Feminism gone too far. [Archive]

tragula

28 Feb 2005, 09:30 PM

Well, I guess I am a proponent of that view. Ahem...cough cough.

Well.

I would say that the reason people don't notice this is that it is a moral "blind spot". People have been so brainwashed into seeing the word "sexism" applied only in one direction, that they are not tuned in to reverse discrimination. Once you become aware of it it is rather amazing how man-negative our culture is! You start seeing it everywhere.

The main villains as far as I'm concerned are the feminists who got so revved up that they forgot about equality and set out to malign and dominate men in general.

They created political initiatives meant to advance women's rights, that simply go too far. As I have pointed out previously the common understanding is that girls are discriminated against in schools. When in fact the reverse is more true.

Child Custody laws are also a major issue. Courts in many states will assume the mother is a better parent.

There are also issues with feminism hurting women. Stay at Home Moms are often denigrated by working moms for choosing to stay home. As if raising children were somehow a less worthy activity than pursuing a career. They are criticized as betraying the cause...

Here are a few interesting links:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ravitch/19981217.htm

http://GlenSacks.com/glenns_columns.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

http://www.menweb.org/malebash.htm

http://www.askmen.com/fashion/austin_100/106_fashion_style.html

Arioch

28 Feb 2005, 09:37 PM

I saw a video in Sociology a while ago. In Holland they are making it very hard for a woman to be a "stay-at-home" mom. It's not bad enough that it's financially hard to do it such women are also sometimes suffering from peer preassure from feminists who demand that they go out and get a job.

This is a example of it going wrong. If a woman wants to stay home and take care of her children instead of working I think she should be supported in this. God knows it would do society some good to have future generations actually raised instead of unleashed on the streets.

Of course if a man makes a agreement with his wife that she should work and he stays at home, I have no problem with this.

Arioch

28 Feb 2005, 09:39 PM

I don't think I've ever said feminism has gone too far. But I just wish it had never been invented.

I don't believe in any form of equality anywhere. The concept is merely maya or illusion. But if I would not give women the vote, it's rather cancelled out by the fact that I wouldn't give anyone the vote: including me.

If in personal life I would prefer,

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/ray05.jpg

Gabrielle Ray

or,

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/Ck041.jpg

Carmen Kass

to Strong Women like Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher, it shouldn't concern you in the least.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

I don't know who Gabrielle Ray is but I'm going to try and find out.

songbird36

28 Feb 2005, 09:45 PM

She was one of the early "models". Featured on a lot of postcards and in magazines.

Arioch

28 Feb 2005, 09:57 PM

She was one of the early "models". Featured on a lot of postcards and in magazines.

Oh, thanks. Wow, looks like a true blue lady.

cjs55

28 Feb 2005, 10:04 PM

I think the movement of feminism is very narrow-minded and also simply incorrect in many of its assumptions. A holistic way of looking at gender is needed.

I always wonder why 90% of my gender in society textbook was about women?

songbird36

28 Feb 2005, 10:07 PM

The Isis and Ishtar cults have much to offer in this regard.

They were goddesses who were worshipped in a holistic sense, and with a sense of balance in relation to women's role in the world.

Claverhouse

28 Feb 2005, 10:30 PM

I don't know who Gabrielle Ray is but I'm going to try and find out.
Not a model, but a 'Gaiety Girl' from the old Gaiety Theatre pre WWI. Photos of her are rather variable, but despite being beautiful she had a rather tragic later life. Short biog here at Wicked Lady (http://www.wickedlady.com/gray/)..

My Yahoo Gabrielle Ray list has just died, due to there being only one member, it's illustrious founder, but I'll resurrect it without the demonic Yahoo elsewhere....

I'll send Arioch some links if I find them, but in the meantime, here's some of her wearing gloves (http://www.operagloves.com/Classicstars/GabrielleRay/gabrielleray.html).

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Shai Gar

28 Feb 2005, 10:47 PM

feminism and mysogony tend to be just different sides of the same coin these days.
the coin of gender hate.

for one example, womyn.

sbw

28 Feb 2005, 10:56 PM

The main villains as far as I'm concerned are the feminists who got so revved up that they forgot about equality and set out to malign and dominate men in general.

Yes, I think this is correct. As always with the far-left here in america, they started with a good, high-minded concept ("the radical notion that women are people, too" as the bumper sticker goes) and illogically extrapolated this goal to the extent that they became just as corrupt and power-mad as their alleged oppressors, i.e., they want THEIR kind to have MORE rights than the other group, rather than the exact same rights. Think of the "black leaders" who want "reparations" in return for past transgressions perpetrated by OTHER white people who are DEAD now. That's not equality, it's just a different kind of discrimination. And the radical-feminist thing is pretty much the same. Seems to me that the people on the left can't handle success.

Oh, and, I don't think I've ever been one of the people (OK, men, whatever) here complaining about "feminists." Yes, I think that radically-left-wing feminist women are stupid, but they don't bother me. My life is going pretty OK, and it's not the feminists' fault that I can't get laid. They are welcome to their collective delusion, just as the christians are.

Scott

Boneca

1 Mar 2005, 12:43 AM

Arioch

1 Mar 2005, 12:47 AM

Not a model, but a 'Gaiety Girl' from the old Gaiety Theatre pre WWI. Photos of her are rather variable, but despite being beautiful she had a rather tragic later life. Short biog here at Wicked Lady (http://www.wickedlady.com/gray/)..

My Yahoo Gabrielle Ray list has just died, due to there being only one member, it's illustrious founder, but I'll resurrect it without the demonic Yahoo elsewhere....

I'll send Arioch some links if I find them, but in the meantime, here's some of her wearing gloves (http://www.operagloves.com/Classicstars/GabrielleRay/gabrielleray.html).

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Hmm.. one can say what one wants but one thing seems clear. The lady had style.

Your former yahoogroup reminds me of one I myself created once, just for the Elite. As you might have guessed the group had a relative shortlife but nevertheless it served it's purpose. Namely to host some of my files so I could access them at school

Geoff

1 Mar 2005, 12:54 AM

I have no idea how the situation is in the U.S., so it's possible that you've never come across the concept of feminism gone wrong, deepsky (assuming you are indeed from the U.S.), but I have.

In Sweden there has been a lot of talk about using "gender quotas" in various boards and management groups because of the male dominance in the political and economic world.
That would mean that if you have f.ex. a board of directors, a certain percentage of the members must be women, even if there are male candidates with higher qualifications.
Personally, I think this is absolutely crazy. It is reverse discrimination, since jobs could go to a woman with less competence than the male applicants. Secondly, it's like a slap in the face to the women who actually already have such positions. It will lead to people questioning whether they got that job on their own merits or if they were just hired to fill the quota.

It's because things like this that I won't call myself a feminist. I'm only for equal rights for both genders.

I couldnt agree more. Reverse discrimination does indeed cause negative feelings like "did she get appointed to make up the female numbers?" I've seen it in practice. There still is a glass ceiling in the business world - I work with lots of professionals and corporate people and up to a certain level there is a good mix of men and women.. but go up to, say, finance director and there the women largely disappear. Not totally, but the ones who do survive at that level are not often particularly traditionally feminine.

-Geoff

CreativeChaos

1 Mar 2005, 01:10 AM

It's a theme I've seen repeated over and over on this forum: I hate feminists, those rabid feminists, they've gone too far. I honestly have never, ever seen any behavior by any woman or political group that I would categorize thusly, so I'm really curious what exactly people are talking about when they say it.

What is feminism gone too far? I suspect that it's when women stop titillating, but I'll give you anti-feminists the benefit of the doubt. Please explain yourselves.

One Movie. Demi Moore in G.I. Jane. Good grief! They turned her into a man! And there is NO WAY that a petite women like her could outdo the TOP MEN in the COUNTRY physically!

THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY!

And at the end, remember the chant when she was hoisted upon the shoulders of the "adoring" macho men? "SUCK MY DICK!"

Sorry, lady, you ain't got one. AAAcccckKKKKK!!!!! :rant:

Star

1 Mar 2005, 01:21 AM

I have no idea how the situation is in the U.S., so it's possible that you've never come across the concept of feminism gone wrong, deepsky (assuming you are indeed from the U.S.), but I have.

Yes, Sweden is a very different place. I've heard it's the most woman-friendly place to live in the entire world. Nowhere in the USA will you find any kind of action being taken to balance power between men and women. I can understand how you happened to come to your point of view, but really, something has to be done, at some point, doesn't it? Is it better to have a country run by 'the best' who happen to be men, who generally had more opportunity to become 'the best' at whatever it is that they do, or do we take one generation to straighten out this imbalance? I prefer the more drastic approach, though, sadly, it leads to this backlash we see here, from both genders.

It's important, I think, to point out that in the USA we have all of the backlash (and then some) and none of the social gains; in fact the situation for women is getting worse. So, I think that you are very fortunate to live in the best country on earth (yes I said it, Sweden kicks Australia's and everyone else's ass) it's important to remember that American women are being forced out of their homes and away from their children, or coerced to stay in marriages where they are battered (welfare-to-work) and women in, say, Afghanistan are dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire.

Star

1 Mar 2005, 01:22 AM

One Movie. Demi Moore in G.I. Jane. Good grief! They turned her into a man! And there is NO WAY that a petite women like her could outdo the TOP MEN in the COUNTRY physically!

THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY!

And at the end, remember the chant when she was hoisted upon the shoulders of the "adoring" macho men? "SUCK MY DICK!"

Sorry, lady, you ain't got one. AAAcccckKKKKK!!!!! :rant:

I'm sorry, CC, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.

Solo

1 Mar 2005, 01:27 AM

Feminisim like all other equality movements goes too far. The whole women empowerment idea is misguided. Whenever a group tries to make themselves equal some other groups is now discriminated against. Giving certain priviledges for women because they are women isn't fair. Now matter how you look at it. Yes in the past men recieved things because they were men. I know that. But it doesn't excuse women getting what they believe they "deserve". Two wrongs have never made a right.

I have nothing against trying to be equal. I just don't like it when the quest for equality leaves someone out in the cold. I'm all about fairness and a lot of programs/idealologies/events that come from these types of movements aren't fair. They just seem fair.

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 01:44 AM

Child Custody laws are also a major issue. Courts in many states will assume the mother is a better parent.
When I divorced many years ago, the Texas judge told me to my face that that I could not have joint custody of my son (much less full custody) because I was a soldier ... and therefore not capable of being a parent. I asked him how that compared to all the single mothers in the army, and he threatened to hold me in contempt of court. The only thing I was permitted to do, as a father, was open my wallet every month. When my ex played games with visitation, the courts did absolutely nothing to stop it.

Despite all this, I do not hold a grudge against women for what happened. My ex raised my son very well ... probably better than I could have. It just underscores that there are pros and cons associated with either gender role in society ... both perceived and actual. Neither side is a cakewalk.

CreativeChaos

1 Mar 2005, 01:50 AM

I'm sorry, CC, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.

Uhhh.... that's an example of feminism gone too far. I don't like it when Hollywood tries to turn women into men. It's dangerous. Especially now when they are showing women fighting men, as if they could win.

Really!!! In real life, most self-defense experts tell women to run!!! And Scream!! And if all else fails use the defense tactics.

But Hollywood would have us believe that the average women could and would "kick butt" of the average male.

That simply is NOT the case. The average male totally can really harm a lady and it would be foolish of any women to try and fight some dude, even if she does know Karate or whatever. I think it is creating a dangerous attitude that it is okay for women to fight men. I don't think so.

(I'm really controlling my use of caps here.) But that is my point. Passionately. It's BAD news.

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 01:51 AM

I couldnt agree more. Reverse discrimination does indeed cause negative feelings like "did she get appointed to make up the female numbers?" I've seen it in practice. There still is a glass ceiling in the business world - I work with lots of professionals and corporate people and up to a certain level there is a good mix of men and women.. but go up to, say, finance director and there the women largely disappear. Not totally, but the ones who do survive at that level are not often particularly traditionally feminine.
-GeoffWhen I was in grad school, they offered female students with a 2.5 average $15,000 computer science fellowships, while I only received $2,000 for a 4.0 average. Yes, it pissed me off at the time ... but you know, I made it through anyway since there were enough other programs available to me at the time to make up the difference. So ... the system was equitable for me despite the advantage offered to women in that one respect.

I am still shocked at the salary disparity between men and women in the USA. My wife has been a critical care nurse for 20+ years, and male nurses with less than five years of experience have higher salaries than her. ... and this is in a traditionally female field. I can only imagine how bad it is in traditionally male fields.

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 01:54 AM

Uhhh.... that's an example of feminism gone too far. I don't like it when Hollywood tries to turn women into men. It's dangerous. Especially now when they are showing women fighting men, as if they could win.
I knew a little 5'0" female attack helicopter pilot who kicked some major ass against enemy tanks. She was downright lethal. Of course, that was due to her piloting skill rather than hand to hand combat. She certainly had a killer instinct though.

Solo

1 Mar 2005, 01:54 AM

Yes, Sweden is a very different place. I've heard it's the most woman-friendly place to live in the entire world. Nowhere in the USA will you find any kind of action being taken to balance power between men and women. I can understand how you happened to come to your point of view, but really, something has to be done, at some point, doesn't it? Is it better to have a country run by 'the best' who happen to be men, who generally had more opportunity to become 'the best' at whatever it is that they do, or do we take one generation to straighten out this imbalance? I prefer the more drastic approach, though, sadly, it leads to this backlash we see here, from both genders.

It is better for a country to be run by the best. If they happen to be men so be it. Less qualified women should be given leadership under the guise of equality. Everyone has the oppurtunity to be the best. With hard work and perserverance anyone can achive anything.Yes I do belive what I just said.

You want to know what would balance the power? Women going out and earning their power. Not saying they deserve it or trying to change the system to make it "fair"

It's important, I think, to point out that in the USA we have all of the backlash (and then some) and none of the social gains; in fact the situation for women is getting worse. So, I think that you are very fortunate to live in the best country on earth (yes I said it, Sweden kicks Australia's and everyone else's ass) it's important to remember that American women are being forced out of their homes and away from their children, or coerced to stay in marriages where they are battered (welfare-to-work) and women in, say, Afghanistan are dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire.

American women aren't being forced out of anything. Women have choices. They don't have do give in and get a job. If a woman stays in an abusive relationship knowing that her spouse will continue to abuse her then she deserves what she gets. Yes I said it.

Star

1 Mar 2005, 01:55 AM

Uhhh.... that's an example of feminism gone too far. I don't like it when Hollywood tries to turn women into men. It's dangerous. Especially now when they are showing women fighting men, as if they could win.

Heh, how tangential is that. Hollywood, imo, is doing no such thing. I never saw this movie but I strongly suspect that the intention was to make her look ridiculous and sexy at the same time, in order to sell tickets. Kinda like Charlies Angels.

mgb

1 Mar 2005, 02:02 AM

It is better for a country to be run by the best. If they happen to be men so be it. Less qualified women should be given leadership under the guise of equality. Everyone has the oppurtunity to be the best. With hard work and perserverance anyone can achive anything.Yes I do belive what I just said.

You want to know what would balance the power? Women going out and earning their power. Not saying they deserve it or trying to change the system to make it "fair"

American women aren't being forced out of anything. Women have choices. They don't have do give in and get a job. If a woman stays in an abusive relationship knowing that her spouse will continue to abuse her then she deserves what she gets. Yes I said it.

You may have a point here if your arguments weren't divorced from reality.

Women don't have the same opportunity to earn power that men do. Call it a glass ceiling, call it discrimination, whatever, it exists.

No one deserves to get abused. You are dismissing the entire psychology of abuse.

Boneca

1 Mar 2005, 02:02 AM

I can understand how you happened to come to your point of view, but really, something has to be done, at some point, doesn't it? Is it better to have a country run by 'the best' who happen to be men, who generally had more opportunity to become 'the best' at whatever it is that they do, or do we take one generation to straighten out this imbalance? I prefer the more drastic approach, though, sadly, it leads to this backlash we see here, from both genders.Yeah, perhaps we just have to agree to disagree here. I think that we should take a look at why women aren't qualified enough, i.e. the root of the problem, instead of having quotas. A gender quota puts even more emphasis on the applicant's sex, when what we wanted was exactly the opposite.

So, I think that you are very fortunate to live in the best country on earth (yes I said it, Sweden kicks Australia's and everyone else's ass) it's important to remember that American women are being forced out of their homes and away from their children, or coerced to stay in marriages where they are battered (welfare-to-work) and women in, say, Afghanistan are dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire.Wow, I actually didn't know Sweden was that highly regarded abroad. You are right in saying that I was lucky, and in a way that has perhaps made it harder for me to understand the issues of feminism. I have never been discriminated in my life.

I do feel sorry for the women in Afghanistan and wherever else they're oppressed. It's just that I would feel exactly as sorry for a man in the same situation, whereas the feminists I've met wouldn't. They would rather help the women, due to some mysterious intragender connection that I simply don't understand. Why would I call a woman I've never met my "sister", while any man would be our common enemy? :huh: When the feminists (in my country) start with their war analogy, I can't help but feeling like Switzerland.

mgb

1 Mar 2005, 02:07 AM

Yeah, perhaps we just have to agree to disagree here. I think that we should take a look at why women aren't qualified enough, i.e. the root of the problem, instead of having quotas. A gender quota puts even more emphasis on the applicant's sex, when what we wanted was exactly the opposite.

I could see setting quotas as being the only way to break longstanding "old boys clubs". I imagine that after there is some equality that the quotas might be removed.

If you had a woman and man both equally qualified for a positions and the men were consistently getting the jobs, you would have to wonder if maybe the entire structure needs to be altered somewhat. The best way to change things might have been to force it.

Star

1 Mar 2005, 02:11 AM

Everyone has the oppurtunity to be the best. With hard work and perserverance anyone can achive anything.Yes I do belive what I just said.

You want to know what would balance the power? Women going out and earning their power. Not saying they deserve it or trying to change the system to make it "fair"

"Now there is another myth that still gets around: it is a kind of over reliance on the bootstrap philosophy. There are those who still feel that if the Negro is to rise out of poverty, if the Negro is to rise out of the slum conditions, if he is to rise out of discrimination and segregation, he must do it all by himself. And so they say the Negro must lift himself by his own bootstraps.

They never stop to realize that no other ethnic group has been a slave on American soil. The people who say this never stop to realize that the nation made the black man’s color a stigma. But beyond this they never stop to realize the debt that they owe a people who were kept in slavery two hundred and forty-four years.

In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed by Abraham Lincoln. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful. It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that that person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. And you just go up to him and say, "Now you are free," but you don’t give him any bus fare to get to town. You don’t give him any money to get some clothes to put on his back or to get on his feet again in life.

Every court of jurisprudence would rise up against this, and yet this is the very thing that our nation did to the black man. It simply said, "You’re free," and it left him there penniless, illiterate, not knowing what to do. And the irony of it all is that at the same time the nation failed to do anything for the black man, though an act of Congress was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest. Which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor."

--- Martin Luther King

I think it applies to institutionalized sexism as well as racism, and explains why just recognizing the problem is not enough.

Boneca

1 Mar 2005, 02:20 AM

I could see setting quotas as being the only way to break longstanding "old boys clubs". I imagine that after there is some equality that the quotas might be removed.

If you had a woman and man both equally qualified for a positions and the men were consistently getting the jobs, you would have to wonder if maybe the entire structure needs to be altered somewhat. The best way to change things might have been to force it.That is of course the purpose of the quota, I understand that. But I can't help but wonder if there aren't better ways to change this, without the backlash? I mean, if there are no suitable female applicants for a job, there is usually a reason for this. Perhaps there is an unfriendly attitude to women in the education system, or perhaps there aren't that many women who want to be directors? There is after all a statistical difference in personality types between genders, as all you MBTI freaks know.
Just saying "x% of this board have to be women" is an overly simplistic and poorly thought out solution, in my opinion.

tragula

1 Mar 2005, 02:21 AM

Solo

1 Mar 2005, 02:22 AM

You may have a point here if your arguments weren't divorced from reality.

Women don't have the same opportunity to earn power that men do. Call it a glass ceiling, call it discrimination, whatever, it exists.

No one deserves to get abused. You are dismissing the entire psychology of abuse.

When you talk about people being equal you say they are same. You ignore the (usually) physical characteritcs that make two people different. When you set up gender quotas, like Boneca said, it defeats the point of equality becasue you focus on what makes them different.

Equality itself is an unrealistic goal. Anyone can see that. Trying to force change won't do anything. During the civil rights movement a lot of things were done to force change and to get people to see each other as equals. Are blacks and whites equal now? No they aren't. They are just less unequal that before.

I think the only way one can try to achieve equality is to completely ignore differences like race and gender. Unfortunatly I can't do that becasue no one else will. That is why my ideas seem divorced from reality.

tragula

1 Mar 2005, 02:29 AM

If a woman stays in an abusive relationship knowing that her spouse will continue to abuse her then she deserves what she gets. Yes I said it.

Women are not above lying about abuse in a divorce either. In order to gain full custody of the kids, and hurt her husband.

The probably don't need any evidence either, the courts would just give them the benefit of the doubt.

mgb

1 Mar 2005, 04:45 AM

Women are not above lying about abuse in a divorce either. In order to gain full custody of the kids, and hurt her husband.

The probably don't need any evidence either, the courts would just give them the benefit of the doubt.

That must be because all women are spitefull bitches out to screw their husbands over. Right?

Give me a break tragula, the number of women abused in any way, probably far out numbers the number of wives lying to the court.

And for every woman lying about that there is porbably a man lying about how much he makes so he doesn't have to pay support.

Star

1 Mar 2005, 04:49 AM

Wow, I actually didn't know Sweden was that highly regarded abroad.

Yeah.. it sounds like a utopian novel compared to the USA.

For those who might not know:

"Sweden has an extensive childcare system that guarantees a place for all young children from 2-5 years old in a public day-care facility.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides for childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 30 days reserved specifically for each parent. A ceiling on health care costs makes it easier for Swedish workers to take time off for medical reasons."

-- from Wikipedia entry on Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden)

I think Sweden was also considering having women take part in compulsory military service. To even consider that puts them leaps and bounds ahead of the USA.

Boneca

1 Mar 2005, 04:58 AM

I think Sweden was also considering having women take part in compulsory military service.It has been debated, yes, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. I would be for it if I wasn't against compulsory military service in general.

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 05:22 AM

A question Boneca ... how high is the tax rate in Sweden?

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 05:29 AM

I think Sweden was also considering having women take part in compulsory military service. To even consider that puts them leaps and bounds ahead of the USA.That would certainly get my vote here in the USA. I think it should either be compulsory for both genders, or not compulsory at all. Perhaps special consideration so that both parents are not called up at the same time.

SensEye

1 Mar 2005, 06:29 AM

I think that we should take a look at why women aren't qualified enough, i.e. the root of the problem, instead of having quotas. Here's an interesting dissertation on the subject if you've got some reading time: http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

Star

1 Mar 2005, 06:56 AM

Here's an interesting dissertation on the subject if you've got some reading time: http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

Inspired by CC, I'd like to put a face to this text. You know, to make it more human and all. :devil:

http://www.president.harvard.edu/biography/photos/portrait.jpg

Poor guy. He really wants to believe that there's no difference in mathematical aptitude between men and women, but he just cant. Let's give him hugs.

Vagabond

1 Mar 2005, 06:57 AM

When you talk about people being equal you say they are same. You ignore the (usually) physical characteritcs that make two people different. Equality is about giving the same opportunities to everyone and judging them according to their capabilities/performance and not according to their gender (or race or whatever), it is not about having equal number of men and women in a job position. People should be judged as people, gender left aside, and whoever is best at something gets the recognition/job/whatever.

If more men perform better for a certain job position for instance, then more men should have it (and the opposite). Applicants should be judged by their individual abilities, not by the group mentality of their gender. This way, you get to have quality over quantity. In that sense, I don't see how equality is unrealistic.

In short, I agree with Boneca.

tragula

1 Mar 2005, 07:00 AM

That must be because all women are spitefull bitches out to screw their husbands over. Right?

Give me a break tragula, the number of women abused in any way, probably far out numbers the number of wives lying to the court.

And for every woman lying about that there is porbably a man lying about how much he makes so he doesn't have to pay support.

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement to say that "some" women are capable of lying about that. I have no idea what the numbers are for any of those scenarios. I imagine the number of men lying about what they make is probably way higher than the others. Although my understanding is that child support payments are a complicated subject.

I think the biggest problem these days is move away moms. Where divorced custodial mothers decide to move out of state (or out of the country) and sever their children's relationship with their dads. That's not good for the dads, it's not good for the kids, and it's not good for society.

In any case, my assumption is never that any woman is spiteful. Or that any man is a deadbeat liar.

What I think is true is that the gloves tend to come off in child-custody situations, and that desperate people can resort to anything. And in that situation I was suggesting that the courts would probably give more credence to the mother's word than to the father's.

http://GlenSacks.com/us_supreme_court.htm

http://GlenSacks.com/its_child_support.htm

tragula

1 Mar 2005, 07:07 AM

Poor guy. He really wants to believe that there's no difference in mathematical aptitude between men and women, but he just cant. Let's give him hugs.

Well, actually. While public opinion has clearly made up its mind, the facts are not really that clear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/opinion/23judson.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/opinion/23murray.html

mgb

1 Mar 2005, 07:56 AM

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement to say that "some" women are capable of lying about that. I have no idea what the numbers are for any of those scenarios. I imagine the number of men lying about what they make is probably way higher than the others. Although my understanding is that child support payments are a complicated subject.

I think the biggest problem these days is move away moms. Where divorced custodial mothers decide to move out of state (or out of the country) and sever their children's relationship with their dads. That's not good for the dads, it's not good for the kids, and it's not good for society.

In any case, my assumption is never that any woman is spiteful. Or that any man is a deadbeat liar.

What I think is true is that the gloves tend to come off in child-custody situations, and that desperate people can resort to anything. And in that situation I was suggesting that the courts would probably give more credence to the mother's word than to the father's.

http://GlenSacks.com/us_supreme_court.htm

http://GlenSacks.com/its_child_support.htm

I'm a little confused on why you are trying to turn this issue into a black and white one.

You say, "I think the biggest issue is move-away moms." You could say that dead-beat dads and move away moms are both big problems, instead you blame moms for moving away and pre-emptivily attack any arguments about dead-beat dads with a link.

Having seen a divorce happen in the past year and watch my dad try and force my mom into the poorhouse because she was trying to get her share of their 31 year marriage, I might consider myself biased here. However, I can sympathize with someone trying to leave a state or province after going through something like that. Your arguments seem to be divorced of any emotions involved in the process as you leap to the defense of men across the world. A divorce is a difficult process for anyone to go through and they might want to move away to get a fresh start. That said I can also understand a man falling on hard times and not being able to keep up with support payments and I agree that sterilization isn't the right way to control that.

So far though, this isn't a complete justification for a position against feminism.

While I despise trying to define a debate mid way through it's probably early enough to do it here.

I see feminism as a social, political and economic movement. It goes far beyond the realm of custody battles and I might even go so far to say that number of the inequities in those cases pale in comparison to the treatment of women throughout the world and through history.

Here are some worldwide statistics: from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism)

The following is a sampling of statistics related to the relative status of women worldwide.

* Worldwide, women work more than men, when both paid employment and unpaid household tasks are accounted for, according to the United Nations Human Development Report 2004: Section 28, Gender, Work Burden, and Time Allocation (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/pdf/hdr04_HDI.pdf). In rural areas of the developing countries surveyed, women perform an average of 20% more work than men, or an additional 98 minutes per day. In the OECD countries surveyed, on average women performed 5% more work than men, or 18 minutes per day.
* Women own only 1 percent of the world's wealth, and earn 10 percent of the world's income, despite making up 51 percent of the population. (disputed — see talk page)
* Women are underrepresented in all of the world's legislative bodies (see Women in National Parliaments, November 2004 (http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm)). In 1985, Finland had the largest percentage of women in national legislature at approximately 32 percent (P. Norris, Women's Legislative Participation in Western Europe, West European Politics). Currently, Sweden has the highest number of women at 45 percent. The United States has just 14 percent. The world average is just 9 percent. (Wales, while not an independent country has 50% of its members being women.)
* In much of the third world, women are considered as effectively property, and have no legal rights in practice. Millions of women are expected to undergo female circumcision. In some areas, rape is used as a sentence for a crime, even crimes not committed by the women themselves. (See, for example, the case of Mukhtaran Bibi.) (disputed — see talk page)

Maybe it would be adventagous to discuss why these inequities exist and why it is wrong to challenge these inequities (I mean if you are against feminism).

In some ways it doesn't seem like feminism goes far enough. I also don't feel that feminism = mysogeny any more that I would say that an end to segregation = reverse racism.

Miss Anthropic

1 Mar 2005, 10:09 AM

They created political initiatives meant to advance women's rights, that simply go too far. As I have pointed out previously the com

There are also issues with feminism hurting women. Stay at Home Moms are often denigrated by working moms for choosing to stay home. As if raising children were somehow a less worthy activity than pursuing a career. They are criticized as betraying the cause...

This is really no longer valid here in the U.S since it is very difficult for many families to survive on one income. In the 90's and continuing now is a trend where upper income career women are taking time off to stay home and be moms. I know among my peers it is a luxury to be an at-home, full-time mom. You probably get more judgement from people for being a stay-at-home dad...you are sort of in the position stay-at-home moms were in the 70's and 80's. (I have a friend who is full time dad--he's pretty cool about it, and does an excellent job at it as well)

WOW! mgbradsh! Lot of info there. Good job. There is more to it than women stepping on men to 'get ahead'.

mgb

1 Mar 2005, 11:01 AM

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=2857

lighten up

You know, I think this might be a great example of what deepsky is talking about. While meant to be an example of Thermo's perception of women it seems to miss the mark on being a compliment.

Here is the initial post:

LEGAL NOTE: These are generalizations, I realize they don't apply to ALL women or ALL men, but I think these points are the general rule.

While women have shortcomings, they do have some really good aspects. I wanted to avoid sexuality, because it complicates things.

1.) Women are better listeners.

2.) Women are more sensative.

3.) Women are usually more willing to compromise.

4.) Women are mothers.

5.) Women are more aesthetically pleasing than men. I think that can be apreciated in a non-sexual way. Lets face it, women are a work of art and men are hairy, flatulent dump trucks.

While complimentary is seems to bring attention to many stereotypes about women that can in fact be quite negative to some.

Take number one for example. "Good listeners." Now an INTP female, I am guessing based on my INTPness, probably isn't a good listener, so by saying that a women is a good listener you may actually be exluding a large number of women from your compliment. And insulting the rest. As well, if a guy is a good listener does that somehow make him more effeminate? And is that a negative?

It is probably these types of generalizations based on gender that have no place on a site like this one. Typically, I would say that an INTP, male or female, tends not to fit in well to generalizations. While seemingly complimentary I think that it could be pretty easy to construe that thread as insulting, especially when the link for it is telling someone to lighten up.

tragula

1 Mar 2005, 05:01 PM

This is lifted from Wikep.... for people who don't have the time to click on links. (Hope doing this is Kosher. Oh well.) I think it is pretty complete.

Masculist observations

Masculists cite many instances of what they see as anti-male discrimination. Their claims include legislation viewed as one-sided, selective enforcement, and neglected civil rights including:

* child custody strongly favoring mothers; belief that children grow better with the mothers only
* some men being incarcerated for the inability to pay unrealistic child support payments
* children aborted or given up for adoption without fathers' consent
* men risking their lives in conscripted military service (exceptions exist, e.g. Israel, where women are also conscripted. They do not serve in combat.)
* high-risk employment, but receiving no special honor for doing so
* justice system being overwhelmingly biased against men (i.e. - longer incarceration rates as compared to women, for the same crimes)
* anti-male biased legislation (such as WIC and VAWA), using the word women in the law title
* men charged in some domestic violence cases, even when victims
* men charged in some rape and sexual harassment cases with no evidence beyond the plaintiff's claim, with greater repercussions as a result of this
* research and free speech repressed unless pro-feminist; feminists argue that most research performed by women has not been given proper regard
* men fired from their jobs for dissenting with feminist ideology in the workplace
* hate crimes against men
* violence by women against men being depicted in a humorous context in the media
* relative lack of funding for men's health; far more money funded for female causes than for male causes
* lack of advocacy for men's rights and entitlement programs for women only
* lack of educational aid for boys and men
* special government agencies for women's affairs with no corresponding agencies for men's affairs
* Earlier age of autonomy for women than men in some countries. (In some states of the United States women may legally move out of the house at 17, but men have to wait to be 18)
* Men less likely to receive aid from strangers if in some kind of trouble (broken down car, harassed, attacked by an animal, etc.)
* Women overall treated more respectfully than men in public
* routine infant male circumcision

Some masculists also note that feminist ideology is taught in universities, where it is misleadingly labeled as "Women's studies".

cjs55

1 Mar 2005, 05:21 PM

Certainly some interesting and valid points in that list. Some not as much.

Especially not valid:
"* Men less likely to receive aid from strangers if in some kind of trouble (broken down car, harassed, attacked by an animal, etc.)"

I think this is to some extent a natural human response, and not a learned behavior (although it could be reinforced or counteracted by society).

Especially interesting:
"* relative lack of funding for men's health; far more money funded for female causes than for male causes"

This is something that I have thought about for a while. It seems that many of the diseases that men get are simply not a concern of society. This could go back to a natural human response, but I don't think it quite is because it is different than actually physically helping someone with something.

And feminist studies is called "Gender Studies" at my university.

Thermo

1 Mar 2005, 06:04 PM

Equality is about giving the same opportunities to everyone and judging them according to their capabilities/performance and not according to their gender (or race or whatever), it is not about having equal number of men and women in a job position. People should be judged as people, gender left aside, and whoever is best at something gets the recognition/job/whatever.

If more men perform better for a certain job position for instance, then more men should have it (and the opposite). Applicants should be judged by their individual abilities, not by the group mentality of their gender. This way, you get to have quality over quantity. In that sense, I don't see how equality is unrealistic.

Vagabond encapsulated exactly what I wanted to say in the other thread.

Thermo

1 Mar 2005, 07:43 PM

I was trying to avoid this thread and whole gender thing, because people are so hypersensative(purposely spelled wrong) about it. The words exageration, assumptions, and "blown out of porportion" come to mind.

You know, I think this might be a great example of what deepsky is talking about. While meant to be an example of Thermo's perception of women it seems to miss the mark on being a compliment.

Yeayyyyy!!!!! VERY NICE Thermo!

Good list.

I think this thread is to make up for women being relegated to Neanderthal status in *other* recent threads.

And yeah, I agree with this post. Women pretty much rock.
Here are four women that disagree with you.

While complimentary is seems to bring attention to many stereotypes about women that can in fact be quite negative to some.

Take number one for example. "Good listeners." Now an INTP female, I am guessing based on my INTPness, probably isn't a good listener, so by saying that a women is a good listener you may actually be exluding a large number of women from your compliment. And insulting the rest. As well, if a guy is a good listener does that somehow make him more effeminate? And is that a negative?
When you put it that way, I guess if I said women have legs that would have been a big slap in the face to handicapped women.

It is probably these types of generalizations based on gender that have no place on a site like this one. Typically, I would say that an INTP, male or female, tends not to fit in well to generalizations. While seemingly complimentary I think that it could be pretty easy to construe that thread as insulting, especially when the link for it is telling someone to lighten up.
What have we learned here? I can't say anything negative about minorities, because that means I am a racist/sexist. Minorities are perfect. Its all or nothing, black or white period. You would think INTPs would have little trouble grasping the grey area in betwen. I can't say anything positive either, because I am just being a sneaky racist/sexist.

Furthermore, I have stated many times I believe everyone deserves equal rights regardless of sex, race, etc. Aparently, that isn't good enough for minorities, or at least there defenders here. They need more rights, which isn't called racist, but equity. The last time I checked more and equal don't mean the same thing. Ironically, one group having more rights than another is bad only under certain circumstances.

The real barrier to equality is a open dialogue. If you are unwilling to discuss the issues and anyone who disagrees with you is somehow racist or sexist, how can you expect equality to happen? This attitude creates a witch hunt atmosphere where everyone is afraid to say anything. This attitude may stop overt racism and sexism, but you will never create equality or respect. The same principles apply to any human relationship, ask Doctor Phil.

You also happen to miss the first line at the top of the post or ignored it.

LEGAL NOTE: These are generalizations, I realize they don't apply to ALL women or ALL men, but I think these points are the general rule.
When I look back "lighten up" was more than appropriate and probably to tame, especially when you consider the context of Deepsky's initial post and her juvenile behavior in general. After this post, I would say lighten up applies to you, too. How can misconstrue good listeners to mean "go in the kitchen and bake me a pie" is beyond me.

songbird36

1 Mar 2005, 08:42 PM

Masculist observations

Masculists cite many instances of what they see as anti-male discrimination. Their claims include legislation viewed as one-sided, selective enforcement, and neglected civil rights including:

* child custody strongly favoring mothers; belief that children grow better with the mothers only
* some men being incarcerated for the inability to pay unrealistic child support payments
* children aborted or given up for adoption without fathers' consent

Tragula it may interest you to know that my ex husband left me with no suggestion whatsoever from him that he would even *want* custody of the kids, and since then he has tried to fight and limit his financial liability towards them as well.

I'm sorry but I don't buy all this masculinist crap - there may be some kind and committed men who feel they are hard done by, but many simply want to wash their hands of responsibility (both financial and emotional) towards the kids they have spawned.

I'm sorry, but that's the reality.

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 08:47 PM

I had the opposite experience of wanting custody of my son, but the courts would not consider it because I was a soldier at the time. His mother got full custody and I was denied even joint custody. She also played games with the visitation, and the courts did nothing. I took my responsibilities very seriously and ensured that child support was paid in full and on time. (She bought a very nice house for herself with that money.) I also made use of every single visitation time that was offered.

I do realize that I might be the exception here rather than the rule. I have divorced friends who seem not to care about their offspring.

songbird36

1 Mar 2005, 08:53 PM

Yes I have total empathy for Dads who want to play more of a part, but who have been denied that right.

But there are a large number out there (my ex included) who would prefer not to be lumbered with the responsibility, who are happy to leave it completely to the woman, and who weasel out of financial commitments at every opportunity.

The child support system in NZ is in fact weighted in favour of the male in this equation. There is a legal formula that is based on the man's income (not the needs of the child) so that if he is unemployed or whatever, he doesn't legally have to pay anything much.

Furthermore, if he unilaterally elects to form another relationship and have more kids, his child support liability to the kids from the first relationship is proportionately reduced. I think this is quite wrong.

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 08:58 PM

The child support system in NZ is in fact weighted in favour of the male in this equation. There is a legal formula that is based on the man's income (not the needs of the child) so that if he is unemployed or whatever, he doesn't legally have to pay anything much.

Furthermore, if he unilaterally elects to form another relationship and have more kids, his child support liability to the kids from the first relationship is proportionately reduced. I think this is quite wrong.
That sounds similar to child support laws in Texas, with the exception that there is a minimum level that the supporting parent (often, but not always, the man) must pay even if he or she is unemployed. Failure to pay can mean a jail sentence. Bankruptcy or unemployment are not considered excuses for non-payment. I consider this fair, because a child has to eat even if the parent is unemployed or bankrupt. Not so sure about the prison sentence though. What support can the parent provide from a jail cell?

tragula

1 Mar 2005, 09:01 PM

songbird36

1 Mar 2005, 09:02 PM

No there shouldn't be a prison sentence. Hardship should also be taken into account.

But at the moment my ex is paying the legal minimum he is obliged to pay, which is far less than the actual needs of my children (or 50% of those). I therefore have to make up the shortfall and at the moment, fortunately I can do that, but if something happens to me or I lose my job, I have no idea what will happen.

songbird36

1 Mar 2005, 09:04 PM

I would strongly agree with the idea that worldwide what is still needed is a feminist revolution.

I have modified my position on this recently because of some things I've read about status and health. It appears that the higher your status is in society (not wealth btw) the longer you live. So there may be "good" reason many people in fact chose to maintain their socio-economic status. Now if we could just find a way to confer high status on stay at home parents....

Sorry I disagree. When I was married and we had kids, we couldn't afford to live on my ex's income at any stage, so I always had to keep working part-time. Had we tried to live on his income we would have been in a one bedroom flat and unable to have a house of our own. I suppose we could have theoretically survived like that, but at what price survival?

tragula

1 Mar 2005, 09:08 PM

Your arguments seem to be divorced of any emotions involved in the process as you leap to the defense of men across the world.

I think that we all start from a position that we are somewhat emotionally invested in and try and find evidence to defend it. Even as INTP. And including myself.

If we are lucky, through dialogue we come to see the other side of the coin, and end up with a well balanced opinion. :)

I have just as many opinions about world-politics, or more, but I hardly ever dip into that section because I have more passion for these issues.

tragula

1 Mar 2005, 09:13 PM

Sorry I disagree. When I was married and we had kids, we couldn't afford to live on my ex's income at any stage, so I always had to keep working part-time. Had we tried to live on his income we would have been in a one bedroom flat and unable to have a house of our own. I suppose we could have theoretically survived like that, but at what price survival?

I said most people. Definitely not all. I just think plenty of people who do have a choice draw the line in the wrong place, and use the income problem as an excuse for not staying home.

Funny you should say that though. We live in a 1 bedroom "flat." And are quite happy. Of course at Manhattan prices that's equivalent to.... And dear son is of course growing...

Star

1 Mar 2005, 09:14 PM

Here's an interesting dissertation on the subject if you've got some reading time: http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

I'd like to return to this, because he does make some interesting points. I felt it was important to know the source and read it with a critical eye, though.

One thing that he suggests is that women fail to reach the top levels in their professions because of work interruptions like maternity leave. I think the Swedish system might go a long way to fixing this in the USA: compulsory (I believe it is compulsory; if it's not, it should be in our case) paternity -and- maternity leave, for both parents, when a child is born. Why don't we have that?

And since we don't, it is easy to see why women are favored in custody cases. Obviously the law believes that parenting is primarily the mother's job.

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 09:22 PM

One thing that he suggests is that women fail to reach the top levels in their professions because of work interruptions like maternity leave. I think the Swedish system might go a long way to fixing this in the USA: compulsory (I believe it is compulsory; if it's not, it should be in our case) paternity -and- maternity leave, for both parents, when a child is born. Why don't we have that?

And since we don't, it is easy to see why women are favored in custody cases. Obviously the law believes that parenting is primarily the mother's job.The bank where I work does offer 3 months of both maternity and paternity leave ... but other places I have worked were not so elightened. When I was in the army, they forced me to leave the state on maneuvers during the time period my wife was due ... then they did not pass on notification that my son had been born. If the government treats people like that, there is small wonder that there is little headway with progressive laws.

songbird36

1 Mar 2005, 09:24 PM

I said most people. Definitely not all. I just think plenty of people who do have a choice draw the line in the wrong place, and use the income problem as an excuse for not staying home.

Funny you should say that though. We live in a 1 bedroom "flat." And are quite happy. Of course at Manhattan prices that's equivalent to.... And dear son is of course growing...

Yes I full appreciate that sacrifices have to be made to allow a parent to stay at home. I really wish I'd had the choice to do that. But I was lucky in that a part time income (around 10-15 hrs a week for the first few years) was all that was needed for us to get by.

So I had plenty of time to be a mother and spend time with the kids, and I now have a good relationship with them as a result. I still only work part time now too - even though they are older and at school.

mgb

1 Mar 2005, 09:36 PM

I was trying to avoid this thread and whole gender thing, because people are so hypersensative(purposely spelled wrong) about it. The words exageration, assumptions, and "blown out of porportion" come to mind.

Here are four women that disagree with you.

When you put it that way, I guess if I said women have legs that would have been a big slap in the face to handicapped women.

What have we learned here? I can't say anything negative about minorities, because that means I am a racist/sexist. Minorities are perfect. Its all or nothing, black or white period. You would think INTPs would have little trouble grasping the grey area in betwen. I can't say anything positive either, because I am just being a sneaky racist/sexist.

Furthermore, I have stated many times I believe everyone deserves equal rights regardless of sex, race, etc. Aparently, that isn't good enough for minorities, or at least there defenders here. They need more rights, which isn't called racist, but equity. The last time I checked more and equal don't mean the same thing. Ironically, one group having more rights than another is bad only under certain circumstances.

The real barrier to equality is a open dialogue. If you are unwilling to discuss the issues and anyone who disagrees with you is somehow racist or sexist, how can you expect equality to happen? This attitude creates a witch hunt atmosphere where everyone is afraid to say anything. This attitude may stop overt racism and sexism, but you will never create equality or respect. The same principles apply to any human relationship, ask Doctor Phil.

You also happen to miss the first line at the top of the post or ignored it.

When I look back "lighten up" was more than appropriate and probably to tame, especially when you consider the context of Deepsky's initial post and her juvenile behavior in general. After this post, I would say lighten up applies to you, too. How can misconstrue good listeners to mean "go in the kitchen and bake me a pie" is beyond me.

I am pretty sure that Crazy5711 is a guy, I might be wrong, but whatever.

I really don't see the point in making generalizations, which was the entire thrust of my post in case you missed that...which according to your disclaimer is exactly what you were doing. You are trying to put all women in some sort of descriptive box when you generalize which isn't right.

It's like saying that all African Americans are good athletes or all Asians are smart or that all Anglo Saxons have blonde hair and blue eyes. It's stupid to say those things because they aren't true in every case and the cost that comes with it is exclusion of people that don't conform to your standards.

You may be stating that you believe in equality but you are failing to see the trees for the forest. People come in many different shapes, sizes, colors, genders, whatever, why try and fit everyone into some neat little box? When you generalize you are slapping people in the face.

And don't give me this crap about opening a dialogue. Generalizing is probably the shortest route to shutting down a dialogue that you can take. Maybe you should ask Dr. Phil about that.

Thermo

1 Mar 2005, 09:58 PM

I really don't see the point in making generalizations, which was the entire thrust of my post in case you missed that...which according to your disclaimer is exactly what you were doing. You are trying to put all women in some sort of descriptive box when you generalize which isn't right.

It's like saying that all African Americans are good athletes or all Asians are smart or that all Anglo Saxons have blonde hair and blue eyes. It's stupid to say those things because they aren't true in every case and the cost that comes with it is exclusion of people that don't conform to your standards.

You may be stating that you believe in equality but you are failing to see the trees for the forest. People come in many different shapes, sizes, colors, genders, whatever, why try and fit everyone into some neat little box? When you generalize you are slapping people in the face.

And don't give me this crap about opening a dialogue. Generalizing is probably the shortest route to shutting down a dialogue that you can take. Maybe you should ask Dr. Phil about that.

You: I insulted women by generalizing.
Me: Three or four women found my post flattering.
You: no response.

You: You claim calling someone a good listern is a sexist slur.
Me: I pointed out this is silly.
You: no response.

You: generalizations are an abomination
Me: In a nutshell, I called you a hypocrite.
You: meaningless vague PC tirade

If you want to make meaningless vague PC rants and dodge the issues, you don't need me.

mgb

1 Mar 2005, 10:17 PM

You: I insulted women by generalizing.
Me: Three or four women found my post flattering.
You: no response.

You: You claim calling someone a good listern is a sexist slur.
Me: I pointed out this is silly.
You: no response.

You: generalizations are an abomination
Me: In a nutshell, I called you a hypocrite.
You: meaningless vague PC tirade

If you want to make meaningless vague PC rants and dodge the issues, you don't need me.

Response number one.

I have to wonder how many women are on this site. I bet more than three. I bet there is more than 10. Probably more than 100. Those are some pretty high numbers you showed there. I wonder how many women didn't reply because they thought your thread was idiotic and didn't want to get into it with you? More than three? I guess we'll never know. You getting three responses and then parading them around as evidence that women appreciate your tone is laughable.

Response number two.

You didn't even talk about my take on your "Women are good listeners example," specifically. You example of how silly I was being was followed up from me with an example of some race generalizations. So I suppose that was a response. How about I do this then. Calling women good listeners is retarded. Not all women are good listeners, probably many of them just don't give a shit. Some women are good listeners, some men are too. Just like saying that you appreciate women's legs is indeed a slap in the face to women without legs. There is no need to say it. I am sure that women without legs or the use of their legs have many other qualities you are failing to cover.

Or what if a woman doesn't like to comprimise. Does that make her less of a woman in your eyes? Is she less feminine? Less desirable? Give me a break. You are missing the point entirely.

Response number three.

"I called you a hypocrite." Followed by "Meaningless PC tirade."

If by meaningless PC tirade I said, "You may be stating that you believe in equality but you are failing to see the trees for the forest." Actually, I was calling you an idiot for calling me a hypocrite. I guess you missed that though, it was pretty hard to see at the start of the paragraph.

Feel like you got all your responses now?

SensEye

1 Mar 2005, 10:37 PM

I'd like to return to this, because he does make some interesting points. I felt it was important to know the source and read it with a critical eye, though.

One thing that he suggests is that women fail to reach the top levels in their professions because of work interruptions like maternity leave. I think the Swedish system might go a long way to fixing this in the USA: compulsory (I believe it is compulsory; if it's not, it should be in our case) paternity -and- maternity leave, for both parents, when a child is born. Why don't we have that?

And since we don't, it is easy to see why women are favored in custody cases. Obviously the law believes that parenting is primarily the mother's job.I think it runs a bit deeper than just maternity leave. To reach the top levels in some of these professions requires a career long commitment to long hours. Maternity leave would have to last 14 years. Since that is not reasonable, the small proportion of individuals willing to make such sacrificies to their personal lives would seem to be mostly men.

Regarding parenting, there is no doubt there is some "tradition" and cultural stereotyping involved. However, there is no doubt in my mind that women, in general, are far more nurturing than men. They are definitely more skilled at parenting from what I have seen. You would be hard pressed to convince me there are not biological reasons for this (NF personality traits or what have you).

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 10:53 PM

Thermo

1 Mar 2005, 10:55 PM

mgb

1 Mar 2005, 11:00 PM

mgbradsh:
You cheapen your arguments with personal attacks, assumptions, bad logic, and wild generalizations. It just isn't worth my effort. My previous post still applies to pretty much everything you said.

What, you can give it out but you can't take it?

Edit:

So just to recap. You call me a hypocite and insult my intelligence with a post. I reply in the same tone. Then you somehow decide that you are going to try and get the high ground, while dishing out some insults on the way. Sorry, not going to fly.

Oh, and you didn't respond to my responses.

s0978

1 Mar 2005, 11:08 PM

I wonder how many women didn't reply because they thought your thread was idiotic and didn't want to get into it with you?

:hello:

songbird36

1 Mar 2005, 11:13 PM

However, there is no doubt in my mind that women, in general, are far more nurturing than men. They are definitely more skilled at parenting from what I have seen. You would be hard pressed to convince me there are not biological reasons for this (NF personality traits or what have you).

I think men often use this argument as an *excuse* not to get involved in parenting (I know my own father did this). I am an INTJ and a mother, and nurturing doesn't come especially naturally to me, but I've worked hard at developing that quality.

Men need to do this too, regardless of typology.

Nighthawk

1 Mar 2005, 11:19 PM

I think men often use this argument as an *excuse* not to get involved in parenting (I know my own father did this). I am an INTJ and a mother, and nurturing doesn't come especially naturally to me, but I've worked hard at developing that quality.

Men need to do this too, regardless of typology.
As a man, I agree with you 100%. Just because a person is not naturally inclined towards something, doesn't mean they are excused from doing it ... especially when it comes to something necessary like parenting. Also, just because I am not nurturing by nature, doesn't mean that my T cannot contribute to parenting. I've connected with my INTP son very well through that preference.

songbird36

1 Mar 2005, 11:20 PM

Me too. I have an INTP (older) son and we are very close (although we also clash a lot)!

tragula

2 Mar 2005, 12:49 AM

Regarding parenting, there is no doubt there is some "tradition" and cultural stereotyping involved. However, there is no doubt in my mind that women, in general, are far more nurturing than men. They are definitely more skilled at parenting from what I have seen. You would be hard pressed to convince me there are not biological reasons for this (NF personality traits or what have you).

All I have is anecdotal evidence. Myself. I am at T and male and super-nurturing. I love babies. I don't have to work at it either, it just comes naturally.

I think getting in on the ground floor really helps. Being there in the delivery room. Men in the US do get paternity leave if they are bold enough to ask for it and know about it. I believe it's called the family medical leave act. Many companies do frown on it though.

I also think that being exposed to babies as children helps. I had a brother five years younger than me. And a niece and a nephew. My wife didn't know anything about babies when ours was born!

I think I would probably agree that women are generally more nurturing than men for innate reasons. But I think the biggest difference in this situation can be explained by gender roles. Men can get pumped up with nurturing hormones as much as women when their kids are born if they don't just assume they are going to take a back seat...

Actually, I've also read that in some cultures men are just as responsive to babies as women, and that that is considered normal. In our culture it is viewed as a sign of weakness by a lot of people...

Star

2 Mar 2005, 01:58 AM

I wonder how many women didn't reply because they thought your thread was idiotic and didn't want to get into it with you?

:hello:

:hello:

Miss Anthropic

2 Mar 2005, 04:32 AM

I would strongly agree with the idea that worldwide what is still needed is a feminist revolution.

My criticisms are limited to western society.

On the tangent of whether people can afford to live on just one income--I've said it before and I'll say it again until proved otherwise--yes they can. Most people. We live in the most affluent society in history for crying out loud! What people do is choose not to sacrifice their affluence in order to stay home, even though there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that we would be doing our kids and society a favor. Most people who complain about needing two incomes still have many of the following: cable tv, cell phones, wide screen TVs, ipods, fancy computers, shoe collections, family vacations, nice cars, eat out frequently, etc etc.

I have modified my position on this recently because of some things I've read about status and health. It appears that the higher your status is in society (not wealth btw) the longer you live. So there may be "good" reason many people in fact chose to maintain their socio-economic status. Now if we could just find a way to confer high status on stay at home parents....

There is a positive correlation between higher status and length of life. That does not translate to: direct connection between higher status and longer life. People who have more money have access to better health care and better nutrition, they are more educated which means they probably make better choices. BUT just because somebody is in a lower income bracket, say because they choose to have a stay-at-home parent for the kids instead of the double income is quite different from somebody living in the barrios of San Antonio or the ghetto of Detroit. That is the sort of correlation there is between income and life span. I'd say if you had an intact happy family and enough money to live comfortably then it would positively impact your lifespan.
And don't forget genetics. I have ancestors from the 1700's and forward who lived up into their 80s and 90s and my grandmother just died at 100. I doubt it had to do with socioeconomic level. (If it did, I should be an heiress!)

Two income families:
What you described above are examples of the families I am talking about when I say that they managed to pare down expenditures so mom can stay home and raise the kids. We do live in an affluent society, where even if you are poor, you have most of what you need. It is very difficult to have everything you need on one person's income if it is below the median..or if you do there isn't enough for anything extra. The point is, most people live to a certain standard and find it very difficult to suddenly reduce their income by up to half of what it was. That is why there are far fewer stay-at-home moms today. Women are not all out there working because they need or want a career.

As for your list of 'masculist' complaints all I will say is "Wahhhh" Especially the one about WIC. Duh! Its Women, Infants and Children. Supplemental food for pregnant women (Milk, cheese, whole wheat cereal) Infants--the obvious, supplemental formula and children...same as women. Where does that discriminate against men? Do they need additional nutrition? And for men whose children are aborted without their consent....well, maybe they should either choose a woman who wants a child and plan for it, or keep their sperm contained. Its the woman's body and she is sharing it for nine months. It is her choice! (And that's MY feminist view)

tragula

2 Mar 2005, 10:28 PM

I'm trying to find something to disagree with in there... and I cant.

Must. Try. Harder.... *Head Explodes*

:-)

Clara

7 Mar 2005, 11:37 PM

I just learned that in Poland, presents are acceptable expressions for International Women's Day ... so, "borrowing" that custom, crow-like, here's the words to the famous song, for any who never read them before :

Bread and Roses

As we go marching, marching in the beauty of the day,
A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill lofts gray
Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses,
For the people hear us singing:
"Bread and Roses! Bread and Roses!"

As we go marching, marching we battle too for men,
For they are women's children and we mother them again.
Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes.
Hearts starve as well as bodies;
give us bread but give us roses.

As we go marching, marching unnumbered woman dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient call for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too!

As we go marching, marching we bring the greater days.
The rising of the women means the rising of the race,
No more the drudge and idler, ten that toil where one reposes
But a sharing of life's glories:
Bread and roses! Bread and roses!

Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes.
Hearts starve as well as bodies.
Bread and roses! Bread and roses!

( lyrics, James Oppenheim, 1912 )

edit : lexiphanic, if you were telling me that... I understand all those things -- and, why abdicate what also belongs to us, because others pretend to usurp it ??? :)
edit 2 : I do agree wuth what Claverhouse said, about "equality is illusion," except, equality before the law ( being recognized as, "persons," e.g. ) is not. <_<

lexiphanic

8 Mar 2005, 01:32 AM

I would just like to point out that feminism and equality are not necessarily the same thing.

booyalab

8 Mar 2005, 04:57 PM

agreed

asteriatic

25 Mar 2005, 09:49 PM

Then I'll point out that they ought to be. The feminists that I associate with (including myself) believe in equality between the genders. The women who hate men and who violently oppose things like heterosexual sex are *not* feminists, they just give the rest of us [aka the majority] a bad name. Given the current situations in places like the middle east, and even here in North America (example: the american attitudes towards abortion), this thread strongly worries me.

CoHo

25 Mar 2005, 09:51 PM

Given the current situations in places like the middle east, and even here in North America (example: the american attitudes towards abortion), this thread strongly worries me.

Huh?

Star

25 Mar 2005, 10:11 PM

Oh, well since someone decided to bring this thread back to life, I'd like to point out that the speech by the president of Harvard, which was so casually linked to by SensEye, was highly controversial. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought it was a load of BS.

Harvard Chief Again to Face Angry Faculty over Remarks (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022205P.shtml)

rabble forum thread about it* (http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000581&p=)

* the best feminism forum I've found on the net.. though I haven't tried very hard to find more.

songbird36

25 Mar 2005, 10:34 PM

You think his *speech* was a load of BS, or the way he was dealt with by the university subsequent to it?

Star

25 Mar 2005, 10:44 PM

The man, the speech, and his actions are BS. But what should we expect from the president of America's most powerful ruling-class school.

He attributed the fact that men more often excel on science and engineering tests - though median scores are comparable - to "innate aptitude" and the fact that women are more likely to choose family over 80-hour workweeks.

Summers's recent remarks about women were particularly troubling to some at Harvard because the percentage of tenured professorships offered to women has declined each year of his tenure. Last year, only four of 32 slots filled in the faculty of arts and sciences went to women.

Sir Isaac Lime

25 Mar 2005, 10:51 PM

I'm not having a hard time believing that men might have a innate advantage over women in terms of Science and Engineering. I'm also not seeing how the suggestion would be sexist.

songbird36

25 Mar 2005, 10:52 PM

But there is a recognised differential in ability in maths between males and females. This has been demonstrated in a number of studies which I can reference if anyone is interested.

If we don't recognise relative strengths and weaknesses between the genders then how can we sensibly tailor the education system (both at school and in universities) to meet the needs of all?

Star

25 Mar 2005, 10:57 PM

Geoff

25 Mar 2005, 10:59 PM

Sir Isaac Lime

25 Mar 2005, 11:00 PM

songbird36

25 Mar 2005, 11:08 PM

Which way around? Girls here are doing better in maths in the schools, is that the way around you mean?

-Geoff

That's only because girls do better in the school system generally because it's tailored to their learning style.

Boys/men do better in Maths here at high school and tertiary level still. It is surmised in some studies that this is because men generally have a better developed right brain (which governs some mathematical functions and tasks, but not all).

Architecture and quantity surveying are almost entirely male dominated and there is a good reason for that.

Star

25 Mar 2005, 11:10 PM

Architecture and quantity surveying are almost entirely male dominated and there is a good reason for that.

You'd sell out your whole gender for some male approval, wouldn't you?

Sir Isaac Lime

25 Mar 2005, 11:14 PM

rabble forum thread about it* (http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000581&p=).

So let me get this straight...a guy suggests that maybe we shouldn't automatically conclude that gender differences in math/science might not be cultural and that perhaps we should shine the light of scientific inquiry on the problem, and a bunch of women go ballistic and don't want to challenge this sacred notion.

(cough)

Does anybody else see the irony here?

Star

25 Mar 2005, 11:16 PM

So let me get this straight...a guy suggests that maybe we shouldn't automatically conclude that gender differences in math/science might not be cultural and that perhaps we should shine the light of scientific inquiry on the problem, and a bunch of women go ballistic and don't want to challenge this sacred notion.

(cough)

Does anybody else see the irony here?

Yeah, it reminds me of the personality and blood type correlation "theory".

Sir Isaac Lime

25 Mar 2005, 11:18 PM

Yeah, it reminds me of the personality and blood type correlation "theory".

Btw, men are also more likely to be born with a penis.

The problem is that people still say that there are differences between men and women. How many feminist think that most of the worlds problems are because men are running things? That men are more violent than women? Yet lots of people would not say that is sexist. It seems like it is okay to say anything negative about men, white people, Christians, or US citizens.

Geoff

25 Mar 2005, 11:20 PM

songbird36

25 Mar 2005, 11:24 PM

You'd sell out your whole gender for some male approval, wouldn't you?

No way. I'm a female who is very successful in my profession. I don't rely one iota on male approval to be successful in my profession or in my life generally.

My profession is equally weighted as between men and women who perform equally in it. My point is that there are other professions and disciplines in which one or other gender is stronger and more able.

Men - Architecture, drafting, surveying, engineering
Women - Social work, counselling, nursing (any "caring profession)

Why does it hurt us so much to acknowledge that there are gender differences in the brain, just as there are in the body? Does it mean that one or other group has to oppress the other?

Why can't we acknowledge that we are different, but equal?

Sir Isaac Lime

25 Mar 2005, 11:27 PM

No way. I'm a female who is very successful in my profession. I don't rely one iota on male approval to be successful in my profession or in my life generally.

My profession is equally weighted as between men and women who perform equally in it. My point is that there are other professions and disciplines in which one or other gender is stronger and more able.

Men - Architecture, drafting, surveying, engineering
Women - Social work, counselling, nursing (any "caring profession)

Why does it hurt us so much to acknowledge that there are gender differences in the brain, just as there are in the body? Does it mean that one or other group has to oppress the other?

Why can't we acknowledge that we are different, but equal?

Absolutely.

The problem is that in general you can not make a blanket statement about the genders. But Is it so hard to say that maybe males generally are better at making quick decisions and spacial relationships i.e. skills that increase your chances at hunting. While women are better at planning and long term goals i.e. things that increase your chances when gathering and taking care of children? I mean isn't it logical that women would tend to be better at taking care of children since they are the only ones that can feed a baby? I think part of this negative feeling is from the old "separate but equal days". We seem to have a problem with the concept of equal but different.

songbird36

25 Mar 2005, 11:36 PM

Star

25 Mar 2005, 11:37 PM

Oh no SIL. It is a terrible sacrilege to suggest that men and women might have different strengths and weaknesses.

After all, we aspire to morph into one androgenous gender, don't we? Perhaps we could use test tubes to reproduce ourselves.

Perhaps we should start a paypal account to collect funds to buy you a vibrator, so you can stop thinking with your clit.

songbird36

25 Mar 2005, 11:40 PM

Perhaps we should start a paypal account to collect funds to buy you a vibrator, so you can stop thinking with your clit.

That's just insulting. Because I don't take an accepted "PC" view of everything means I think with my clit?

I try and use my brain and look at the evidence that is around me, and draw on the considerable life experience of these issues I've had already.

I am raising two sons, and have obtained enormous insights into the way the male brain works already by contrasting their thinking patterns with my own and those of other females.

The fact is Deepsky that the two genders are not the same, and I don't think any of us would want them to be.

Sir Isaac Lime

25 Mar 2005, 11:41 PM

I'm open to your opinions deepsky, but i'm waiting for a logical and reasoned response to what I am suggesting (which also happens to be in line with songbirds suggestions)

songbird36

25 Mar 2005, 11:49 PM

Perhaps she's going to argue that women are better than men at Chess too (which is patently and demonstrably untrue).

Geoff

25 Mar 2005, 11:52 PM

So is it just down to personality tendencies? Or something more..

Is it just that statistically more men are logic based, and more women are feelers.. so usually there are more (as a percentage) talented male logicians, and more talented female 'empathists'?

Or is something intrinsically different in the brains.

I think it is the former, but it is only intuition. I see no reason why any woman or man could not be equally superb at, say, chess.. it is just that men are more likely to have the personality type concerned. And as a result the base set of the gender has a bigger group of chess tacticians to choose from. And also, it may be a 'game' with a glass ceiling. So there may be prejudice at work here.

-Geoff

cjs55

25 Mar 2005, 11:53 PM

It's blatantly obvious that there are certain differences in gender, but I also think that it's blatantly obvious in the same way that there are certain differences in race, so I'm a total fucking lunatic.

Just one example: For some reason women can't seem to become great composers. Obviously oppression (although Shelley didn't seem to be too oppressed when she wrote the brilliant Frakenstein).

Just like africans are almost always the best sprinters. Wonder why.

This doesn't mean that women can't beat men at this sort of thing (or that europeans can't outsprint africans). But it does prove an inherent difference on average.

songbird36

26 Mar 2005, 12:00 AM

No the chess thing is a difference in brain structure and operation.

Chess requires a high degree of spatial ability which men excel at. I surmise that the evolutionary basis for this is that men required this elevated ability in order to hunt animals (including the ability to judge space and distance accurately).

Women did not need this ability as they were the gatherers/nurturers.

SensEye

26 Mar 2005, 12:04 AM

Bah! While there is a firestorm of criticism and Summers job has been threatened in order to coerce an apology and insure no one else dares to have an open discussion contrary to the feminist agenda, I have seen very little in the way of intelligent discussion to counter his points. Mostly just variations on the theme of "How dare he!". Even if his points are invalid, there is no reason not to discuss it.

In that feminist forum thread Deepsky linked, there is nothing but bitching going on. One person linked a couple of slate articles which have some relevant discussion, but that's about it.

Star

26 Mar 2005, 12:06 AM

In that feminist forum thread Deepsky linked, there is nothing but bitching going on. One person linked a couple of slate articles which have some relevant discussion, but that's about it.

That is because, to most of us, the idea is as ridiculous as the personality and blood type theory. I've already said this. Prove the difference or give up. Thanks.

songbird36

26 Mar 2005, 12:09 AM

That is because, to most of us, the idea is as ridiculous as the personality and blood type theory. I've already said this. Prove the difference or give up. Thanks.

This is supposed to pass as a well-reasoned argument for the other side?

No way, your Honour.

Sir Isaac Lime

26 Mar 2005, 12:19 AM

That is because, to most of us, the idea is as ridiculous as the personality and blood type theory. I've already said this. Prove the difference or give up. Thanks.

How can anyone prove the difference if it's so taboo that you can't even have a logical discussion about it? And whats with the "us" thing? You sound like you've been dragged into a cult or something.

songbird36

26 Mar 2005, 12:23 AM

SIL note that she doesn't like flirtatious women either.

Apparently flirtation is unacceptable in today's world where all women should behave like men and to talk to men as if they are another man.

cjs55

26 Mar 2005, 12:27 AM

Oh, this whole thing reminds my favorite insightful short story. I should post this just about in every thread concering modern idealogy.

http://www.libertarianthought.com/texts/harrison.html

Nighthawk

26 Mar 2005, 12:34 AM

Is it just that statistically more men are logic based, and more women are feelers.. so usually there are more (as a percentage) talented male logicians, and more talented female 'empathists'?

Or is something intrinsically different in the brains.

I think it is the former, but it is only intuition.

-GeoffI also tend to think these differences are more of a T-F thing than a gender issue. Roughly 2/3 women are F and 2/3 men are T. The other 1/3 in each group have usually been heavily socialized into believing they should be part of their respective majorities.

songbird36

26 Mar 2005, 12:38 AM

I don't agree.

Even F men are better at chess than T women (I know a lot of chess players).

It is a brain difference, not to do with personality or socialisation.

tragula

26 Mar 2005, 12:44 AM

Exactly, Ti makes you good at chess. Not Te.

songbird36

26 Mar 2005, 12:48 AM

I'd like to provide another example from a game I am very familiar with - Bridge.

Men and women have different respective strengths in the game of Bridge.

Men are generally regarded as better at "declarer play" which involves playing 26 cards to make a contract (your own hand and the dummy hand laid down in front of you). This is because this activity requires the declarer to be able to see the spatial relationship between the two hands and the way that they fit together to make 10 tricks (or however many he/she has contracted to make).

On the other hand women are often stronger on the bidding side, which requires more intuition and "left brained" activity (remembering and applying bidding principles).

In defence which is a combination of card counting, probability deduction and intuition, men and women are about equal, but men probably have a slight edge.

There are more top male Bridge players (but this is partly because men are more competitive about reaching the top echelons).

Edmond Zedo

26 Mar 2005, 12:48 AM

It's really amateurish to simply assume that men and women have functionally identical brains (generally). Take any skill which could be measured scientifically, and there will likely be distinguishable averages between the sexes.

Boneca

26 Mar 2005, 12:55 AM

I also tend to think these differences are more of a T-F thing than a gender issue. Roughly 2/3 women are F and 2/3 men are T. The other 1/3 in each group have usually been heavily socialized into believing they should be part of their respective majorities.I agree with you and Geoff.
Why do you people have to be so black and white? It's either "men and women are exactly alike" or "all men are like this and all women are like that"...what about something in between? Most men are like this and most women are like that, but there is an overlap?

(Honestly, I wish I didn't have a gender at all. I'm sick of this.)

Sir Isaac Lime

26 Mar 2005, 12:57 AM

I agree with you and Geoff.
It's either "men and women are exactly alike" or "all men are like this and all women are like that"...

I didn't see anyone even remotely suggesting that.

Perhaps this misunderstanding is at the root of the disagreement here.

cjs55

26 Mar 2005, 12:59 AM

I think there is an overlap in some areas and inherent differences in others (delightingly vague, I know).

Most of what we are talking about right now are differences in average, which most likely do overlap, yes. However, differences in average are a fine way to take one group and compare it to another. And because of bell curve distribution, this results in the best composers/chess players being male, just like the best sprinters will be african (and sometimes, the best are all that mainly matters [sometimes not]).

But most definitely many women would kick my ass at chess (even if I trained as hard as I could at it) [however actually, I doubt there are many healthy africans I could ever outsprint].

songbird36

26 Mar 2005, 01:06 AM

Yes of course these are generalisations Boneca. Some women are better at chess than some men.

But on average men are better at chess, and there are more men who are good at chess than women. You will note that chess clubs are populated by men, not women.

Boneca

26 Mar 2005, 01:11 AM

So if you all agree, what's the bloody argument about then? You've lost me.

Geoff

26 Mar 2005, 01:12 AM

I dont think everyone agrees. Look back through the thread, thre are clearly differences of opinion! What do I know though, I'm just a man ;)

-Geoff

Sir Isaac Lime

26 Mar 2005, 01:18 AM

*notices the site he's posting on*

There is some serious irony going on here.

Edmond Zedo

26 Mar 2005, 01:25 AM

[however actually, I doubt there are many healthy africans I could ever outsprint].
The Africans are primarily world-class in endurance events. Americans athletes excel at sprinting.

"Sure, he's fast. But he won't go any faster, not in the hundred meters. He needs to go further out. You can push guts--Bully 'em! Short sprinters...Run on nerves. The 'undred meters--Tailor made for neurotics!"

cjs55

26 Mar 2005, 01:39 AM

Thanks for the clarification. But, while we're at it, lets get more clear... : Aren't most American world-class sprinters still black?

And I really didn't ever mean to derail this.

Geoff

26 Mar 2005, 01:40 AM

African endurance runners tends to be a different variety of the species than the African-American sprinters.

The endurance runners are eg Masai or Kenyan style tribes. There is a lot of genetic diversity on the African continent (more, as I understand it, than on any other continent). America has borrowed some of that re: sprinters.

-Geoff

Edmond Zedo

26 Mar 2005, 01:41 AM

Thanks for the clarification. But some more clarification: Aren't most American world-class sprinters still black?

And I really didn't ever mean to derail this.
Thread sucked anyway.

I suppose most are.

Hypnos

26 Mar 2005, 04:00 AM

I'm open to your opinions deepsky, but i'm waiting for a logical and reasoned response to what I am suggesting (which also happens to be in line with songbirds suggestions)
Don't you see? The left is all about science, but only when it does not interfere with it's stridently egalitarian and pro-Mother Earth dogma. They are no better than the religious right, who protest IMAX science movies and school science curricula.

Why? Because everyone wants to be part of something, somehow feel that the universe will take care of them. The reality is that other people who are actually productive are forced to take care of you. Want to have a kid? Great! Don't make me pay for baby's daycare.

Star

26 Mar 2005, 04:11 AM

Don't you see? The left is all about science, but only when it does not interfere with it's stridently egalitarian and pro-Mother Earth dogma. They are no better than the religious right, who protest IMAX science movies and school science curricula.

Why? Because everyone wants to be part of something, somehow feel that the universe will take care of them. The reality is that other people who are actually productive are forced to take care of you. Want to have a kid? Great! Don't make me pay for baby's daycare.

My god, it's like you can see into my very soul.

May I have your babies? You can pay the bills, you big smart, conservative man, you.

Hypnos

26 Mar 2005, 04:21 AM

My god, it's like you can see into my very soul.

May I have your babies? You can pay the bills, you big smart, conservative man, you.
Actually I'm not a conservative -- you can pay your own damn bills.

SensEye

26 Mar 2005, 04:21 AM

That is because, to most of us, the idea is as ridiculous as the personality and blood type theory. I've already said this. Prove the difference or give up. Thanks.Of course it is ridiculous to you, you already have your agenda and have closed your mind. In your mind any difference in male/female accomplishment is a result of male discrimination. End of story. Further discussion will not be tolerated.

Refering back to your first post on this thread:

I hate feminists, those rabid feminists, they've gone too far. I honestly have never, ever seen any behavior by any woman or political group that I would categorize thusly, so I'm really curious what exactly people are talking about when they say it.
I would categorize the lynch mob response to Summer's speech thusly, so at least your curiosity should be satisfied.

s0978

26 Mar 2005, 05:52 AM

That's only because girls do better in the school system generally because it's tailored to their learning style.

Boys/men do better in Maths here at high school and tertiary level still. It is surmised in some studies that this is because men generally have a better developed right brain (which governs some mathematical functions and tasks, but not all).

Architecture and quantity surveying are almost entirely male dominated and there is a good reason for that.

I understand and agree that on average, boys usually test better than girls in math and sciences. So sure, it's reasonable to believe that on average, boys are innately better than girls in these areas. But I think it's yet a little short-sighted to accept that as a foregone conclusion, however consistent the results of testing are.

We have yet to find proof that these gender strengths/weaknesses are inherent. There are clearly many issues of culture which may contribute to the tendency of boys to test better, not the least among them being the expectation that they will. Isn't it at least possible that Susie might not choose to become a physicist because somewhere in her subconscious, she's internalized that women aren't "naturally predisposed" to make good scientists?

Some of our notions about gender differences may be outmoded. We can sure as hell observe Architecture to be a male-dominated field, and assume this is so because men, by and large, have better visual-spatial skills. Well, bullshit. Quite a few graduate schools in architecture are admitting a higher ratio of women to men -- and no, it's not an affirmative action thing -- I've been told by many faculty members at various institutions that there are simply more female applicants who are best qualified.

And why do these supposed mental ability differences matter? Let's say Susie is not best science student, but enjoys physics more than any other class. (Maybe she's INTP and kind of undisciplined about doing her homework, and is always bested by the INTJs who study diligently.) Should she not be encouraged to pursue a career in the subject matter she favors? There just seems to be a vague kind of pointlessness, tinged with a little oppression, in the agenda of establishing the inherency of skill differences.

So I don't know, I think it's quite possible there are biological bases for differences in how men and women think. But I also think it's pretty objectionable to assume that we've already figured out how, exactly. There was a time it would have seemed incredible that more women than men would be going to college. But it's been that way for just over a decade.

Btw, men are also more likely to be born with a penis.

PS - This kind of shit is unnecessary and does nothing to support your apparent position; no one was claiming that men and women are biologically the same. There was an assertion that claiming inherent differences in mental abilities was suspect.

tragula

26 Mar 2005, 06:46 AM

I would categorize the lynch mob response to Summer's speech thusly, so at least your curiosity should be satisfied.

Excuse me for noticing, but that is Hysterically Funny!!!

(I am trying to cut back on my emoticons.)

cjs55

26 Mar 2005, 06:50 AM

There's no possible way that women evolved to have the exact same mental strenghts as men.

[robot voice] Does not compute. [/robot voice]

And people should be encouraged to do what they are needed to first, what they are good at second, and what they would like to do third. If they are lucky, all three will be the same thing (somtimes it isn't [sometimes it is]).

Sir Isaac Lime

26 Mar 2005, 06:52 AM

I understand and agree that on average, boys usually test better than girls in math and sciences. So sure, it's reasonable to believe that on average, boys are innately better than girls in these areas. But I think it's yet a little short-sighted to accept that as a foregone conclusion, however consistent the results of testing are.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. We can classify someone INTP, and make reasonable judgements about them using that model, but none carry any sort of absolute thruth. Just another tool in the bag so to speak.

We have yet to find proof that these gender strengths/weaknesses are inherent. There are clearly many issues of culture which may contribute to the tendency of boys to test better, not the least among them being the expectation that they will.

How do you define inherant? I'm under the impression that these traits are developed through evolution. Sure there are subjectivities across varying enviornments and cultures.

Isn't it at least possible that Susie might not choose to become a physicist because somewhere in her subconscious, she's internalized that women aren't "naturally predisposed" to make good scientists?

Isn't at least possible that Susie might not choose to become a physicist because she's not an INTP? Maybe, but it doesn't really mean shit.

Some of our notions about gender differences may be outmoded. We can sure as hell observe Architecture to be a male-dominated field,

Yes our tools don't apply universally without err, and yes these traits can certainly morph/evolve further.

And why do these supposed mental ability differences matter? Let's say Susie is not best science student, but enjoys physics more than any other class. (Maybe she's INTP and kind of undisciplined about doing her homework, and is always bested by the INTJs who study diligently.) Should she not be encouraged to pursue a career in the subject matter she favors?

I'm not so sure I like the idea of determining someones occupation at birth. The personal freedom of choosing what one wants to do outweighs the national efficiency increased by strategically assigning/influencing occupations based on any sort of scheme. The whole idea gives me the willies.

PS - This kind of shit is unnecessary and does nothing to support your apparent position; no one was claiming that men and women are biologically the same. There was an assertion that claiming inherent differences in mental abilities was suspect.

It's whats known as speaking facetiously. The way that i'm addressing you, as a moron whos never heard of the word, is also facetious. I think both are more then fine when accompanied by an actual argument or otherwise reasoned response.

Also take note that this entire mini-discussion, including your engaging of it, is also entirely irrelevant to the subject.

Pedro_The_Lion

26 Mar 2005, 02:39 PM

I was watching King of the Hill today. Twas the episode called "Shins of the Father" some quotes or paraphrases:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Paraphrase)
COTTON: (In reference to dishwashing) Bobby take off those pink gloves that's women's work.
PEGGY (a.k.a. "Hank's Wife"): Leave him alone cotton he's a good helper.
COTTON: Whatever you say... Hillary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Paraphrase)
COTTON: {after PEGGY (a.k.a. "Hank's Wife") serves breakfast} Woman, where's my sausage?
PEGGY (a.k.a. "Hank's Wife"): If you want sausage you'll just have to go down to the Mega-lo-mart and pick it up yourself some of us are just to busy living in the latter half of the 20th century. Now I've got to go get ready for school.
COTTON: See Bobby when a woman works man loses his sausage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Paraphrase)
PEGGY: Well Cotton you can get going now Luanne fixed your car.
COTTON: A woman fixing a car? That's like saying you can teach a pig to read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
COTTON: You're nothin' but skin and bones, girlie! Put some corn pone on them hips!
LUANNE: I don't want any, Grandpa Hill. Don't wanna get fat.
COTTON: That's not for you to worry about. You will never know if you are attractive. It's up to a man to tell you that. You keep eating and I'll tell you when to stop.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypnos

26 Mar 2005, 09:45 PM

Cotton Hill is a moral visionary. :devil:

SecondSight

7 Apr 2005, 12:56 PM

Nowhere in the USA will you find any kind of action being taken to balance power between men and women.

What about VAWA? What about sexual harassment policies? What about family courts? What about, well... feminism? Your claim ignores everything that has happened to gender in the last 30 years.

Feminism deserves a bad name. It was definitely necessary, yet it needs a serious overhaul. It is developed some excellent methods to analyze gender, yet these are only used in one way: to uncover male privilege and female victimhood. Female privilege and male victimhood are not examined by feminism. I agree with feminists that there are lots of problems with current gender roles, and that these problems stem from our culture. Yet our culture causes powerlessness for, and discrimination against, BOTH sexes. Some of the discrimination against men is actually caused by feminism. Because of feminism, women have certain unjust privileges enshrined in law. Women can commit paternity fraud, and not only go unpunished, but still collect child support. Women can use false accusations of rape or sexual harassment as a weapon and get away with it. Women can take the kids and basically ruin a man in divorce. And women have less power than men? Please.

Feminism is hypocritical. It overestimates female victimhood, and underestimates female power. For instance, feminism complains of how images of women in the media oppress women through unrealistic beauty standards. Yet feminists ignore that beautiful women have a ridiculous amount of sexual power that nearly all men cannot match, especially during youth. Feminism has often portrayed the expectation on men to initiate and women to be passive as a disadvantage to women. This may be true, but the other side of the coin is that initiating is a massive burden to males (especially male Introverted Intuitives), and women benefit from being able to sit back and let the man do most of the work. Women have the choice to either initiate or not; men only have the choice to initiate if they want to get anywhere. This is an example of why some men claim that feminism is about giving women rights and men responsibilities.

Another example of feminist idiocy is the area of domestic violence. Mainstream feminists diminish, ignore, or excuse violence by women (even against other women). They diminish and underestimate violence against men. Consequently, there are a lack of shelters and support for battered men.

When arguing against feminism, I often hear the objection "there are many brands of feminism... you can't lump them together... it's only the bad feminists who are like that, and we are the good feminists!" Yet radical feminists such as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Mary Daly and others are very vocal, and their theories have formed the basis for laws!! Radical feminists are not just a fringe movement of weirdos. Feminists like these often use sloppy, ill-defined, and extreme rhetoric. For instance, pornography is sometimes claimed to inherently be violence against women (and not just a possible cause of violence against women, or made in an industry that might contain violence towards women). Such a claim is idiotic, because it can only be true with a massive equivocation on what "violence" means. Extreme feminists also often employs tactics like fallacious generalizations and collective guilt (for instance, holding all men responsible for the fact that some men commit rape). An example of such extreme rhetoric (http://www.tnhonline.com/news/2005/03/01/LettersCommentary/Do.Take.Note.The.Universal.Myth.Of.The.good.Guy-880519.shtml) can be found at the University of New Hampshire. I admit this is way more extreme than most feminists, but it is clear that idiotic radicalism and massive misandry are not dead within feminism! Here (http://www.tnhonline.com/news/2005/03/25/News/Patriarchy.Presence.Slammed.At.Fal.Event-902772.shtml?page=1) is another example of radical feminist excesses at the University of New Hampshire.

Such intellectually dishonest rhetoric is used to support biases that are anti-male and anti-heterosexuality. I will admit that most feminists are not explicitly against men or heterosexuality. Yet radical feminist assumptions tend to trickle down both into society, and into the views of more moderate feminists. Hence, a lot of the fundamental assumptions behind certain feminist theories contain anti-male or anti-heterosexual biases. Mainstream feminists have done a terribly poor job of denouncing the extremism of radical feminists (so they shouldn't be surprised when they are lumped together with radical feminists!). When reading feminist work, I am often struck by the horrible amount of basic logical errors, highly selective evidence, and nebulous language, even when I agree with the point they are making! The basic problem with feminism is that it contains way too much Fe and Ni and not enough Ti.

Some books that I am drawing my points from are Heterophobia by Daphne Patai and Why Men Are The Way They Are by Warren Farrell. This post is nowhere near a complete critique of feminism (nor does it fully include the areas where I agree with feminism, nor the fact that I have a lot of criticisms of the anti-feminist Men's Rights Movement also, such as the way it some mirrors feminism in extreme rhetoric and sexism). I realize that I have not fully explained all my claims, because I was trying to put them out on the table with making this post any longer, so I invite anyone to challenge any of them.

Anyway, I think this was a good thread to make. I have often seen a lot of bitterness directed towards women on INTP forums. I think this needs more exploration, and I think most INTP males could do with a better understanding of females so that they could let go of their bitterness.

Hypnos

7 Apr 2005, 12:58 PM

I'd like my rib back and my pass to Eden reissued. Then we'll talk about my bitterness.

:thumbup:

coffeezombie

7 Apr 2005, 01:39 PM

Well, feminism as portrayed in the mainstream media is more a lobby group for females than it is an intellectual movement, but it's a needed one. I don't think there is any doubt that the harm to women in society is still greater in the forms of violence and lack of monetary power in the workplace compared to men.

I always laugh when I hear about "battered men." I have not met too many men whom I would consider "batterable."

Hypnos

7 Apr 2005, 02:24 PM

Here's something worth protesting about:

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

I like:

11. Did the FDA bow to political pressure in making this decision?

No. This decision was made within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
My foot. Republican congressman wrote letters and petitioned the President fearing that an even easier post-intercourse contraceptive would lead to more promiscuity. As if there's ever been "less" promiscuity.

SecondSight

7 Apr 2005, 10:39 PM

Well, feminism as portrayed in the mainstream media is more a lobby group for females than it is an intellectual movement, but it's a needed one.

Yes. I simply take issue with the job it is doing.

I don't think there is any doubt that the harm to women in society is still greater in the forms of violence and lack of monetary power in the workplace compared to men.

I agree. I didn't say that the harm to men and women was equal. I said it would be difficult to say which sex is discriminated against more. And contrary to the claims of some feminists, there is no reason to believe that we live in a "rape culture" or a culture that condones violence towards women.

I always laugh when I hear about "battered men." I have not met too many men whom I would consider "batterable."

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here.

Ravenwing

8 Apr 2005, 05:16 AM

Feminism goes too far when they encourage hatred of and/or the total disrespect and belittling of men. I don't see how reproducing the evils of gender discrimination solves anything, even if it does make them feel better. I'm all for equality. I'm not for tipping the scale the other way.

Feminism goes too far when it says the world would be better off run by women. I don't think that's true. I just think we'd have a different set of problems.

Feminism goes too far when it says that there should be no basis for differentiation between men and women because it's only cultural. Just because it's cultural doesn't make it any less real. You would only end up replacing one set of arbitrary identity factors with another equally arbitrary set. Besides, the problem is not that men and women are better at different things it's how those things are VALUED. If the rearing and education of children were placed in high esteem by society and that was reflected in the aspired to currency of the day, then I suspect we wouldn't have feminisim, we'd have masculinism as men sought 'fatherhood' rights in order to have power and influence over the next generation.

Feminism can easily go too far in terms of theory. In all practicality it's hard to imagine feminism going to far because it's trying to establish a balance. In solving some problems it has caused others and we're likely to have social imbalance for quite awhile yet as we try to figure out the best way to run society to the benefit of all (most).

Anything violent, retributive, or reverse discriminatory I would hesitate to call feminism. I'd just call it a p***ed off woman.

Clara

8 Apr 2005, 06:28 AM

Wow. Thanks Ravenwing. I agree with everything you said.

Part of my difficulty in responding to this thread is my irritation at the suggestion -- for many years now, from the media and from people who absorb what the media tells them -- that I ( or any other woman ) should be explaining/ refuting/ defending all the opinions expressed about feminism... Yet, of course, I've had many such conversations. Sometimes with younger relatives, male and female, who are trying to understand where they stand, in their views.

Sadly ( or annoyingly ) there are people who can't grasp that... there isn't a feminists' handbook, being continually revised. And, there isn't a governing body, determining what we all ought to be thinking. :rolleyes:
That's the key, for me : that we all need to be thinking, not just following catchy phrases.

Ravenwing

8 Apr 2005, 07:16 AM

That's true ... there isn't one feminism. There is a broad spectrum and in some senses that has been one of its main weaknesses as a movement.

As for explaining things to bemused and defensive men ... most of them don't intend to perpetuate the power cycle and when you're the privellaged one, it's hard to see the connection how your privellege comes at the expense of someone elses. I mean, take international privellege as an example here. Most of us have some concept that our standard of living as a western nation comes at the exploitation of people in other nations. But very few of us can actually perceive of how this works, or decide to give up all of our nice things to live as they do. Most of us will make some effort every now and then to donate to a charitable organisation or we chose not to buy something made in Indonesia or China and we feel good for what we've done.

It's much the same with men. They're just living their lives in the system that was handed down to them and feel like they can't be held personally responsible for the patriarchal values of broader culture. So, of course they get defensive and try to knock down feminist arguments where they arise or pretend to play dumb or even attempt to assert ridiculous hyper masculine ideas they don't honestly believe ... just to get out of an awkward conversation.

Change on a large scale is always slow and someone else's problem.
We have come a long way though and things will probably be different again in 20 years.

Hypnos

8 Apr 2005, 07:36 AM

[...] and when you're the privellaged one, it's hard to see the connection how your privellege comes at the expense of someone elses. [...]
Then the "problem" is not falsifiable -- how convenient.

[...]Most of us have some concept that our standard of living as a western nation comes at the exploitation of people in other nations. [...]
"Exploitation" is a laughable term. Better than them starving.

These two things typify the problem and irrelevance of modern feminism. First, it subscribes to postmodern subjectivity. Second (and not unrelated), it employs the ridiculous semantics of far left wing politics.

Here's how to fix feminism:

* Make an _objective_ case how women, as a labor resource, are being underutilized due to irrational stereotypes and unequal compensation

* Drop the left-wing agenda. Equal rights does not mean equalty, nor even equity.

SecondSight

8 Apr 2005, 08:10 AM

Feminism goes too far when it says the world would be better off run by women. I don't think that's true. I just think we'd have a different set of problems.

Yes. Good post.

As for explaining things to bemused and defensive men ... most of them don't intend to perpetuate the power cycle and when you're the privellaged one, it's hard to see the connection how your privellege comes at the expense of someone elses.

I don't agree with this post as much, because you are throwing around a ton of unsupported assumptions. This is exactly the type of problem I have with feminist rhetoric that I described in my first post in this thread.

Why are you assuming that men are the "privileged ones"? What exactly do you mean by "privilege"? I admit that men probably have privileges in some areas, but then women do too, so I see no reason to believe men have some kind of general privilege over women. Maybe men do, but I think that theory needs some kind of support, rather than being accepted as self-evident.

It's much the same with men. They're just living their lives in the system that was handed down to them and feel like they can't be held personally responsible for the patriarchal values of broader culture.

That is because individuals CANNOT be held responsible for a system that was handed down to them. Collective guilt is intellectually dishonest. Also, precisely what do you mean by "patriarchal values?" Aren't there female-centered values in our culture also?

So, of course they get defensive and try to knock down feminist arguments where they arise or pretend to play dumb or even attempt to assert ridiculous hyper masculine ideas they don't honestly believe ... just to get out of an awkward conversation.

I am sure that some men do react to legitimate feminist arguments in this fashion. Yet not all feminist arguments are legitimate. I think it is a bit arrogant to say that if someone criticizes your ideas, then they must be playing dumb or being defensive. There are multiple reasons that people might get defensive at any argument made to them: (a) maybe the argument is wrong, (b) maybe the argument contains a lot of unexplained and inflammatory assumptions, (c) maybe the argument is basically correct, but could be presented in a better manner.

Clara

9 Apr 2005, 05:33 PM

This is exactly the type of problem I have with feminist rhetoric that I described in my first post in this thread.

Yet not all feminist arguments are legitimate. I think it is a bit arrogant to say that if someone criticizes your ideas, then they must be playing dumb or being defensive. There are multiple reasons that people might get defensive at any argument made to them: (a) maybe the argument is wrong, (b) maybe the argument contains a lot of unexplained and inflammatory assumptions, (c) maybe the argument is basically correct, but could be presented in a better manner.Hey, SecondSight. I think that you might be missing a detail that's ellipsed, here. It would be wrong -- and unkind to readers -- to try to address every possibility in one post. I didn't think that either Ravenwing or I said that "if... ( then ) they must be..."

What we did refer to, was individuals asking us ( also individuals ) to defend, or refute, or explain arguments expressed by others. Believe it or not, this gets wearisome, over the years. Now, I'm not saying that in the context of an already-in-progress discussion, that some of these points might not come up... Only, an awful lot of breath gets wasted on answering, "Well ! What do you say to this... ( followed by a long list of what the arguer, yes far more often male, and sometimes the same one, over and over again, finds offensive, taken from a media source ) !

Instead of, simply, "What do you think." :)

coffeezombie

9 Apr 2005, 06:07 PM

I am sure that some men do react to legitimate feminist arguments in this fashion. Yet not all feminist arguments are legitimate.

I think some feminist arguments are legitimate in some cases. It's just a matter of reviewing each case on a case by case basis. Despite people like you talking about "reverse discrimination" against men, I still don't think it happens as much as discrimination against women does, except in cases of child custody battles perhaps.

SecondSight

9 Apr 2005, 10:00 PM

What we did refer to, was individuals asking us ( also individuals ) to defend, or refute, or explain arguments expresed by others. Believe it or not, this gets wearisome, over the years.

Ok, I can definitely understand that.

I think some feminist arguments are legitimate in some cases. It's just a matter of reviewing each case on a case by case basis. Despite people like you talking about "reverse discrimination" against men, I still don't think it happens as much as discrimination against women does, except in cases of child custody battles perhaps.

First, I don't use the term "reverse discrimination." Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the direction it goes.

Second, I am wondering why you think discrimination against women happens more than discrimination to men. Maybe you are right, but I skeptical. I am just wondering how anyone could ever measure such a thing. Do we have two Discrimination Scales (tm) for both sexes, and the balance is tipped towards the female side? Perhaps you could give some specific examples of discrimination against women so I know where you are coming from?

coffeezombie

9 Apr 2005, 10:03 PM

Second, I am wondering why you think discrimination against women happens more than discrimination to men. Maybe you are right, but I skeptical. I am just wondering how anyone could ever measure such a thing. Do we have two Discrimination Scales (tm) for both sexes, and the balance is tipped towards the female side? Perhaps you could give some specific examples of discrimination against women so I know where you are coming from?

Well, men make more money on average than women when controlling for the same jobs being performed, and there are more cases of violence by men against women than violence by women against men (both are underreported, I would guess).

songbird36

9 Apr 2005, 10:37 PM

Geoff

9 Apr 2005, 11:46 PM

This is true (regarding salaries in the legal profession anyway with which I am most familiar). Men on average earn more in the legal profession in the same tier positions as women.

Men are offered partnership in firms at a greater rate, and on average take fewer years to attain partnership than women. Women tend to "hit the glass ceiling" by getting stuck at senior associate level.

The accountancy (and taxation professions are the same). There are more women at 'doing' levels (qualified able individuals), when you hit managing it is about equal men v women, when you hit partnership about 1 in 5 are women.

For the same job the salary would be the same here though, I think, for these jobs.

-Geoff

songbird36

10 Apr 2005, 02:29 AM

The accountancy (and taxation professions are the same). There are more women at 'doing' levels (qualified able individuals), when you hit managing it is about equal men v women, when you hit partnership about 1 in 5 are women.

For the same job the salary would be the same here though, I think, for these jobs.

-Geoff

Then in that respect the UK is more progressive than NZ. Of course managers in all professions can get leverage in salary negotiations from the fact that people generally don't disclose their salaries to each other, and given that women are generally more "modest" than men in terms of what they ask for, this works against them vis-a-vis pay rates in most professions.

Thermo

10 Apr 2005, 04:24 AM

If the feminists would just shave there legs and wear a bra, maybe just maybe they could meet a nice man that would take care of them so they could have babies.

coffeezombie

10 Apr 2005, 04:25 AM

If the feminists would just shave there legs and wear a bra, maybe just maybe they could meet a nice man that would take care of them so they could have babies.

Would you want to live that way if you had been born a female?

Hypnos

10 Apr 2005, 05:15 AM

Would you want to live that way if you had been born a female?
I wouldn't mind marrying rich and screwing around all day on physics, etc.

SecondSight

10 Apr 2005, 11:00 AM

Well, men make more money on average than women when controlling for the same jobs being performed,

But what about when controlling for variables like hours worked, overtime hours, and experience? From what I've read on the wage gap, most of it is not considered to be due to discrimination, but rather to the different choices women make. Perhaps part of the wage gap is due to discrimination in certain industries, and there is certainly discrimination in hiring in certain industries (like orchestral musicians and waiting tables in fancy restuarants, and probably law). Yet the big picture may or may not be that women earn less across all industries. For instance, Warren Farrell in Why Men Earn More (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814472109/002-1371251-2828040) claims that women actually earn more than men in some industries. And men are definitely discriminated against in so-called "female" professions like elementary/middleschool teaching and in nursing.

Wages are clearly an area where both sexes encounter discrimination. I haven't seen enough conclusive evidence to be able to state confidently which sex encounters more discrimination.

and there are more cases of violence by men against women than violence by women against men (both are underreported, I would guess).

Yes, you are correct: this is clearly an area where women suffer a disadvantage. Yet it is not clear that violence against women comes from institutionalized discrimination against them, at least in mainstream American culture (although it may in other parts of the world). I am talking specifically about discrimination, and specifically about mainstream American culture (sorry if I didn't make that clear). Perhaps in some subcultures myths like "if she dresses like a slut then she wants it" exist, but those attitudes towards women are hardly mainstream anymore. Hence, I am not sure that violence towards women is an example of social discrimination against them.

12 Apr 2005, 04:08 AM

If the feminists would just shave there legs and wear a bra, maybe just maybe they could meet a nice man that would take care of them so they could have babies.

Could be worse... I could work in a cubicle all day and work for a company that gives a measely 6 weeks for maternity leave.

Vagabond

12 Apr 2005, 04:22 AM

If the feminists would just shave there legs and wear a bra, maybe just maybe they could meet a nice man that would take care of them so they could have babies. Yes, that would be the best for you and people that think like you (male and female). Fortunately, not everyone feels lost if they don't have someone else to take care of them and not everyone thinks their life is worthless unless they have babies, so not everyone will compromise their comfort/ideas/personality in order to be blessed with a protector that will help them fulfill their only purpose of existance. You do know that women are more than baby-producing machines that can't take care of themselves, right?

Btw, I am not a feminist, simply because I don't care to belong to a "cause". I consider it my right to be treated as a person and not as a gender. I just hate being patted on the head and being told to shut the fuck up and shave my legs in order to produce babies because that's the only thing I am meant to do because I am a woman.

[...]

(Self-censored because this is not the bitching place.)

Thermo

12 Apr 2005, 02:19 PM

I posted....

If the feminists would just shave there legs and wear a bra, maybe just maybe they could meet a nice man that would take care of them so they could have babies.

You guys responded with....

Would you want to live that way if you had been born a female?

Yes, that would be the best for you and people that think like you (male and female). Fortunately, not everyone feels lost if they don't have someone else to take care of them and not everyone thinks their life is worthless unless they have babies, so not everyone will compromise their comfort/ideas/personality in order to be blessed with a protector that will help them fulfill their only purpose of existance. You do know that women are more than baby-producing machines that can't take care of themselves, right?

Btw, I am not a feminist, simply because I don't care to belong to a "cause". I consider it my right to be treated as a person and not as a gender. I just hate being patted on the head and being told to shut the fuck up and shave my legs in order to produce babies because that's the only thing I am meant to do because I am a woman.

[...]

(Self-censored because this is not the bitching place.)

Do you REALLY think I was serious?

coffeezombie

12 Apr 2005, 03:04 PM

Do you REALLY think I was serious?

Yeah, but some women have heard this all of their lives probably and are sick of hearing it even if it is in jest.

Vagabond

12 Apr 2005, 05:14 PM

Do you REALLY think I was serious? I can't read minds. In any case, my beef is with the attitude, not with you personally of course. Some people do have this attitude, hard as it seems to believe. So just take any "you"s off my post. :P

Chicken

12 Apr 2005, 05:20 PM

If the feminists would just shave there legs and wear a bra, maybe just maybe they could meet a nice man that would take care of them so they could have babies.

Maybe if boys would make more money and spread less STDs they could find women who shave their legs and wear bras to make babies with.

MaroonBells

12 Apr 2005, 05:33 PM

You could argue that until a equally favourable balance has been restored, any civil rights/ liberties movement is justified and should be welcomed unless it violates the laws of a country.
MB

booyalab

12 Apr 2005, 05:43 PM

Info From "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell

Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineers. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males.

comparable males and females have been earning similar salaries for decades, though the press has yet to notice. As long ago as the early 1980s, he writes, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles and responsibilities were the same. In 1969, data from the American Council on Education showed that female professors who had never been married and had never published earned 145 percent of their male counterparts. Even during the 1950s,the gender pay gap for all never-married workers was less than 2 percent while never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106 percent of what their white male counterparts made.

Women who own their own businesses net only 49 percent of what male counterparts make. Since it can't be that male bosses are holding them back here, women seem to be seeking certain lifestyle trade-offs-forgoing the highest possible income for more free time and flexible hours.

Many men outearn women by a willingness to take risky and dangerous jobs as well as work that exposes them to stress and bad weather or that requires a transfer to an undesirable location in another city or country. Women are more likely than men to pick glamorous jobs that tend to pay less. A London School of Economics study tracking 10,000 post-1993 United Kingdom graduates from 30 universities found that males were earning 12 percent more than women. The men tended to stress salary and were more likely to take up engineering, math, and computing. The women were more apt to seek socially oriented jobs and as undergraduates had favored majors in education and the arts.

MaroonBells

12 Apr 2005, 05:51 PM

Booyalab,
The data on "Women who own their own businesses" and the reason why is very interesting. Did it say anything about trends in "Lifestyle trade-offs"?
MB

booyalab

12 Apr 2005, 05:57 PM

Booyalab,
The data on "Women who own their own businesses" and the reason why is very interesting. Did it say anything about trends in "Lifestyle trade-offs"?
MB

I didnt read the book, I got it from a column I read awhile ago. Though all the info I mentioned was from the book so i cited the book instead of the column.

"trends"? The lifestyle trade-offs he's referring to is focusing your everyday activities around your job. Women aren't as competitive as men.

Thermo

12 Apr 2005, 06:05 PM

I can't read minds. In any case, my beef is with the attitude, not with you personally of course. Some people do have this attitude, hard as it seems to believe. So just take any "you"s off my post. :P
Yes, I agree you aren't a mind reader and there are archie bunkers out there, but I would ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt next time.

Thermo

12 Apr 2005, 06:05 PM

Maybe if boys would make more money and spread less STDs they could find women who shave their legs and wear bras to make babies with.
I'm clean, go shave your legs.

Chicken

12 Apr 2005, 09:01 PM

I'm clean, go shave your legs.
No thanks :)

ShadyShady

28 Apr 2005, 05:40 AM

edited: replied to wrong thread.

ShadyShady

28 Apr 2005, 06:01 AM

Feminism is destroying society. I dont agree with everything in the following article -especially the happy ending, I think things will continue to get worse in the usa - higher divorce rates, more single moms, more crazy kids, more guys with wives who didnt grow up in the usa... I didnt vote for bush btw.

Feminism Can't Kill the Female
Written by Karen Burke
Thursday, January 13, 2005

The plight of the female in this great nation is not discrimination by men. It is the militant feminists who have launched an all out assault on femininity making it near impossible to embrace the fact that you are a female. Somewhere down the line a few enterprising women decided that to be the weaker sex was shameful. They wanted to be dominant, and they achieved it by undercutting men’s strength with the ridiculous notion that strength was abusive, and women wanted sensitive men who cried. They also launched an all out effort to convince women who were happy being homemakers that they were somehow lacking in worth.

It’s no wonder this nation is teeming with folks who are confused about their sexuality. Thanks to feminism we live in a society where girls have gone wild and boys have no respect for them. Marriage feels unnatural because men no longer see themselves as the head of a household but an equal partner. Many men think nothing of sitting around on unemployment because the feminists have made it her job to take up the slack. Men think nothing of abandoning the wife or the kids because feminists have long sent the message that we don’t need no stinking man.

Females have become sexual predators who wouldn’t hesitate to liberate you from your husband. She doesn’t have any sense of shame about it. It’s your fault for not doing enough to hold on to him. The liberated female will pay half the bills and do ungodly things in bedroom. Unfortunately the whole nation is becoming fatter and fatter because she couldn’t cook a square meal to save her life, and husbands and children can’t survive on bottled water and a carrot stick as she does.

Little girls are going off to school dressed as if they’ll be holding down the corner in front of the school rather than attending class. Sadly, the statistics show that many of them are. Rubber bracelets adorn the wrists of misguided little girls who think it’s cool to display their sexual conquests. Words like bitch and slut are now darling little pet names these ’cool’ little girls call one another. These same little girls are flashing their breasts for any stray dog with a video camera and thinking nothing of it.

Little boys spend their days surrounded by foul-mouthed little tarts and are having it engrained in them that women are nothing more than harlots not worthy of respect. Teaching little boys that you don’t hit girls is a thing of the past because women are now equals. The same little boy who hits your daughter on the school bus will go on to beat his wife and his children because feminism has made chivalry a crime.

The only victim of the feminist movement is the female. We have lost our identity and the respect of men. I don’t care how liberated and successful a few females have become. It came by way of sacrificing an entire nation of females who now have no place in the grand scheme of things. Even those who have found success in the business world have to stop and wonder why they’re chasing their husbands around like roving dogs. It doesn’t matter if you have broken the glass ceiling. There are still many folks who will hold the perception that your size D breasts got you there, and you’re not going to change that. If you are truly liberated, you can accept that and be proud of your accomplishments rather than barking at the world like a junkyard dog demanding validation.

Many women have made it to the top without bucking the system, burning bras, or sacrificing their self-respect. They are the few and far between, these women who can comfortably go from lamb to lioness without losing touch with what makes them women. These women are deserving of great respect, but they cannot be imitated. The misconception that every woman can go from lamb to lion has left many scrounging like hyenas. That’s because the feminist movement is all or nothing. You either fly high or fall flat on your face.

Where do you go when you fall flat on your face? Men no longer respect you. There are very few billets in this society for cherished housewives because men have had it beat into their skulls that we are equal partners. Many men these days want nothing to do with a woman who doesn’t work outside the home. They see her as having no value. This isn’t because they’re monsters. It’s because they have given the feminists exactly what they’ve been screaming for. Even the ability to carry a child gives woman no greater value in a pro-choice, feminist society that doesn’t value life to begin with. Feminists have devalued everything about being a woman. How has that helped us?

Ask yourself who is it that is truly liberated? Is it a misguided faction of society who find great success in the workplace in between chasing philandering husbands and topless daughters or is it women who are cherished as the heart of their family? As for women voting, yes, that was a wonderful advance, but it’s time for the feminists to take a look at who they voted for! Women in this nation are tired of being condemned for being women. A huge number of women voted for President Bush and traditional family values, not to mention a First Lady who actually behaves like a lady.

The presidential race was only one sign among many that women are gravitating back to a strong desire to behave like women. Growing numbers of women are turning down promotions in favor of family. Many are staying home with their children and relying on their husband’s income. A homemaker is no longer considered an underachiever. Women around the nation are protesting retailers for selling nothing but trashy clothing for little girls. Women who love being women are slowly taking back this nation and putting families right. These women are speaking out and demanding restoration of their rights to be women and to raise little girls with self-respect and feminine dignity.

Men are remembering what it is to cherish a woman for her intrinsic value rather than her financial achievements. Marriage is returning to a state where Fidelity and Trust is more than the name of your bank, and trash will soon become your teenage daughter’s least favorite chore rather than her identity. Woman has never been stronger or roared louder than in her natural state. That is why you would have to search long and hard to find a woman in this day and age who could hold a candle to your grandma. I don’t care if you were male or female, you didn’t mess with grandma. Grandma knew who she was and what she was about. She was feminine to the core, but still, you just didn’t mess with grandma!!!!.or you would answer to Grandpa!

sbw

28 Apr 2005, 05:50 PM

hypocrisy manifest:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3746

Scott

deviousingly

28 Apr 2005, 10:57 PM

ShadyShady

28 Apr 2005, 11:09 PM

It wasnt a joke, feminists are the jokes. Go ahead and dissect it, I'll pick you apart too.

_______________________________________________

Cultural Commentary, Actions win, talk doesn't

To the victor go the spoils. In many ways, the American feminist movement has a been a major cultural and political victory. This can been seen in the various laws that impact families and divorce outcomes. The victory can also been seen in our cultural outlook as manifested in the media and higher education. Political correctness along with its associated freakish vocabulary has changed the prevailing social sensibilities to where offending anyone is tantamount to committing actual physical violence.

The victory of feminism is seen in the prevailing political correctness of demonizing of men and of stereotypical masculine behavior. Little boys are drugged up on Ritalin while little girls have special classes and clubs to address self esteem issues. In fact, self-esteem is now an important part of scholastic "achievement". Federal laws have brought girls into the uncomfortable embrace of almost all levels of publicly-funded school sports. Hiring laws have been drastically changed to prevent gender-based discrimination.

Over all, the feminization of America is well advanced and shows little sign of slowing down. There are a few voices crying out in the wilderness but these are ignored or shouted down as "patriarchal subjugation" or other such pro-female nomenclature. If we look at the social and political conflict between men and women as a war, then the estrogen army is sweeping the battlefield.

Great hordes of decent, intelligent, and caring men have listened (surrendered, perhaps?) the call to become feminized. To become a "metro-sexual", a "new-age guy", or a "sensitive guy" is considered a great and wonderful achievement for a man if we are to believe the emotional desires of women. Those men keep their masculinity tightly in check lest they incur the wrath of the nearest woman. That's what decent, intelligent, and caring men do, they listen and respect the desires of others and selflessly attempt to make others happy. But wait...

There is an important consideration in this cultural conflict. The societal changes are mostly in words and messages. The feminization of America is a trend manifested in the ink of the print media and in the sounds and images of the broadcast media. Where the words of liberated women have succeeded, the failure of feminism is because of actions. Women's actual behavior has changed little despite the onslaught of feminist words and messages. "Treat me as an equal and respect my independence but you had better fall on your knees as the epitome of chivalry no matter how badly me and my feminine peers might treat you." Men have noticed this hypocrisy and their collective reaction has wrought consequences unforeseen by feminists.

Where the words of women have been betrayed by their actions is fairly obvious. Feminists sought access to the workplace yet women acutely feel the crushing conflict of family versus career. Fertility is an issue considered even more important than gender equity when the often overwhelming biological need to reproduce is faced squarely and privately without the veneer of the essentially shallow cultural and political movement that is feminism.

The biggest disparity between feminist words and actions is shown in the hordes of decent, intelligent, and caring men who have yielded their essential maleness to the wants of contemporary feminists but who oddly don't have equal hordes of women wanting to form close and intimate relationships with them. Women complain mightily about the lack of nice guys but when the emotional push comes to the coital shove, women (even devout feminists) don't want nice guys. Women want men. They want men with leather jackets and tattoos. They want powerful men who succeed in life with those exact same masculine characteristics that are so viscerally loathed with words and messages in the media.

When given the choice between a bad boy (of a business or a motorcycle club) or some emotionally accessible and very good-natured fellow, the typical American woman will almost always choose the former, not the nice guy. These actions are a very sharp blow against the feminist's overbearing words. "Death to male subjugation!" is the battle cry in public. Bad boys are not nice nor are they likely to bend to any woman's will. But the private actions of the self-same feminists when they swoon over macho men with oppressive egos and controlling attitudes reveal the true nature of the real American women.

Men, nice or not, are intelligent creatures. They know that actions always win over words. So, men are now responding quite naturally to the actions of feminism, rather than the words of that movement. First, men have responded with a marriage strike. The statistics are clear on this one. Why should any intelligent man become involved with a contemporary American woman? There is nothing to gain. If he's rich, he runs the very serious risk of losing his hard-earned assets in a trip through the feminista-ruled divorce courts. If the man is intelligent, good-natured, and sweet, he knows full well he could easily be cuckolded by the first motorcycle-riding bad boy who crosses his beloved's path. Under these circumstances, any kind of close and intimate relationship with an American woman is simply ridiculous.

Another way that men are responding to the actions of feminism is to seek intimate partners away from the feminist din. Those nice and sweet fellows eschewed by American women are finding emotionally intimate and rewarding relationships with women overseas in cultures where more distinct and honest gender roles are respected and even encouraged. Foreign women from traditional cultures see the pursuit of bad boys merely as some bizarre and unhealthy quest for short-term gratitude that they would never stoop to. Those foreign women see intelligent, decent, and caring American men as - insert pregant pause here - intelligent, decent, and caring men.

The final way that American men are responding to the hypocrisy of feminism is to learn from the opposition. Men are using words and messages to encourage other men to speak up or find another path to healthy and fulfilling relationships. Feminists mocked the "Promisekeepers" for being reactionary and old fashioned. That derisive feminist tone was the result of fear. Hundreds of thousands of decent, normal guys speaking in one voice against the negative and hypocritical feminist social movement should be intimidating because the truth is always rather frightening. There are websites where the words of decent and intelligent men shine through the hateful muck of man bashing. These are websites where men are free to voice their logical anger regarding the state of our contemporary culture in regards to relationships with American women. That's why you are reading this essay.

The spoils of the gender wars have gone to feminism. Those spoils are loneliness, bitterness, and frustration. Decent guys find foreign women. Feminists grow older, wiser, and saddened by failed relationships with bad boys and frustrated with a political and legal structure - created by feminists - that punishes men for marrying American women.

28 Apr 2005, 11:19 PM

"A huge number of women voted for President Bush and traditional family values, not to mention a First Lady who actually behaves like a lady."

... but somehow she raised drunken whores? Nice.

Feminism means so little anymore. [sigh]

[laughs at shady lady's post]

Funny stuff.

mgb

28 Apr 2005, 11:31 PM

The article you posted was completely ridiculous. I don't even want to waste my time dissecting it.

I did find your comment that feminism will lead to "more guys with wives who didnt grow up in the usa" absolutely hilarious though. Thanks for the laugh.

haha. I hope your whole post was a joke to provoke a negative response.

"Sounds like a whole bunch of liberal PC bullshit."
"You are just a feminist home wrecker!!"

*snicker*

Just thought I'd begin to cover the gamut of insults you can expect.

Mat

29 Apr 2005, 12:27 AM

I definately agree wiht the notion that in many cases, feminism takes it too far. Just like most "isms", feminism is largely an extremist point of view (female chauvanists)

I dated a guy once who was pure feminist and so were his female friends. They frequently put down men and rather bluntly stated that women should be treated in higher regard than men. Their argument was that "men are the opressors". An example would be if i said to a girl who was being annoying as hell, "shut up!", I would get yelled at by them and called sexist because I was "imposing my male space" or whatever....

Star

29 Apr 2005, 12:34 AM

lol at invasion of the sock puppets (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/sock-puppet.html).

We're not dumb, you know. ;]

Vega

29 Apr 2005, 04:54 AM

I can't say I really understand why it's supposed to be appealing to a man to be in the traditional role. Why would a man want to bear the sole burden of supporting the household? I grew up with traditional parents, and neither of them seemed very happy in their roles. My mother was bored silly staying at home, but that's what good women did so that's what she did. My dad worked hard his whole life to fulfill his duties and bring home a good paycheck. He was working so often we never saw him, and he died of a heart attack at an early age. Is that how life is supposed to be?

Hypnos

29 Apr 2005, 05:58 AM

Conversely, there's a growing trend of women working fulltime and husbands working part time or being homemakers.

The real solution is for employers to offer more "flex-time" positions, and for employees to take advantage of the ones out there. There are a few obstacles here:

* You have to show up for meetings -- hence "core hours"

* Prestige -- there is an irrational judgment of your commitment by how much time you put in

* Tax and benefits laws

ShadyShady

11 May 2005, 07:48 PM

"Author Charlotte Allen asked: "Where are the great women thinkers?" Her conclusion: "The vast majority of women who might otherwise qualify as public intellectuals would rather recite the feminist catechism or articulate some new twists and refinements on it."

Vox Day chimed in with this observation about college students: "While men are listening to professors lecture on history, economics and engineering, far too many women are yammering on and on about their feelings in Women's Study classes."

Six weeks ago Harvard president Larry Summers said the once-unthinkable. He suggested the under-representation of women in high-end science positions might be due to a "different availability of aptitude." That comment still roils the ultra-liberal faculty at Harvard.

But now we know there is at least one other reason for the shortage of brainy women. Thanks to all those Women's Studies programs, the reason, fairness, and compassion of far too many women have been sucked out, and replaced by an ideological, narcissistic, and vindictive mush. "

mgb

11 May 2005, 07:54 PM

Sounds like you had a bad date.

Star

12 May 2005, 12:14 AM

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

More plagiarism? :zzz:

Looks like this text was lifted from something called Men's News Daily (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2005/roberts030205.htm)..

The Summers speech and was given months ago.

Mat

12 May 2005, 04:39 AM

Thanks to all those Women's Studies programs, the reason, fairness, and compassion of far too many women have been sucked out, and replaced by an ideological, narcissistic, and vindictive mush. "

+1

ShadyShady

12 May 2005, 06:54 PM

More plagiarism? :zzz:

Looks like this text was lifted from something called Men's News Daily (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2005/roberts030205.htm)..

The Summers speech and was given months ago.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

mgb

12 May 2005, 08:12 PM

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

That's funny because you responded to an attack of plagerism by actually plagerizing more. Way to go, that'll show all those stupid women who write their own stuff.

ShadyShady

12 May 2005, 09:07 PM

mgbradsh, whats your gender/orientation? I'd like to know what is speaking to me.

mgb

12 May 2005, 09:21 PM

mgbradsh, whats your gender/orientation? I'd like to know what is speaking to me.

I'd like to know why it matters?

Are you going to treat me with more disdain if I am a woman? Or is it worse if I am a man and I disagree with you? Would that make me a "gender traitor"?

Who cares what gender someone is? This is a place of ideas, not a dating service.

And it's not "what" is speaking to me, it's "whom".

ShadyShady

12 May 2005, 09:29 PM

because some people will defend feminism forever regardless of how illogical, or destructive to normal heterosexual relationships it gets out of selfish reasons to further whatever agenda they are trying to push. so yes, I will dig into your personal life and call you out on your bullshit.

mgb

12 May 2005, 09:43 PM

because some people will defend feminism forever regardless of how illogical, or destructive to normal hetorsexual relationships it gets out of selfish reasons to further whatever agenda they are trying to push. so yes, I will dig into your personal life and call you out on your bullshit.

How are my posts "destructive to normal heterosexual relationships"?

Are my posts somehow the determinate of all heterosexual relationships? Are you the keeper of all heterosexual relationships? I'm in a heterosexual relationship, does that make you the boss of me?

And call me on my bullshit? Dude, you are troll. If you weren't a troll you'd know what my gender was because it's all over the forum. But you haven't been all over the forum because you've only been on like two or three threads, because those are the ones you are trolling. And anytime anyone questions you, you tell them it's bullshit, post some plagerized material and spout out a ton of useless shit, just like a troll.

You are a dimwitted 23 year old who is so unsure of himself that he has to revert back to caveman status to make himself feel good about being in a relationship with anyone. Truly pathetic.

Believe me, the world isn't in danger because the dynamics of heterosexual relationships change a little here and there. Worse things happen, why don't you worry about those.

ShadyShady

12 May 2005, 10:22 PM

knome

12 May 2005, 11:37 PM

You are apparently no comedian either. However, your being offended is rather amusing, my good troll.

Watermark

12 May 2005, 11:43 PM

I am not a troll and you have deeply offended me. I suffer from a serious medical condition that prevents me from having healthy relationships with women, it is not to be joked about. It is called ALMAD (Afraid of Losing Money and Assets Disorder).

What would be your vision of a healthy relationship within the context of money and assets. How would you break down financial equity between you and your partner, and how would you factor in the inequity of child bearing and rearing given that you can't conceive your own bloodline? Are you expecting your female partner to pull her own weight financially, but, feel priveleged to conceive and rear children that are half yours, risk her financial status or career? How do expect to break down the cost of raising a child, and how would you break down your assets if you should divorce? Are the children considered property? Do you plan to attribute a monetary value to you children? Would you treat your daughter and son as equal value? What are you going to do if your vision of monetary and asset value and the definition of property doesn't conform to what the laws state, should you find yourself having to battle over property?

Just curious. I'd like to know how you would work it out. It would be appreciated if you could provide your own thoughts as opposed to pointing to links of other's work. I'd like to know your personal theories.

melancholeric

12 May 2005, 11:46 PM

...destructive to normal hetorosexual relationships...
What are these normal heterosexual relationships you are referring to here?

I suffer from a serious medical condition that prevents me from having healthy relationships with women, it is not to be joked about.
Certainly not healthy, anyway.

Care to explain with more detail?

13 May 2005, 01:02 AM

[looks around]

Is this thread still alive???

Did feminism begat "girls gone wild" dvd's? And I thought feminism would create a nation of man-haters...[/sarcasm] Does anyone know what feminism really means anymore? What about N.O.W? What are they up to...

http://www.now.org/

Wow, that is just disappointing. [sigh]

Meh, maybe I donate in honor of Mr. "I can't get laidy" Shady...

Hypnos

13 May 2005, 01:18 AM

The problem with feminism continues to be the left-wing baggage. NOW's fight for political relevance is eerily like the NRA's.

Watermark

13 May 2005, 01:48 AM

[looks around]

Is this thread still alive???

Yah, kind of sad isn't it. I thought I'd poke around at the dead cat today, see how well it bounces.

13 May 2005, 01:56 AM

Hypnos and Watermark:

[nods]

yea...

mgb

13 May 2005, 02:15 AM

I have to wonder if NOW=feminism. They are a lobby group. Inevitably they become politicized because they are wrapped in that environment.

Feminism itself, is less about being "left-wing" and more about liberalism as opposed to conservatism in my opinion. Often that means being left-wing, but often you can find a female business exec. with entirely right-wing ideals about life and money, while bucking the social-conservative ideals about family and such.

In essence, feminism itself is more about libertarianism, on both sides of the political spectrum. Organizations like NOW, are just one branch on the tree of feminism and shouldn't be labelled as the be all and end all of feminism. Just like the NRA doesn't represent the interests of all right-wingers and in fact probably has the support of quite of few left-winged gun owners.

13 May 2005, 03:08 AM

mgb

13 May 2005, 07:47 AM

So what do feminists "fight" for these days? Social-conservative ideals about family don't necessarily oppress do they? Isn't feminism all about living our own lives as we see fit... "choice"?

When I said bucking, that's what I meant. It's ok for a woman to become a fiscal conservative and still be considered a feminist.

I think it is about choice. I think they should have choice, that's why I think NOW is just a branch of feminism, kind of a reactionary branch, but maybe we just live in reactionary times right now.

Someone can be a stay home mom and still be a feminist, as long as it's choosing to stay home and not staying home so you can be subserviant to your husband.

I do object to classifying women as fembots or "left wing nuts" because they believe they should have a choice over their lives. And that goes for all women, even mail order brides. The whole subserviant thing is bullshit and just a construct of weak minded males with low self esteem trying to control others because they have so little control over themselves. Just my opinion though.

Bill_Zenn

13 May 2005, 11:21 AM

"What is feminism gone too far?"

Making man "the enemy".

Hypnos

13 May 2005, 11:23 AM

or a bicycle ;)

13 May 2005, 09:37 PM

[chuckles]

http://www.bicyclingfish.com/bicyclingfish.htm

One of my favorite sayings.

s, salty Texas broad.

MacGuffin

13 May 2005, 09:43 PM

[chuckles]

http://www.bicyclingfish.com/bicyclingfish.htm

One of my favorite sayings.

s, salty Texas broad.
Like you could go without a man...

and put some panties on!

13 May 2005, 09:47 PM

[laughter]

Hey, Wonder Woman walks around in her panties all the time... see... blue with white stars, Mr. Pleather butt.

Hypnos

13 May 2005, 09:49 PM

Like you could go without a man...

and put some panties on!
That would actually be quite funny in Darth Vader's voice.

13 May 2005, 09:57 PM

feminism----> panties.

nice progression.

Hypnos

13 May 2005, 10:03 PM

deepsky must have known that this was the natural path for this thread on an INTP forum

MacGuffin

13 May 2005, 10:30 PM

deepsky must have known that this was the natural path for this thread on an INTP forum
You should have seen this one sex thread the INTPs took over on N-Central...

Geoff

14 May 2005, 12:26 AM

It certainly was scary.

Is it safer on this forum now?

:ph34r:

-Geoff

ShadyShady

16 May 2005, 02:04 AM

What would be your vision of a healthy relationship within the context of money and assets. How would you break down financial equity between you and your partner, and how would you factor in the inequity of child bearing and rearing given that you can't conceive your own bloodline? Are you expecting your female partner to pull her own weight financially, but, feel priveleged to conceive and rear children that are half yours, risk her financial status or career? How do expect to break down the cost of raising a child, and how would you break down your assets if you should divorce? Are the children considered property? Do you plan to attribute a monetary value to you children? Would you treat your daughter and son as equal value? What are you going to do if your vision of monetary and asset value and the definition of property doesn't conform to what the laws state, should you find yourself having to battle over property?

I dont have all the answers. I post this stuff, more people recognize its a problem, and someone else will do that work for me. Therefore,

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

I think enough has been said in this thread and the other I created. Soooo, I wont be posting on these threads again. Ignore the warnings at your own risk.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.