, you feel like you are somewhere in between, but I say you are not even close to being considered somewhat a MRA. I feel you are more a feminist, I think you would feel more comfortable in this position.

I dont know. I do not think any one of us considers mens rights as important as other human rights, and those of us that do never speak about it in public.  Like here...

But even though none of what is said here is of any use to men's equality anyway, I believe that all of us in particularly Devia and Typhonblue make good contributions to this board.

[Gerard Velthuis]

Devia said:

So Gerald.


Not being able to uncover their hair in front of strange men is not a restriction?

Yes Devia, obviously this is a restriction. HOWEVER, there is much scepticism in the world about this, and many countries are attacking this, trying to change it. They do not accept it. At the moment it might be a sensitive issue and countries might be careful with bans, however it is an every day issue and opposition is always on the lure.
Restricting men or forcing men to do something is completely different, since this WILL be accepted and endorsed (at least that is my prediction).
I hope you can see the difference

And frankly if I, not to mention Typhoon is labled a feminist in your eyes then I can't imagine any women on the planet not being one in your eyes.

In my opinion, TyphonBlue constantly defends women, while at this board, the purpose is to attack and discuss injustice done towards men. Not women, there are plenty of other forums where this can be discussed.
Maybe Typhonblue would be more suitable at these places.
It is not just one or two messages that I use to judge a person. I am noticing a pattern, on which I base my opinions.

I do not think any one of us considers mens rights as important as other human rights

If this is the case, we can all just quit right now. So you think men's issues are not as important as human issues.
Have you EVER heard a feminist say anything similar about women's issues. Of course not. This is one of the reasons why feminists are successful and at the moment we are not (much).
You really should not say such a thing LibertyUNH. You are making men's issues now a secondary (or lower) priority. This way you will never win a "war".

I believe that all of us in particularly Devia and Typhonblue make good contributions to this board.

Why are Devia and Typhonblue in particular so important here?
What makes them superior to us? Because this is what you are implying right now.

Second, I do not agree they are making a great contribution. I say they both act (and probably are) as feminists.
We need a cohesive men's movement. The men's movement is already as small as it is. That is why it is even more important we form a cohesion. Allowing feminists, at this board will only weaken this cohesion.
I say we need a place exclusively for men, in which men can say what is on their minds and are not judged for it (as is being done in real life all the time). It is important for men to talk about men's issues, privately and together with other men. Only this way can you create a bond between men and can you create a stronger group with stronger beliefs and are you able to recruit more other men.
Feminists will blur all this. I see this as counter-productive. (Dr. E of course has his right to allow feminists, but personally, sorry Doc, I think we are better off without them). Besides, as said, feminists have plenty of places to choose from online, which outnumber men-only places significantly. Let them go here, and leave us alone. Besides, discussions are pointless anyway, since both parties will never agree with each other, nor change their ways of thinking. Eventually, the feminists will leave again, just like Mater Domina or Ikanneg, so what is the point?? Just a waste of time if you ask me, which we could have invested better in other issues.

[Mr. Bad]

Typhonblue, the more I read of your messages, the more I feel you are not a MRA at all. I know you already said you weren't, you feel like you are somewhere in between, but I say you are not even close to being considered somewhat a MRA. I feel you are more a feminist, I think you would feel more comfortable in this position.

Gerard, settle down.  You're not only starting to sound absurd, you're starting to piss me off.  Lay off of typhonblue and Devia vis-a-vis the ad hominems.  I happen to enjoy their contributions to this board, even if I don't agree with them from time to time (this being the case more with Devia than typhon).  I personally don't care if typhon is a feminist (although I don't think she is) and the fact that Devia leans toward feminist - if not outright identifies as one - also doesn't bother me.  I respect and enjoy both of them and care less about their ideology than I do the cogent posts they contribute, which as I said, I thoroughly enjoy.

From my POV your comments are bordering on harassment and IMO that's completely inappropriate for this forum.

[LibertyUNH]

I do not think any one of us considers mens rights as important as other human rights

If this is the case, we can all just quit right now. So you think men's issues are not as important as human issues.
Have you EVER heard a feminist say anything similar about women's issues. Of course not. This is one of the reasons why feminists are successful and at the moment we are not (much).
You really should not say such a thing LibertyUNH. You are making men's issues now a secondary (or lower) priority. This way you will never win a "war".

I am sorry.  I dont mean that.  What i meant was my philosophical point that very very few MRAs consider men's rights to be nearly as important as other human rights.  Those who are not MRA have even much lower opinion of mens human rights.

[devia]

Yes Devia, obviously this is a restriction. HOWEVER, there is much scepticism in the world about this, and many countries are attacking this, trying to change it. They do not accept it. At the moment it might be a sensitive issue and countries might be careful with bans, however it is an every day issue and opposition is always on the lure.
Restricting men or forcing men to do something is completely different, since this WILL be accepted and endorsed (at least that is my prediction).
I hope you can see the difference

Yes and no, does the individual who has the restriction bother with who is endorsing it?
Are editorials and the like a greater influence then the family?

IMHO you are labling all restrictions on women as non existent, all those on men to be all consuming, and any female poster to be the enemy.

Not something I would consider to be a rational viewpoint

[Malakas]

Excuse me but you're all quibbling about which of your personal values you want to impose on other cultures that you scarcely understand.

Seeing the world only through the lens of N. America (and its client states) is simplistic.
Devia:

Not being able to uncover their hair in front of strange men is not a restriction?

My God, flashing your bangles is a basic human right? How easy it is to cherry-pick one small fruit from a a culture that spent a thousand years trying to achieve social harmony and progress and largely suceeded. Suddenly the latest hairdo is more important than a thousand years of (non-western) history.

If we are confining the discussion to Femidom you all make good points. Projecting the discussion farther afield is a bridge too far.

Why is butting out not an option? Could Dr. E makes some rules on 'gross negative generalisations' about other cultures?