Feminism (male input welcomed)

[dutch.lover]

I figured since this is the Women's Forum that a thread on Feminism is very appropriate. This IS NOT a male bashing thread (a lot of men assume feminism=anti-male, which is not true...well with radical feminism it pretty much is, but that's another story. lol)!! This thread can be about anything to do with feminism...men, feel free to ask questions about it and share your concerns with it if you have any...

Here are some questions to get this thread off the ground, boys- feel free to answer them too (men can be feminists too!):

Do any of you identify yourselves as being a feminist? If so, do you feel comfortable telling other people this?

What stereotypes do you feel feminists have? Do you feel these are negative or positive?

What does feminism mean to you?

What issues do you think are most important for feminists?

[dutch.lover]

I suppose I will start.

I do identify myself as a feminist, but not long ago I was hesitant to claim this...mainly due to the negative stereotypes feminists seem to have. Neg. stereotypes are plentiful, we are all: lesbians, anti-male, hairy, masculine, and anti-family to name a few.

For me, feminism is all about equality for any disadvantaged group (women, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, etc) by bringing knowledge to the general public on many of the injustices out there today. It's all about critical thinking, and identifying relationships that lead and/or maintain oppression.

[Samwhore]

I never liked the idea, people are people, I think feminism and machoism treat others unequal, same with race, Im not sure how explain it

[Matt the Funk]

I never liked the idea, people are people, I think feminism and machoism treat others unequal, same with race, Im not sure how explain it

Agreed.

[halfassedjediknight]

my girlfriend isnt necesarilly a feminist, but she is a strong believer in womans rights, as am i.

speaking from my own point of view, being a male and trying to contribute my own personal thought as much as allowed, you dont need to be an elitist to get your point across.

everyone is equal, should be treated equal, and thats the end of the road.

no one is better or worse.

but woman have been mistreated in the past and it needs to change.

[Tokudai]

^^^ Feminism killed chivalry. I hold the door for anyone thats reasonably close enough - male/female/dog etc etc, but its out of common courtesy.

[dutch.lover]

I never liked the idea, people are people, I think feminism and machoism treat others unequal, same with race, Im not sure how explain it

See, that's the misconception the public has with feminism. No feminist would admit to treating other people unequal, or discriminating against someone. BUT this DOES happen a lot, I will admit. For example, Western Feminists (ie white, middle class women) are often criticized for leaving out 'other' feminists, mainly those of color or of an alternative sexual preference. The goal of feminism (or what the goal should be) imo is to unite all disadvantaged people and work together for equality, and equal rights under the law. So yes, feminism sometimes does treat other unequal, but in general I definitely think it's a positive thing.

Also, just to make this clear, most feminist perspectives INCLUDE race, class, AND sex...feminism isn't just about women, it's also about visual minorities and people with low socioeconomic statuses.

[Samwhore]

See, that's the misconception the public has with feminism. No feminist would admit to treating other people unequal, or discriminating against someone. BUT this DOES happen a lot, I will admit. For example, Western Feminists (ie white, middle class women) are often criticized for leaving out 'other' feminists, mainly those of color or of an alternative sexual preference. The goal of feminism (or what the goal should be) imo is to unite all disadvantaged people and work together for equality, and equal rights under the law. So yes, feminism sometimes does treat other unequal, but in general I definitely think it's a positive thing.

Also, just to make this clear, most feminist perspectives INCLUDE race, class, AND sex...feminism isn't just about women, it's also about visual minorities and people with low socioeconomic statuses.

I acknowledge your statement, but a main reason why I dont like the idea is that we shouldnt need to be fighting for equal rights in the first place, and that these types of groups should not need to exist because we should all tolerate each others differences and not let them play a role in how we view people

:hippy:

[dutch.lover]

the feminism ive encountered is were women want to be treated like men and they dont want guys holding doors for them and shit and its really annoying casue its just us trying to be nice because isnt that how guys are supposed to treat women , chivalrously (sp). so yea when girls act like that it pisses me off, but you might be talking about a different sort of feminism

I hear this a lot from guys, and I can obviously see how frusterating this can be! Most women like chivalry, and most (well maybe not most, but a lot) women are feminists....but not all feminists are against chivalry...I hope that made sense. lol. I personally think chivalry is just an act to show respect for someone, I don't necessarily think it's specifically to please women. I personally try to be 'equal' to men in that respect, by not expecting men to open doors for me, for example. If they want to, that's fine, but I would never expect them to nor would I get offended if they wanted to do that for me.

The category of Radical Feminists (the generally anti-male ones) would most definitely have a problem with chivalry, because they would view it as men insinuating women are weak- therefore adding to their belief that it is specifically men who oppress women. This is the other common misconception: all feminists believe it is ONLY men to blame for their oppression. Not all feminists believe this...there are many, many multi-causal hypotheses pertaining to oppression out there, not just male-centered ones.

[dutch.lover]

I acknowledge your statement, but a main reason why I dont like the idea is that we shouldnt need to be fighting for equal rights in the first place, and that these types of groups should not need to exist because we should all tolerate each others differences and not let them play a role in how we view people

:hippy:

I totally agree with you except for one thing (which i will get to in a sec). I can see where you are coming from when you say we should tolerate everyone, etc...by having a group 'feminism' it by default creates an "us against them" situation. Since women are fighting oppression, they are obviously fighting against something, therefore there is an enemy. This is sort of a negative way to view it, but anyways...

What I disagree with is your statement "we shouldnt need to be fighting for equal rights in the first place." Of course we should! Try telling that to the native women on the streets, the lesbians who feel shunned from their religions or communities, the women who are only making 70cents on the male dollar...etc. If there wasn't a group to work towards improving life for all these disadvantaged groups, they would never get anywhere. If it weren't for feminists, we would still be men's property...we would still be unable to vote, and unable to own property (even as early as the 60s and 70s women were not able to take out a credit card without a male cosigner).

[dutch.lover]

I also wanted to say something to the men...

I sympathize with the ways you are mistreated just as much as I sympathize with anyone else. I realize that men have it really hard in a few ways, such as: being passed over for jobs that are specifically looking for ethnic women (to diversify their employees...this is happening with our police forces), not having people understand that men suffer from as much spousal abuse as women do, getting tougher jail sentences than women for certain offenses (such as sexual harrassment), etc.

These kind of things ARE recognized in feminism...femism is a discussion on ALL KINDS of injustice out there.

[dutch.lover]

True that. In my women's studies class we talk about problems like this, and their causes. I think those issues you brought up are related to the high standards of beauty our society has today. Aside from the medias direct role in that, women are actually largely to blame for those kinds of things as well.

For example, eating disorders are commonly passed down from mother to daughter. A young girl will grow up listening to her mother's negative comments about her weight, and will end up criticizing her own body as well.

Perhaps there is a male root to this all (bear with me here boys), but women are often the ones doing the reinforcement which is the most significant thing imo, because if we keep on reinforcing shit like this it will never stop. One of the biggest thing women need to realize, is their own role in this sort of thing. Women oppress women all the time, without even realizing it. We perpetuate stereotypes on a daily basis, and there is even a large occurrance of violence done to women, by women (very common in the lesbian community). Women can be racist, classist, sexist...all of which contribute to the general oppression many groups face. It's a very complex issue.

[birdgirl73]

I supposed I'd consider myself a feminist, but I really much prefer the term "humanist" instead. I believe in equal rights for all people, not just women. Sure, I believe we need equal pay for equal work. I believe women are intelligent, equal beings. I believe we deserve every consideration other groups get. If that makes me a feminist, then so be it. I'm sorry the concept of feminism ever grew to have a negative connotation, and I strongly disapprove of it as an excuse for male-bashing. Men are wonderful, as are women.

While we're on the subject, I'm a big believer in both femininity and in chivalry. There are black-and-white thinkers out there who might think those concepts can't be compatible with feminism, but I know they can.

By the way, this is the first time I've ever--EVER--seen feminism compared to masochism. That's absurd.

[Snorbel]

*machoism

[birdgirl73]

I thought she mean masochism! I was reading too fast.

OK, not so absurd. I think I'm the one who qualifies as abusrd now!!

"Machoism" is a new one to me. I've always heard of "machismo," but not "machoism." Good word, though. At least when read correctly! My apologies, Sammie.

[Samwhore]

I dont find it that absurd, I guess what im trying to say is that sex, religion, and sexual preference should never play a role in your views of judging others or government, as they create a bias for how you should treat others and how others are treated.

If you think about it, if we were all a shemale, all one, there would be none of this unfair treatment of women because you could not compare one sex to another. I support the movement for all to be treated equal, but with the way the government is running, and the strong ties to religion within it (even though some say religion plays no part, it plays a huge part) I cant see these groups completely making a 360 turn on the way things run unless one of them can be elected president and fully correct our flaws in our government. While these groups are a worthwhile cause, My point is that these barriers we have to face shouldnt have been there in the first place, because there is no proof that one sex or race is better than another.

*everythings alright birdie

[dutch.lover]

I know I have already typed a lot in the last hour or so, but I was thinking about Samwhore's usage of this word and I thought I would address it. First off, Sam, I am sure you didn't mean to use tolerance in a negative way- that's why I am going to discuss it.

Tolerance is NOT the answer to equality, or acceptance of people. Tolerance is simply the ability to brush off, or not let a certain thing bother you. You can tolerate homosexuals, for example, by ignoring them and pretending they aren't there and that they don't affect your life. I am sure a lot of homophobes do this. Tolerance does not bring understanding of different perspectives, if anything it just breeds ignorance. What's needed is understanding of different cultures, backgrounds, and identities- tolerance will never achieve this.


ps: Sam, I think we agree on pretty much this whole topic, we just have different views on what it is. You think feminism singles people out, and I think it attempts to bring everyone together....neither of us are right or wrong, many people hold either of those views.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

note to self

[Samwhore]

I mean tolerance exactly by the way you defined it Dutch,


and wb greenjeans!

[dutch.lover]

do u think tolerance is enough though?

ps: gotta go, continue on without me...lol! Im gonna go get high and watch 300!!!

[Samwhore]

My opinion is that you either,

tolerate
accept/ flourish
disapprove/ hate

differences in people, if everyone tolerated everyone else, yes, there would be a lack of freedom of speech, but who are you to judge another person, especially when your are negatively judging a person knowing that you will never feel the pain your are bringing on them with your remarks, If everyone kept their mouth shut and put on a fake smile, it would be hard to not get along.

[higher4hockey]

on the whole chivalry thing. its not dead, its waiting in ambush. i am a firm believer in chivalry, but i am also aware that there is a time and a place for it. i hold the door open for any woman, especially my mother. i try not to swear too much around girls but then again that falls under the time and place category. i try to carry a clean handkerchief with me at all times should the need arise to give it to a lady... the point im trying to make is, for me if a girl isn't into the whole i get up from the table when she gets up on a date sort of thing, well then thats just not the right type of lady for me. i want a girl that isn't afraid to on occasion swing a hammer, but i also want a girl that expects me to clean the gutters and take out the garbage.


but as far as feminism is concerned i wouldnt associate myself as being a feminist or a supporter of feminism. because to me feminists are the radical i hate men type of ladies. booo to that. but i am all for equal rights and things of that nature.



when i was in college i was in this class called intro to moral issues, and i signed up for a debate on women in combat, i was against it. well the day of the debate comes around and im sitting at the front of the class ready to get started , i look around the room and realize that there are only five guys in this class of about 30. long story short, i got creamed big time.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Oh Sam. I wish I could take everything I know and have experienced and pour it into your ear with a funnel. You're a bright, thinking person. You will eventually come to a point in your life where mere tolerance will not satisfy you, and you will want to rail against injustice, or at the very least, you will be very very very tired of plastering on a fake smile and putting up with bullshit. Don't go along to get along, unless you're just doing that on the surface while you plot against tyranny in secret.

Nurture your inner anarchist.

[Samwhore]

Oh Sam. I wish I could take everything I know and have experienced and pour it into your ear with a funnel. You're a bright, thinking person. You will eventually come to a point in your life where mere tolerance will not satisfy you, and you will want to rail against injustice, or at the very least, you will be very very very tired of plastering on a fake smile and putting up with bullshit. Don't go along to get along, unless you're just doing that on the surface while you plot against tyranny in secret.

Nurture your inner anarchist.

Ive done that all my life, I come from the family where everything is going wrong, yet on the outside none of us crack and you would suspect that nothing is wrong. Tolerance does not satisfy me, as I do not tolerate differences, I accept and love them, I would hate to live in a world where everyone is the same. As not many know, except for a few close friends of mine, actually, know my plot against tyranny, and how the bloody revolution will take place, LOL, but true.

The only thing that I do not tolerate is those who do not tolerate others, trust me, ive been called a beaner, a dirty mexican, heard all the "go mow my lawn mexican" "run over the border mexican" and all the other racist jokes, racist jokes have never bothered me, why? because I always have one 10x about you.

[Purple Banana]

I think modern feminism is phasing out, particularly extreme feminism.

I agree with BG on that people who recognize modern feminist ideas should embrace themselves as humanists, because it's a more holistic approach, rather than focusing on a minority group. I appreciate greatly what feminists did for women's movement; they proved women have (metaphorical) balls as well. As of now, in America at least, houses are much more matriarchal than in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s.

The one issue I have with modern feminism is the sudden growth in "women's" this, or that. For example, women's hopsitals. I believe they are discriminatory, in a passive way, of course. I recognize women have vaginas, breasts, and different hormone levels- even different emotional needs, but there is no need to have a complete hospital specifically tailored to women.

I do believe women are entitled to their own seperate unit in the hospital, particularly post-partum. That is a given.

I realize women are different from men, but equal. From a purely populational point, women are actually the majority, not only in the US, but in the world as well. When was the last time ribbons, fundraising walks, hospital wings, and even cereals were devoted to prostate cancer, or heart disease research for men? I'm definately picking the cotton here, but if feminists want to be treated equally, don't pander to your own selective gender, and completely ignore men's issues.

The task lies now in promoting HUMANISM in countries that truly abuse men and women through tribal wars, rape, slavery, and mutilation.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

When was the last time ribbons, fundraising walks, hospital wings, and even cereals were devoted to prostate cancer, or heart disease research for men? I'm definately picking the cotton here, but if feminists want to be treated equally, don't pander to your own selective gender, and completely ignore men's issues.
.
I was with you all the way up to here hon. Heart disease is the number one (non-spousal) killer of women. For the vast majority of history, research on heart disease was conducted almost exclusively on men, giving very skewed results when women would present with heart disease. Even the typical signs of a heart attack (chest pain, pain and numbness in the left arm) are typical to men. Many women don't even realize they've had a heart attack because they presented differently i.e. with back or neck pain rather than the way we've always been taught to recognize a heart attack.

To me, your above question is on a par with saying "Why don't we have white history month?'
The answer is, "Every month is white history month."
This is why it's important to have research aimed at women; it has to be that way for awhile just to level the field.
And really, keeping women healthy shouldn't have to be a feminist issue. The health of the entire world is much better if our mothers, sisters, and daughters are going strong.:thumbsup:

[ericwt]

I believe in equal pay for equal work.

But I open doors for girls. I treat all females like ladies.

I do not know if that is a feminist or not.

But that is who I am.

[savagepossum]

hmmmm.. time for a sexist joke

Q. What do you say to a woman with 2 black eyes?
A. Nothing, she's been told twice already.

[Purple Banana]

I'm not claiming there shouldn't be research on women's health issues; breast cancer and heart disease are very serious diseases for women, and awareness should definately be made as public as possible. I'm just wondering why there's not much awareness on prostate cancer, or testicular cancer, other than the brief pamphlets in urologist and school nurse's offices. I'm not even talking about funding, but simply awareness- commercials, support walks, ect.

I fully support breast cancer awareness, I've done I don't know how many 5k walks for Susan Komen's foundation. I would be equally as happy to do a prostate cancer walk, though.

As a healthcare worker, I don't think it's right for non-private companies to build a hospital soley for women. I'm not saying build a men's hospital. Simply give the best care you can give to your patients regardless of their problems. Specialty units, like women's oncology units and post-partum are very acceptable. I work with post-partum moms, and it's amazing to see someone go through giving birth, and still look great.

Other units, such as womens cardiac units or orthopedic units, I don't believe there is any real reason to have a women's unit. True, women's hearts are entirely different than a male's heart, but each person has their own unique symptoms- male or female. In that respect, regular non-specialty med/surg patients have no real need for seperate units. Seperate rooms, definately. But otherwise, you're just splitting hairs.

Sorry if I sounded a bit one-sided up there, GJ, I should have clarified more.

[higher4hockey]

purple banana~ this is a bit off topic but there was a week in the NHL that the majority of hockey players used pink sticks to be auctioned off to raise money for breast cancer awareness.



greenejeans ~ every month is white history month? care to elaborate on that one?

[Demeter]

I acknowledge your statement, but a main reason why I dont like the idea is that we shouldnt need to be fighting for equal rights in the first place, and that these types of groups should not need to exist because we should all tolerate each others differences and not let them play a role in how we view people

:hippy:

Hi Samwhore- You are correct in that things SHOULD be different, and if all was well, we shouldn't need to fight against oppression. But the world is NOT as it should be, so what dutch.lover is talking about is a way to make what should be become what is. Of course, nobody likes the idea that equality does not currently exist with regards to a number of groups, but sweetie, if we don't try to redress the issues, they will not just go away. It is upsetting to think of the world that way, but we must, in order to affect change.

[mattmao]

my view we are all human the same rights for everyone,take away the labels and we are all the same!!

[Demeter]

alrite i understand that about saying all feminists dont blame there problems on men but for those that do that is also very frustrating becasue in the natural sense like a couple thousand years ago women would take care of the babies in the home and men would take care of the babies and the women abroad like hunting for food, protection, and such so i think its only natural that something like that still carries over into modern times. its instinct

I have no idea what you mean:D

[Purple Banana]

Yeah, I saw that, Hockey- that was really great. I wish I could get the one Lundqvist is gonna sign... I don't think I could afford it.

Not a huge fan of the Rangers, but I like 'em a good amount. Go Flyers!

[dutch.lover]

greenejeans ~ every month is white history month? care to elaborate on that one?

Here is another example that i think will clarify her point...when kids complain about mothers day, and fathers day cause they want their own special day, and the parents say "but every day is kids day."

whites don't need something like a history month because we have pretty much been "in power"/dominant since humankind as we know it.

[dutch.lover]

Oh, and about Purple Bananas comment about cancers...there was a campaign (i think it's bc cancer society) started up last year that deals with "below the waist cancers"! It's awesome, it's called The Underwear Affair and it's a walk/run to raise money for all "taboo" cancers such as colon, rectal, cervical, ovarian, etc. It's not for a specific gender which I think is cool since most cancers seem to, even implicitly, have a huge gender component added to them. Like, breast cancer is usually a woman focused thing, but many men get it too. The best part about The Underwear Affair? You do the walk/run in your underwear!!! Well, u don't have to, but that's the novelty of it.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

purple banana~ this is a bit off topic but there was a week in the NHL that the majority of hockey players used pink sticks to be auctioned off to raise money for breast cancer awareness.



greenejeans ~ every month is white history month? care to elaborate on that one?
Do I really need to LOL? I think that's a separate thread, which I'd be happy to post on if you'd like to open it.

I was drawing an analogy for Purple Banana.
Maybe I should have said "It's like asking why isn't there a men's issues forum on CDot? " The answer is, "All of CDot is a men's issues forum":D

[PotHeed420]

Wanna hear a joke, womens rights:D but yeah that was a joke and i don't feel that way, i think ladies should be treated the best

[SaanenGoats]

Oh, dangit all to hell: I was doing my eyebrows and saw this thread, got sidetracked, and now I'm kinda lopsided. Anyhow, first of, I'd like to say congrats and thanks to all of you for keeping this thread civil. I've read far too many long long threads about many topics which I stand on one side or the other including feminism, gun control, abortion, and read through far too many threads which were nothing but thoughtless, rude screaming. As far as contributing: I don't have much to say though I would like to ask Dutch.Lover a question that's been bothering me lately.

I've been through my share of feminist classes as well, and I liked my Third Wave Feminism class the best, though my friend and I in it had an interesting discussion, which was never answered. She pointed out that since feminism is opening up so much that almost everyone's version of feminism is viable, what's to stop an antifeminist from calling themselves feminist? I didn't have an answer, but I left university calling myself a feminist. After graduation, I now work at a sawmill with a crew list of men except for one woman. Most of them treat me very equally and I couldn't ask for a better group. And when I use the term equally, I mean they treat me as a member of the group. They don't censor their language around me, they don't censor their topics, they treat me according to my experience level and strength. One guy, who calls himself a gentleman and often complains of the uncouth company he is 'forced' to work with, stood out and invited me to dinner one night, and, regretably, I accepted. (I swear, this is leading to something) Anyhow, during the course of the evening, he tried to ply me with lots of wine, repeatedly said things like "I'm old enough to be your father but I'm sexually attracted to me" (he's OLDER than my father) while staring at me hungrily, mentioned that one of the other guys on the crew must have done something to his daughter since she didn't marry until she was 30, and then to top it all off, when I mentioned I considered myself a feminist, he said he was one too. Ever since, I don't consider myself a feminist.

So Dutch.Lover, or anyone else, for that matter, do you have any comments? Because I'm for sure still struggling with that dilemma.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

I don't know what to say to that^, I'm tired and it will require some energy to give a thoughtful and well reasoned reply, and I'm not Dutch.Lover, but I do have an opinion, I just can't seem to articulate it right now and I want to remember to give it a shot later;)

But I wanted to tell you I got a huge kick out of this.v



he said he was one too. Ever since, I don't consider myself a feminist.


:S2:

[smoke it]

feminism = women equal to men
not big hairy lesy chicks yelling about how men put them down like all my buddies seem to think

[dutch.lover]

I've been through my share of feminist classes as well, and I liked my Third Wave Feminism class the best, though my friend and I in it had an interesting discussion, which was never answered. She pointed out that since feminism is opening up so much that almost everyone's version of feminism is viable, what's to stop an antifeminist from calling themselves feminist? I didn't have an answer, but I left university calling myself a feminist. After graduation, I now work at a sawmill with a crew list of men except for one woman. Most of them treat me very equally and I couldn't ask for a better group. And when I use the term equally, I mean they treat me as a member of the group. They don't censor their language around me, they don't censor their topics, they treat me according to my experience level and strength. One guy, who calls himself a gentleman and often complains of the uncouth company he is 'forced' to work with, stood out and invited me to dinner one night, and, regretably, I accepted. (I swear, this is leading to something) Anyhow, during the course of the evening, he tried to ply me with lots of wine, repeatedly said things like "I'm old enough to be your father but I'm sexually attracted to me" (he's OLDER than my father) while staring at me hungrily, mentioned that one of the other guys on the crew must have done something to his daughter since she didn't marry until she was 30, and then to top it all off, when I mentioned I considered myself a feminist, he said he was one too. Ever since, I don't consider myself a feminist.

So Dutch.Lover, or anyone else, for that matter, do you have any comments? Because I'm for sure still struggling with that dilemma.

First off, I wouldn't stop calling yourself a feminist just because some dumbass happened to ruin the term for you (he doesnt sound like a feminist IMO lol He probably only said that to get in ur pants). But on the otherhand, 'feminist' is just a word, a label. If you don't call yourself a feminist, it doesn't change who you really are...so in essence it really doesn't matter. That pertains to the antifeminism bit too...who cares if an antifeminist calls themselves a feminist? Well I am sure a lot of real feminists would be pissed, but we shouldn't take things at face value in the first place...I could call myself the President if I want, but it wouldn't make it true. "feminism" as it's known, could be ruined if a whole bunch of nonfeminists started labeling themselves as feminists, but I really don't think it would have that big of an effect.

For the record, I am not an expert in the realm of feminism. I have been taking Women's Studies since september, but I have had a really awesome prof who has gotten me really interested in it. What I like the best about the class is how it broadens my perspective and teaches critical thinking. My teacher will bring up an issue that seems nonimportant, but then analyzes it so we really get a feel for what it's all about. She also brings up the interconnections between sex, race, and class and has many discussions about how they are all related.

I am pleased with how this thread is going too! I enjoy answering questions, but I would also like to hear more about everyones 'relationship' with feminism (stuff that i talked about in my first post)...also, I would really like to read more on stuff that Goats has gone thru, u know, personal stories. That kinda thing. :hippy:

[Demeter]

Oh, dangit all to hell: I was doing my eyebrows and saw this thread, got sidetracked, and now I'm kinda lopsided. Anyhow, first of, I'd like to say congrats and thanks to all of you for keeping this thread civil. I've read far too many long long threads about many topics which I stand on one side or the other including feminism, gun control, abortion, and read through far too many threads which were nothing but thoughtless, rude screaming. As far as contributing: I don't have much to say though I would like to ask Dutch.Lover a question that's been bothering me lately.

I've been through my share of feminist classes as well, and I liked my Third Wave Feminism class the best, though my friend and I in it had an interesting discussion, which was never answered. She pointed out that since feminism is opening up so much that almost everyone's version of feminism is viable, what's to stop an antifeminist from calling themselves feminist? I didn't have an answer, but I left university calling myself a feminist. After graduation, I now work at a sawmill with a crew list of men except for one woman. Most of them treat me very equally and I couldn't ask for a better group. And when I use the term equally, I mean they treat me as a member of the group. They don't censor their language around me, they don't censor their topics, they treat me according to my experience level and strength. One guy, who calls himself a gentleman and often complains of the uncouth company he is 'forced' to work with, stood out and invited me to dinner one night, and, regretably, I accepted. (I swear, this is leading to something) Anyhow, during the course of the evening, he tried to ply me with lots of wine, repeatedly said things like "I'm old enough to be your father but I'm sexually attracted to me" (he's OLDER than my father) while staring at me hungrily, mentioned that one of the other guys on the crew must have done something to his daughter since she didn't marry until she was 30, and then to top it all off, when I mentioned I considered myself a feminist, he said he was one too. Ever since, I don't consider myself a feminist.

So Dutch.Lover, or anyone else, for that matter, do you have any comments? Because I'm for sure still struggling with that dilemma.

Because one creepazoid tells you he's a feminist, now you question your own belief? Oh my, that won't do.

Dear sweetie, please repeat after me :
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
This you must never forget:hippy:

[slowlickitysplit]

I would love to have this discussion in person becasue i speak much better then I type but...

I graduated HS in 1978 so I know of radical feminisim. I lost a quarter to my radical cousin on the Billy Jean/Bobby Rigs tennis match. Billionfold opened an interesting point but didn't follow through....

Pre-Feminisim a man could support his family on one income but, along came feminisim and the liberal wife next door got a part time job and they could suddenly afford a nicer vacation/car/education for the kids ect.. Well, if she can I can...suddenly all the women are working and you're living in an upscale neighborhood and two incomes is the norm....then, suddenly....it is a necessity.

I hate to be the devils advocate (Ok - not really true) but I think America started it's great decline the day they gave women the vote. I am not a neaderthal, this is simply my informed opinion.

PS.
I heard a story about a woman yelling at a guy for holding the door for her:
"You don't have to hold the door for me because I'm a woman!" she said.

"I'm not. I'm holding the door for you because I'm a gentelman." He repied.

Things that make you go Hmmm.

- Slow -

[Purple Banana]

I hate to be the devils advocate (Ok - not really true) but I think America started it's great decline the day they gave women the vote. I am not a neaderthal, this is simply my informed opinion.


How is that being a Devil's advocate? Do you even know what that term means? 'Informed opinion' gives the reader the sense that you have researched this, but it seems more like a blanket closeminded opinion to me.

How can you say that giving women the right to vote started the decline in America? I'd like to know your reasoning behind it.

And as for the ending section of your post, those are isolated cases. If one woman says "I hate guys with blond hair," it doesn't represent all females. Just ones with different beliefs.

[Demeter]

How is that being a Devils advocate? Do you even know what that term means? 'Informed opinion' gives the reader the sense that you have researched this, but it seems more like a blanket closeminded opinion to me.

How can you say that giving women the right to vote started the decline in America? I'd like to know your reasoning behind it.

Dear PB, I'm afraid we can't expect reason from this simple fellow, his brain seems too calcified. I'm not going to say any more about how stupid his remark was, for I fear that is why some people say ignorant things, because they like to get a rise out of others. It is some kind of entertainment for the dullwitted. Suffice it to say, he probably can't comprehend any of your intelligent questions, much less answer them!
You are just one of those smart women he must feel threatened by:D

[Matt the Funk]

Ok, here is the way I view it. People are people. We should all be treated equally. Women SHOULD have the right to vote, nothing at all wrong with it. They should have all the rights we have (except urinals, those are men only). But there really shouldn't be a competition. Women should protest for fair treatment, but should not be dicks about it(like the stereotype). It's just like all the other right's movement stereotypes. I think the reason females were givin fewer rights is because, since the begining of time(I assume) males have just dominated and done hunting etc, while the females took care of their young. And this just went on for millions of years, while evolving, until now when enough women have cared to change it. Ok that's all I have to say.

[dutch.lover]

Pre-Feminisim a man could support his family on one income but, along came feminisim and the liberal wife next door got a part time job and they could suddenly afford a nicer vacation/car/education for the kids ect.. Well, if she can I can...suddenly all the women are working and you're living in an upscale neighborhood and two incomes is the norm....then, suddenly....it is a necessity.

I hate to be the devils advocate (Ok - not really true) but I think America started it's great decline the day they gave women the vote. I am not a neaderthal, this is simply my informed opinion.

This post angered me so badly I am having problems typing...so sorry if I don't make sense, perhaps I will come back to this later with a clearer head.

First off, I would like you to prove how America went downhill after we EARNED AND FOUGHT FOR the RIGHT to vote (you did not GIVE us the vote, we took it). In my opinion, America was doomed from the beginning...capitalism and Christianity's control over the country is causing this 'great decline'.

You ARE a neanderthal as far as I am concerned, because you seem to think that this world would be best if it were run solely by men.

I really hope you go around telling more people your "informed" opinion on this matter, because many other minorities would gladly tear you apart with their bare hands. When women got the right to vote, it spearheaded the equality movement for all minorities. Shortly after white women got the right to vote, women of color got to vote too. With the women's right to vote, minorities in North America were finally seen as 'people' in the eyes of the law- however, it is people like you who make many minorites still feel unhuman.

edit to say: I don't care if any of you make fun of me for getting "angry over something someone posted on the internet"... more people should care about issues, regardless of their location

[powair]

I hate feminism! In all of its forms.

[Polymirize]

In the same respect that civil rights and prejudice is still an issue, even through minorities are now aquited all the legal rights of citizens, feminism still has some valid points to make.
But I'll also agree with some of the previous posters, and BG especially, that the end goal should of course be a humanism. Samwhore had this beautiful utopian vision of a world where such -isms are unnecessary because nobody holds prejudices. Sign me up!
But realistically, we usually never recognize our unconcious prejudices until we're slapped in the face with them. Which is precisely why feminism is such a useful critique.
I think feminism, for all its failings, does a remarkable job of pointing out masculine centered reasoning, in place we might never expect. Ethics for example. And when you realise certain reasonings have a gender to them, it might give you a reason to examine them more closely, for the purposes of a humanitarian viewpoint.

[Breukelen advocaat]

I would love to have this discussion in person becasue i speak much better then I type but...
I graduated HS in 1978 so I know of radical feminisim. I lost a quarter to my radical cousin on the Billy Jean/Bobby Rigs tennis match. Billionfold opened an interesting point but didn't follow through....
Pre-Feminisim a man could support his family on one income but, along came feminisim and the liberal wife next door got a part time job and they could suddenly afford a nicer vacation/car/education for the kids ect.. Well, if she can I can...suddenly all the women are working and you're living in an upscale neighborhood and two incomes is the norm....then, suddenly....it is a necessity.
I hate to be the devils advocate (Ok - not really true) but I think America started it's great decline the day they gave women the vote. I am not a neaderthal, this is simply my informed opinion.
PS.
I heard a story about a woman yelling at a guy for holding the door for her:
"You don't have to hold the door for me because I'm a woman!" she said.
"I'm not. I'm holding the door for you because I'm a gentelman." He repied.
Things that make you go Hmmm.
- Slow -
I'd like to add that as far as the voting, I began to notice as a small child that many women, including schoolteachers, even my own relatives, do not understand the nature and psyche of men and boys, and are often very bad judges of their character. The problem is worsened when they deny this. The politicians in of today, male or female, are a pretty bad bunch, so I don't know what to say - but I'd say that the blame lies with both men and women voters.

Iâ??d be the first to admit that I do not understand women - and never will. I love 'em all, but they are very different in many ways. The men that most women admire are not people that I have much admiration for, I know that - but I don't know if the opposite is true, ie whether women that I admire are disliked by most women.

[Polymirize]

I'd like to add that as far as the voting, I began to notice as a small child that many women, including schoolteachers, even my own relatives, do not understand the nature and psyche of men and boys, and are often very bad judges of their character. The problem is worsened when they deny this. The politicians in of today, male or female, are a pretty bad bunch, so I don't know what to say - but I'd say that the blame lies with both men and women voters.


I don't really understand why you said this, as you seem to throw out a disclaimer at the end.
But with regards to voters being poor judges of politicians, some of it probably comes down to what you consider to be a priority. Although priorities might be different between men and women, surely you wouldn't ask society to deny representation to 51% of the population? That would be completely ridiculous...


And ridiculous might be (unfairly) another example of masculine bias in language... hmmmm. nah, probably not.

[slowlickitysplit]

Ok...First off, I am one of the most liberated men you are likely to ever meet. I think Margret Thatcher was an excellent leader and so was the woman from India whose name I can't remember. I may even vote for Clinton.
Second...I was playing devils advocate and I was playing to the crowd a bit but I also can't stand any kind of radicalisim; weather it is feminisim, religious or bigotry.
Third... You women seem to be equating the vote with equal rights. I don't feel we should go back to the time when women were considered mens chattle. I do, however, feel we should go back to a place where women's place was in the home.. WAIT! Try to listen with an open mind.
If women went back to being the guardians of hearth and home how much better off would we all be? It may take a town to raise a child but it takes a full time mother and father to raise a secure child. When the childs first words are tinged with the accent of the nanny then there is something wrong.
Have any of you noticed the rise in heart problems in women that have a direct correlation to the numbers of women working full time?
The industialized nations of the world are pulling away from the home based society and plunging in to a cold cold future in my mind. I see the day where a couple goes to the clinic, orders there child and comes back the next week to pick up a 12 year old child ready for assimilation into the household.
I will probably vote for Hillary this election but I want to point out that she did her mommy thing. Her kid is grown and now it's her time and I applaud that (I know, not a great example but...).
To be honest I can't point to the right to vote and todays problems and make a clear connection to the two but I do see America's slide starting at the same time.
BTW This is my oppinion. If you don't care for it then fine, disagree and lets have an open discussion but, please, I am sensative and don't care to be called names or to have you wishing me harm.
Thank you.

- Slow -

[harris7]

im on the wrong computer....

[dutch.lover]

Slow, I see where you are coming from, and I do not agree, but I do thank you for being a little more in depth and logical this time around....it's a lot easier to see where you stand on this issue.

If we could, I would like to move past this, because I was quite enjoying the friendly banter that was going on previously....

[dutch.lover]

In the same respect that civil rights and prejudice is still an issue, even through minorities are now aquited all the legal rights of citizens, feminism still has some valid points to make.
But I'll also agree with some of the previous posters, and BG especially, that the end goal should of course be a humanism. Samwhore had this beautiful utopian vision of a world where such -isms are unnecessary because nobody holds prejudices. Sign me up!
But realistically, we usually never recognize our unconcious prejudices until we're slapped in the face with them. Which is precisely why feminism is such a useful critique.
I think feminism, for all its failings, does a remarkable job of pointing out masculine centered reasoning, in place we might never expect. Ethics for example. And when you realise certain reasonings have a gender to them, it might give you a reason to examine them more closely, for the purposes of a humanitarian viewpoint.

I really like what you brought up about the goals, or 'jobs' of feminism. That's the reason I like it so much- it slaps us in the face with our prejudices! I identify myself as a feminist, but my view of it comes pretty close to being the definition of humanist as well...I am not a 'feminist' just because I want male/female equality- I want it for everybody. The gender point is really valid too, I have learned a lot so far about how gender influences aspects of life that I would never have noticed.

[Purple Banana]

It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes teamwork from the father and the mother. It's not about 'duty' of raising a kid, it's about the equal bonding you feel between each other. I would have gone nuts if my mom stayed at home all day. And for what? To make her dear and devoted husband dinner every night? Rub his feet and fill his scotch back up? Listen to him complain about work, while she's expected to do all of the housework for free?

Those archaic ideals belong back in the 1950s. In order to support a family these days, it's almost necessary to have a dual income. Why not stay at home dads? What's so different? I have a stronger bond with my father, but I certainly wish he wouldn't waste his intelligence and effort to stay at home.

Now I can see why women in the 1960s were so pissed off.

[birdgirl73]

Thanks for your further explanation, Slowlickity. That sounded much more reasonable than your first statement even though I have to disagree with parts of the further amplification, too. At least I understand you were being in large part a "contrarian" in your first post. I am convinced that in ideal situations, it takes two married parents to raise a child plus the supporting village. And don't underestimate the importance of fathers. I know without a doubt that fathers need to be very actively involved in the lives of both their sons and daughters, and I applaud families who're able to work out a way for one parent, male or female, to be in attendance during the child's growing-up years. That's certainly why I stayed in a part-time job that allowed me to work at home--so I could be the primary caregiver.
The sad truth, however, is that fewer and fewer families, especially those without enough education to get really good jobs, can truly do that, and I suspect more of the societal degradation you alluded to is a result of high divorce rates and single-parent situations than working moms. I've seen an awful lot of very traditional home-and-hearth guardian, stay-at-home mothers who've done a woeful injustice to their homes, marriage and kids alike, and so I'm not sure that's the central answer to societal stability.

We'd make more headway with society as a whole if we were somehow better able to qualify parents of both genders, frankly, and keep them together through the raising of their children. We could also make lots of of headway if we truly valued children and working families and were able to encourage more employers to provide alternate working arrangements for parents. When those options aren't available, we need to better certify and qualify non-parental care providers. I'm glad you're likely to vote in the Hillary or other Democratic-leaning direction because, despite all the lip service the right pays to family values, its real values are bottom line business, tax-relief for the wealthy, and, at least currently, misguided defense, not families at all.

The rise in heart disease in women is believed to be in equal parts due to the increasing obesity rate/increasing sedentary lifestyle, still appalling numbers of female cigarette smokers, and stress, which is seen in equal numbers in both work-at-home and work-at-outside-job women. No one should assume for even a tenth of a second that work-at-home moms don't experience alarming stress levels, too. They do. This is becoming increasingly evident in higher and higher rates of substance abuse among stay-at-home moms.

[slowlickitysplit]

OK. I'm aware that some of you would like to drop this but I feel I need to respond but I will keep it short.
Purplebanana - Why is two incomes now necissary but one generation ago it wasn't?
Birdgirl - When my wife fell into a major post partum depression that included hitting my kids, I became a stay at home dad for my three young kids. I am proud of the job I did and it was a difficult but very rewarding time for me. I also worked full time nights to provide for them. It was something that needed to be done and I did it. Where did I learn these values? My parents. Mom was a stay at home mom untill the youngest went off to elementry school. I believe that the family unity and it's decline is at the root of most of societies problems now. i feel the crises in families today is due to economic issues that is a direct result of women entering the work force. I believe they entered the work force as a direct result of feminisim which began with the fight for voting rights.
I appologize to anyone I have offended and I am quite cognisant of the fact that the barn door will never be closed again. Thank you all for listening with open minds.
Peace.

- Slow -

[Dave Byrd]

Birdie didn't mention that the vast majority of women heart disease patients, at least for coronary artery disease, are women who are 50 and older. The numbers don't peak and become equal to men's risk until ladies are 65 or older. The studies and textbooks all say 1. obesity/diabetes/high lipids/low exercise, 2. stress, and 3. smoking play a three-way role like Bird said (she's still in the book phase of her education). But in my own patients it certainly appears that the #1 part of that equation far outweighs the job and/or home stresses. The female patient population that's reflecting higher and higher heart disease is largely through raising its children and finished with the hardest work years, too.

[Dave Byrd]

Birdgirl has gone out to run errands (which is why I'm sitting up at the computer). She's likely to argue that the decline in economic stability and the necessity of women entering the workforce is a result of what it actually is, a rise in the cost of living.

The claim that "economic issues that is a direct result of women entering the work force" is laughable. Check your economic trends and look at how much more houses, food, cars, health care, and child care cost now than they did a generation or more ago. Then look at how many more single-parent and working poor families there are now. You're going to see it's the economy itself and changes in family circumstances that are responsible for women being in the workforce, not women in the workforce who've caused the economic instability. You might also check your history for the rise of feminism. It doesn't herald back to the women's voting movement.

[Coelho]

For me it seems the money is the root of many problems...
During my childhood, in the 80's, my country was in an economical crisis. My father worked by himself as boat designer, but that time nobody had money to make boats, so he had very few work. And of couse, very few money too. Some extreme days, we only ate because my neighbour gave us some food from her.
My mom could have decided to start working, instead staying home and raising me and my sister. But she prefered not. She thought it was more important to be raising us, personally, even through poverty times, than give us a 'better' life with more money, but without her at our side.
I greatly admire her for it. Now im a well raised man, thanks very much to her. We had difficult times, of course, but i see money is not everything. I think she did the right choice. Maybe the love of the money is what is making the society go downwards...

[Breukelen advocaat]

I'd like to see a dicussion about women and feminism with regards to the childfree.

Personally, I do not wish to be part of a "Village" and being responsible for taking care of kids.

I'd vote for Yillary when hell freezes over. :smokin:

[SaanenGoats]

Hmmmm... interesting turn. I thought this thread pretty well puttered out. I just had a hmmm moment as I read Slow's original thread and then Dutch's response. I couldn't help but think of her response to my post, and the fact that she said that just because one skeezy old guy calls himself a feminist doesn't mean I should let that ruin the label for me. Quite intuitive, thank you for the insight!

That popped into mind at her passionate reply to Slow's first post. Why should I, or she, care about one guy (who has certainly redeemed himself in following posts thought I, and others, I believe, still disagree with him) who might say some outrageous, insulting, outdated, or simply distasteful comments. Perhaps out best defense is not in claiming the title feminst, which is arguably too loaded of a term to be easily used anymore, but rather in assuming the confidence to move in this world. Trying to explain this.... the phrase from Shakespeare (I think) comes to mind "Methinks (s)he protests too much..." which seems to illustrate what I'm trying to say. Sometimes in constantly defending ourselves, in argueing for our equality, in insisting on its validity, we may be undermining it. Certainly, in far too many areas we still must insist, but perhaps if we simply assumed more and took life as granted that it is ours, perhaps we would be granted more. Could it be that we----ok, let me change that. I know that I hold myself back far more than any men ever do when I constantly convince myself why I should have the right to do this or say that or move in certain circles. Anyhow. I gotta run. Just thoughts.

[slowlickitysplit]

Dutchlover...sorry to be hikacking your thread but I feel I have to respond. Guess I've spent too much time around BFA.

Dave Byrd.
I am sure you are a well educated man and I imagine at some point you must have taken micro and macro economics so I think you can see that you either dismised or ignored my central point that todays economy is a direct result of women CHOOSING to supliment thier husbands income in the 60's. When the few became the many it became the norm to have two incomes (Remember the euphemisim DINC? Dounble income, no children.) Well, the norm has become a necessity and in a strange twist of fate we are back to the old days when many couples stay together for economic reasons alone. I know you are white collar but if you doubt this go to your local chain store and ask some of the young women working there. I know of at least 3 women where I work who stay with there husbands only because they can't afford to go out on thier own. Sounds a lot like the old farm days when a man and a woman NEEDED eachother for survival.
My point, though I know you disagree, is that women choosing to go back to work has led to women having to go back to work and it was the feminist movement that started the ball rolling.

PS. I am aware that Susan B. Anthony was not the first suffereget, I was trying to keep things clear as we could debate the true beginings of feminism for days.

- Slow -

[dutch.lover]

I am a shakespeare fan myself :)

no problem Slow, you should have a chance to respond...

[slowlickitysplit]

Dutch.Lover wrote....
Here are some questions to get this thread off the ground, boys- feel free to answer them too (men can be feminists too!):

Do any of you identify yourselves as being a feminist? If so, do you feel comfortable telling other people this?

What stereotypes do you feel feminists have? Do you feel these are negative or positive?

What does feminism mean to you?

What issues do you think are most important for feminists?

Dutch, I would like to bring this back home If i may. You might have noticed this is a subject I feel pretty strongly about. I have a question....

How do you women who consider yourselves feminists feel about those women who choose to be stay at home moms? Does anyone remember how upsetting the notion was to the militant feminist that some women might preffer to be moms instead of working women?

- Slow -

[dutch.lover]

I personally think women should do whatever they want to do with respect to working, or staying at home. You're totally right that a 'militant'/radical feminist wouldn't be too happy about women choosing to stay at home...in my opinion radical feminists are the ones who give the rest of us a bad name, but at the same time I think it's (or at least at the onset of feminism) them who get the most done. For example, in Vancouver we're preparing for the 2010 Olympics and there have been many protests against them, because our dumbass politicians and olympic chairsmen have completely neglected their promises when it comes to things like homelessness and the environment. The people who get in the news the most on this issue, are the most radical. The ones squatting in buildings about to be torn down, or the ones who have stolen the flag. I wouldn't really want to associate myself with them, but at the same time I admire their balls. lol.

[Polymirize]

When the few became the many it became the norm to have two incomes (Remember the euphemisim DINC? Dounble income, no children.) Well, the norm has become a necessity and in a strange twist of fate we are back to the old days when many couples stay together for economic reasons alone.


I don't think Dave ignored your point. I think he pretty effectively dismissed it. And I fully agree with him.
DINC families maybe have the opportunity attain a higher standard of living, but how do you consider them to be responsible for the rise in the basic cost of living across the board?
You're bringing up two correlated trends and telling us one caused the other without providing any proof of such.

[slowlickitysplit]

Poly,
This is a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did women go into the work force from economic need as Dave appears to claim or did women going into the workforce bring about inflation as I claim? I support my theorey with an example at least. Dave uses big words to sound like he's quoting fact but in truth he simply stating his opinion.
To everyone: I am done with this line. You know where I stand and this is boring and a bit annoying.
Peace.

- Slow -

[slowlickitysplit]

Edit

[slowlickitysplit]

Dutch,
I agree with you; it has always been the radicals that get things done. From Ghandi to King to (trying not to choke - jk) Betty Fernand (sp). I think the thing that we need to question is the value of the action. They are demonstrating the olympics for homeless rights. You sound like you approve? What if they did the same thing at the special olympics? Then the question becomes whose values do we use as the judgment for appropriate behavior even by radicals? As 420 fans i would hope it would lay somewhere in the realm of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else".

- Slow -

[thcbongman]

Dutchlover...sorry to be hikacking your thread but I feel I have to respond. Guess I've spent too much time around BFA.

Dave Byrd.
I am sure you are a well educated man and I imagine at some point you must have taken micro and macro economics so I think you can see that you either dismised or ignored my central point that todays economy is a direct result of women CHOOSING to supliment thier husbands income in the 60's. When the few became the many it became the norm to have two incomes (Remember the euphemisim DINC? Dounble income, no children.) Well, the norm has become a necessity and in a strange twist of fate we are back to the old days when many couples stay together for economic reasons alone. I know you are white collar but if you doubt this go to your local chain store and ask some of the young women working there. I know of at least 3 women where I work who stay with there husbands only because they can't afford to go out on thier own. Sounds a lot like the old farm days when a man and a woman NEEDED eachother for survival.
My point, though I know you disagree, is that women choosing to go back to work has led to women having to go back to work and it was the feminist movement that started the ball rolling.

PS. I am aware that Susan B. Anthony was not the first suffereget, I was trying to keep things clear as we could debate the true beginings of feminism for days.

- Slow -

Wow is all I can say. You certainly can attributed deindustrialization and administrative costs to rising living costs. To say it's solely because of more women entering the workforce is absurd. You can't point out a sole factor because the economy is too complex for such closed-minded analysis. It's just like saying civil rights is the cause for rising living costs. It's amounts to put it bluntly, slander.

[Polymirize]

Poly,
This is a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did women go into the work force from economic need as Dave appears to claim or did women going into the workforce bring about inflation as I claim? I support my theorey with an example at least. Dave uses big words to sound like he's quoting fact but in truth he simply stating his opinion.
To everyone: I am done with this line. You know where I stand and this is boring and a bit annoying.
Peace.


Please don't presume that Dave is speaking so far above my level of understanding that I didn't grasp all of his big words and simply think he sounds good instead.
This is not the chicken and the egg. Because with the chicken and the egg, at least you're pretty safe in assuming that they're related.
Your example didn't really support anything. And I think Dave made a good point which I'll agree with, your understanding of history is backwards.

If you want to be a man about this, you'd just concede that you have nothing to back up your point. I'm more than willing to discuss this if its still considered a valid point.
You seem to be getting worried that your annoying people. Maybe its less what you say, and more how mindlessly you cling to it.

[birdgirl73]

I believe you're mostly annoyed, Slowlickity, because people have used very simple logic—and fine words—to point out unassailable facts. You can call them opinions if you like, but even the most traditional economist or historian will confirm what we're saying about women entering the workforce out of fiscal necessity. The female employment era had an early start during World War II, long before anyone termed the trend feministic, but it was borne out of economic necessity then, too. Those wartime-working ladies returned to home and hearth to begin bearing those of us who're the spawn of the Baby Boom. And they emerged again in the workforce in large numbers in the 1960-to-1974 span when the Vietnam conflict, inflation, and various other economic forces were at work. Sure, plenty of other things factored in. We had reliable birth control after 1960, which allowed women to have fewer children and more freedom. And we increasingly got more education, which had the same effect.

I encourage you to converse with a historian or economist of your choosing at your earliest convenience so you can transfer your misplaced annoyance onto historical reality. You can transfer your annoyance at vocabulary to me because it was I, not my husband Dave, who trotted out the “big words” on you. I think you were mostly annoyed with him because he shot down your women’s employment-heart disease theory at point-blank range.

On a final note, I’m all for women who stay at home and raise their families if they can. I was raised by a stay-at-home mom and an equally involved dad. Probably that’s why I turned out to be so sweet and deferential. As I said earlier, I was able to engineer my life so that I could stay at home with my own child, too. But that was because I had an accommodating, forward-thinking employer who valued families as well as women’s professional contributions and because I had enough education myself—and a husband with the same—that we could swing that financially. I applaud families who make the financial sacrifices to allow one parent to be the primary caregiver, and I know it’s not easy. It’s rearing children and keeping a home that is the hardest job on earth, not being a professional woman. Parenting pays off, though. I can’t think of any contribution I made professionally—or will in the future—that’ll be as important to society as a well-raised child who becomes a happy, positively contributing citizen.

[birdgirl73]

I'd like to see a dicussion about women and feminism with regards to the childfree.
Just name the time, Breuk . . .


Personally, I do not wish to be part of a "Village" and being responsible for taking care of kids.

I'd vote for Yillary when hell freezes over. :smokin:
Oh, Breuk, here you're almost too tiresome to merit a response, but let me simply say that you can lie to yourself and tell others you proudly dismiss any connection to children, but at heart I hope youâ??re not clueless enough to really believe that. I'm certainly not.

Iâ??m well aware of your sentiments about children and people who bear them. I think your disdain is actually a result of your own out-of-balance upbringing, which I know involved abuse and pain and has left you with lingering bitterness. You wonâ??t get any argument from me that youâ??ve likely done a great service to society by not having children of your own. In your heart and mind, however, I hope youâ??re not so myopic or isolationistic that you canâ??t see that other peopleâ??s children are going to touch your life in very direct ways, even if you have no concern for them now. Theyâ??re going to be the ones who assess and collect your taxes. Write the legislation that governs you. Mold the global policy that shapes your world. Theyâ??re going to be the ones find new cures and treatments for cancer, heart disease and even celiac disease. Who will nurture and nurse you, spoon-feed you, help you get up out of your chair, and change your diapers when you require that assistance, see to your funeral arrangements, and probate your will. Theyâ??re already the ones whoâ??re out there defending you from enemies both foreign and domestic.

So I hope youâ??ll re-evaluate your stance as not being connected to the metaphoric village and not having any investment in children, no matter what you think of Senator Clinton. Because you are connected even if youâ??re not yet perceptive enough to comprehend that.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
I'd like to see a discussion about women and feminism with regards to the childfree.
Just name the time, Breuk . . .
Weâ??ll get to it in time. Cnildfree women talking about their views make me sound like the president of the Foundation for Children as Gods, lol.

Oh, Breuk, here you're almost too tiresome to merit a response, but let me simply say that you can lie to yourself and tell others you proudly dismiss any connection to children, but at heart I hope youâ??re not clueless enough to really believe that. I'm certainly not.

Iâ??m well aware of your sentiments about children and people who bear them. I think your disdain is actually a result of your own out-of-balance upbringing, which I know involved abuse and pain and has left you with lingering bitterness.
Hey, I never said I had "abuse" from my parents or upbringing - I had a lot of bad breaks, which I took in stride - and do a lot less bitching about my problems than many middle-class whiners with kids. Your personal remarks are "tiresome", and the sign of a weak argument - I'm speaking about my perceptions in general - not attacking anybody in particular on this board.

You wonâ??t get any argument from me that youâ??ve likely done a great service to society by not having children of your own.
I'd probably make a better parent than 95 percent of those that have children - if it were my inclination.

In your heart and mind, however, I hope youâ??re not so myopic or isolationistic that you canâ??t see that other peopleâ??s children are going to touch your life in very direct ways, even if you have no concern for them now.
I have "concern" in that there are too many of them in the world - and people have them for stupid reasons.

Theyâ??re going to be the ones who asses and collect your taxes. Write the legislation that governs you. Mold the global policy that shapes your world. Theyâ??re going to be the ones find new cures and treatments for cancer, heart disease and even celiac disease. Who will nurture and nurse you, spoon-feed you, help you get up out of your chair, and chansge your diapers when you require that assistance, see to your funeral arrangements, and probate your will. Theyâ??re already the ones whoâ??re out there defending you from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Children do not do these things - adults do. And I won't be wearing "diapers", or end up in a nursing home. Nobody in my line ever did, and I wont be the first.

Happiness is being free - and not living in a fools' paradise.


So I hope youâ??ll re-evaluate your stance as not being connected to the metaphoric village and not having any investment in children, no matter what you think of Senator Clinton. Because you are connected even if youâ??re not yet perceptive enough to comprehend that.

I'm "perceptive enough to comprehend" when I'm getting ripped-off by a person with a constituency of incompetent parents that needs my money to care for and entertain more expensive, obnoxious little reproductions of themselves.

P.S. most of the Childfree organizations are run, and frequented by, women. Whether they are "feminists" or not, they are out there - and their number is increasong, along with childfree males, in the world.

[Maggz]

I figured since this is the Women's Forum that a thread on Feminism is very appropriate. This IS NOT a male bashing thread (a lot of men assume feminism=anti-male, which is not true...well with radical feminism it pretty much is, but that's another story. lol)!! This thread can be about anything to do with feminism...men, feel free to ask questions about it and share your concerns with it if you have any...

Here are some questions to get this thread off the ground, boys- feel free to answer them too (men can be feminists too!):

Do any of you identify yourselves as being a feminist? If so, do you feel comfortable telling other people this?

What stereotypes do you feel feminists have? Do you feel these are negative or positive?

What does feminism mean to you?

What issues do you think are most important for feminists?
Hey come on pussy cat, smile a little bit..huh?

[birdgirl73]

Children grow up to be adults, Breuk. That was my most basic point, and you let it whiz right by you.

I never said it was your family that caused you the abusive pain; you've said that was religiously connected, but that certainly still counts as pain. The out-of-balance was, as you've mentioned several times, in the way you were parented, especially the largely female influence. I'm not saying you've whined about this. You haven't. It's simply information you've volunteered, perhaps more than you realized. (Same reason I added celiac sprue there to the cures that the instant, never-children adults will cure.)

[Breukelen advocaat]

Children grow up to be adults, Breuk. That was my most basic point, and you let it whiz right by you.

I never said it was your family that caused you the abusive pain; you've said that was religiously connected, but that certainly still counts as pain. The out-of-balance was, as you've mentioned several times, in the way you were parented, especially the largely female influence. I'm not saying you've whined about this. You haven't. It's simply information you've volunteered, perhaps more than you realized. (Same reason I added celiac sprue there to the cures that the instant, never-children adults will cure.)

I was more angered than "pained" by religion. I kept a low-profile in the instituions I attended, but saw a lot of less-fortunate kids get abused.

As far as my upbringing, you have either misunderstood me, or have me confused with someone else. I had both parents, but my mother died at age 39, when I was in my early teens. Fortunately, my father was around until I moved out to live on my own.

I am already "cured" of Celiac, an autoimmune disease, because I stopped eating gluten. My recovery was great, and I only talk about it because the vast majority of doctors in the United States are ignorent of it, as many as three million people in the U.S. have this condition - and are being misdiagnosed and/or ignored. There will never be a "cure" for it, really - the best I hope for is a pill that will minimize effects from cross-contamination when eating out. For now, I only eat-out in restaurants that know how to prepare dedicated gluten-free items. It's great to be well - and getting better all the time. I hope that more of the millions of people with it are able to fix themselves, as I did.

[Purple Banana]

But Breuk, when you go into threads about consuming excessive amounts of bran accompanied by diarhhea, you "suggest" that it could be Celiac... because chances are, you don't know that person's body mechanisms...

[birdgirl73]

As far as my upbringing, you have either misunderstood me, or have me confused with someone else. I had both parents, but my mother died at age 39, when I was in my early teens. Fortunately, my father was around until I moved out to live on my own.

I must have misunderstood you, then, or I do have you confused, which seems less likely. I've known you since practically my first week here! What were you alluding to, if it's shareable, when you've so disdainfully mentioned single women raising boy children or women parents being able to understand boys?

[Breukelen advocaat]

But Breuk, when you go into threads about consuming excessive amounts of bran accompanied by diarhhea, you "suggest" that it could be Celiac... because chances are, you don't know that person's body mechanisms...

The guy posted about it, and this is similar to what happened to me. Watch the video that was on the View earlier this week - it's more common than you think. According to Dr. Green, of the Columbia Celiac Disease Center in New York, where I have gone for evaluations and advice, most people are not really meant to eat gluten.

I consider myself "lucky" that I have the genetic warning signs of Celiac, because my symptoms let me know that I was eating something that was poison to my body. It's an advantage that most gluten-sensitive/intolerant people do not have. Heres' the video from last Wed.:
The View | National Foundation for Celiac Awareness (http://www.celiaccentral.org/Other/The_View/377/)

[Breukelen advocaat]

I must have misunderstood you, then, or I do have you confused, which seems less likely. I've known you since practically my first week here! What were you alluding to, if it's shareable, when you've so disdainfully mentioned single women raising boy children or women parents being able to understand boys?



I can't see how it could be anything other than confusion on your part, which is certainly not a big deal to me.

I do not think that the majority of women understand the male mind - and have very incorrect perceptions about what being a man entails. Most young men don't know how to act, or think, anymore. Just read what the kids write on the forums here. There are some notable exceptions, fortunately. This is the way the society is - men are as just much to blame for it as women. At one time, boys worked along-side their father and learned certain values - this is no longer possible for the majority of boys. The parents are working away from the home - and bringing the kid to work with them once a year doesn't cut it. Men are becoming feminized, at the expense of their manhood. It's been happening for a while, and is getting worse. The metrosexual males are now in the mainstream, and annoying, but the gangbanger types are almost exclusively the products of single-mothers' households. They do not have a good family, so they try to compensate for it by creating a perverse, violent imitation of one.

The only way to remedy these problems is for men to reclaim their rightful place in the home, and society. Since this isn't going to happen anytime soon, and possibly never, it's going to be a worse world in the future. I'm saddened by this, but that's my opinon.

[slowlickitysplit]

Wow.
To be honest I hadn't thought about my pet theory in 20 years. I do believe there is a connection there but I have not pulled out the old college text books to plot out the demise of western civilization as it relates to womens rights. Of course there is more to it then that. Duh!
What amazes me is the ire it raised in all of you. We have pot smoking doctors and med students telling me...
I believe you're mostly annoyed, Slowlickity, because people have used very simple logicâ??and fine wordsâ??to point out unassailable facts.
Talk about condescending. I feel like I have been personaly attacked and am about to be chased off the site because I chose to openly and honestly state my opinion on the history and effects of womens liberation in America. You all disagree with me. Fine. But why the hostility? Surely it works against convincing me of the wrongness of my side.
I have never claimed to understand women so maybe you all can help me. Would you like me to be the neaderthal Marine the government trained me to be, pretend the things you have said don't hurt, and go on a vernal rampage assailing your liniage? Or would you like me to be the wimpering liberal mama's boy who say's yes ma'am. Whatever you say ma'am? How about I treat all of you as I would like you to treat me? I have tried to do so. have you?

Birdgirl. i have been a fan of your's since before i joined here. I am very disapointed in you attitude twords me. You may think I am wrong but I have not been rude. Did I ask if you and Dave were podiatrist? Have I asked what do they call the person who graduates last in his class from med school? DOCTOR! No. I will assume Dave knows of what he speaks when telling us that The rise in heart disease among women is not related to the stress of work but I am very very surprised to hear it. I have not studied it but I sure do believe I have read it more then once in the news. Maybe I learned something from you. I will be sure to read closer next time it comes on the news.

- Slow -:(

[birdgirl73]

If I was rude, I apologize. I do. I've appreciated you, too, and I still do even disagreeing with you. I mean that, and I don't want hard feelings to linger on here. I certainly don't harbor any. If I could, I would like to shake your hand and show you that I mean this very sincerely. I enjoy a good debate, but I do get carried away sometimes, and you can tell I'm not short on opinions!

It's very important to me as a med student and my husband as a practicing physician to make it clear that we're strong cannabis advocates but not actual users. I will submit to any drug test to prove this point, as will he. Before I entered school last year when my older sister was enduring the last of her final chemo treatment, I joined her in some tokes and enjoyed them, as I did back during college, immensely. But since entering school last August, I had to give up cannabis and cannot, as one who's undertaking the study of medicine and will be asked to abide by laws with regard to both illegal and legal drugs, be a cannabis user right now. My husband doesn't smoke for the very same reason. He would risk losing his license in this state if he were to do so. He actually never smoked even in college because he never learned how to inhale and was always in athletics. Nevertheless, we both know it's important medically and largely hamrless recreationally. Along with places like this forum and NORML, it'll be people like us who change this country's cannabis laws, and it's important that while we're trying to help do that and educate others about its benefits, we're free from any personal attachment to cannabis so we're above reproach medically and ethically. Hope that makes sense. It was important for me to set that part of the record straight.

Lest anyone think I'm not a true believer in cannabis, when the day comes that I've finished school and finished my career, I will set Guinness smoking records. I'm going to have a lot of lost time to make up for. With luck, by that time, the attitudes toward it will have changed! And I hope sincerely I'll have been a help in changing them.

Can we declare peace, Slowlickity? I hope so! I'm glad you're pro-family and traditional. I consider myself both those things as well.

[slowlickitysplit]

Thank you Birdgirl. That was a very nice post. Maybe when we both retire we can shake hands and pass the peace pipe. lol

My turn to confess.....I haven't smoked since college too too many years ago. It dosn't suit my personality well. I just recently began growing to help my sister who is soon to be confined to a wheel chair for her arthritus (her hubby is a podiatrist BTW). It really helps ease her pain. Some of the experimental drugs she has tried have been truely awfull (she went into cardiac arrest durring one transfusion). She is only 49 and is in excellent health in all other aspects. Pot is the only thing that really helps consistently.

Thank you again Birdgirl. Our disagreement has been nagging at me and I'm glad to put it to bed.

Your pal;

- Slow -

[halo]

I found this website the other day and i want to know what you guys think of it. Personally, i agree with some things on the website but not all. It talks about repealing the right for women to vote:p ! Thats crazy everyone should be able to vote i think. I do agree though when it talks about women staying home and raising the kids instead of working. My mom stayed home and raised me and i wouldnt want it any other way.

The Chauvinist Corner for real men and real women (http://cat4.stormfront.org/~ilove/c_corner/index.html)

[birdgirl73]

Glad to hear back from you! You're more than welcome, and I am glad to reconcile things, too. Sorry to hear you didn't find weed to suit your personality. I found it simply marvelous. A wonderful natural antidepressant and very pleasant, although it didn't make my lungs or heart happy, but few things do. I have asthma and heart-rhythm trouble. When my beautiful older sister, who is now at rest and out of pain, was enduring those final chemo side-effects, it was like a miracle drug. Dave, who hadn't been fully convinced before, was instantly won over. My whole family was (and here I mean my parents and in-laws--people of the generation that simply thought it was harmful, evil "dope." Glad to hear it helps your sister's arthritis. There are lots of members here who get similar benefits for various rheumatic conditions. Makes me mad every time I think about it that in most states, they are put in the awkward position of having to break the law in order to get the help they need. We all need to keep fighting the good fight on that.

You take care, Slowlickity. And have a great week ahead. I've got to go study genetics now, doggone it.

[Jack the Tripper]

Sorry, I've been away but I'd really like to jump into this conversation. Some male input for your consideration.

Recently I've begun to think of feminism along the same lines as I think of communism. In theory, it's a good idea, but in practice it seldom works well.

Women have definitely been mistreated in the past, and still are, all over the world. So of course women banding together to work for equal rights should be a good thing, but in every single case that I have witnessed, feminism has just led to a lot of elitist man-hating propaganda.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't totally legitimate feminist groups out there, I'm just saying that every woman I've ever personally met who claims that she is a feminist have been unfair and unreasonable towards all men and non-feminist women.

I hope I'm not offending anyone with this, but it's the honest truth. Again, I'm not saying there aren't real, well meaning feminists, I'm just stating that I've met many so-called "feminists" and they've all been elitists, and pretty bitchy.

To any feminists on here... what are some goals that you're actually working toward? I honestly don't see how women (at least here in Canada) don't have the same rights as men. So, I'm probably wrong about that at least... sock it to me.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Wow. Okay.

I have what may be a different perspective on this, simply because of the time I was born. I sucked oxygen in 1969, the tail end of the civil rights movement, the middle of the feminist movement. I also come from a family full of strong broads. I've never NOT had rights, in my mind anyway. It always shocks me when I am treated as "less than" due to my race or my gender. I'm not used to it.

So, Jack, when I read something like what you posted^, I'm jarred to the core. I'm concerned on a number of levels, the chief level being that I know some no self esteem having member of my gender is going to come to this thread and tell you how fervently she agrees with you. Which will cause me to bite my tongue in twain.


To any feminists on here... what are some goals that you're actually working toward? I honestly don't see how women (at least here in Canada) don't have the same rights as men. So, I'm probably wrong about that at least... sock it to me.

I'm going to do some Googling and get back to you on this one, because here in the States, I still make only 73 cents for every USD a man makes. If the things I read here on Cdot are any indication, I am earning less than people who have little more than a brainstem

My goals as a feminist? For this conversation to be as outdated as picking a china pattern and wedding night virginity.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I don't disagree with feminism, tho I do disagree with its name. I understand that when the movement first started, it must be called something to bring awareness to the cause, but I feel the name is outdated. Women now have the same rights as men. Are they discriminated against? Yes. But they do have equal rights, as far as I know. I used to call myself an equalitist because of this. Humanist is a great term that I'm surprised that I've never heard until reading this thread, it fits me quite well.

I equate feminists with the extreme side, the women who tell other women that they're "setting [women] back 20 years" because they pose in a bikini. Equal rights doesn't mean that a woman has to uphold a certain standard, that's the exact opposite of equal rights. A woman doesn't have to do something because a "feminist" says it's what she should be doing. That's not worse that a woman having doing something because a man tells her to do something. Equal rights is about having the freedom to do what anyone else on earth can do, if you so choose. If you can't do them because of your own personal limitations, that's fine, as long as you have the choice to attempt it. I personally can't give birth, but that's a physical limitation, not because "women won't let me", and that's fine.

I also disagree with "feminists" telling me that I'll never understand what they go through as women because I'm a man.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

I also disagree with "feminists" telling me that I'll never understand what they go through as women because I'm a man.
Okay, I'll bite. Explain how it is that you can "feel" me, so to speak. Tell me your tales of oppression and menstruation.:p

[birdgirl73]

. . . I'm concerned on a number of levels, the chief level being that I know some no-self-esteem-having member of my gender is going to come to this thread and tell you how fervently she agrees with you. Which will cause me to bite my tongue in twain.".

If that does happen--and I passionately hope it won't--but if it does, I'm betting that agreement could only come from someone who's still a girl and who hasn't yet encountered the adult world. If a self-respecting adult woman declares her agreement with Jack, I, too, will be tongue-severed, Lady Greenjeans. And apoplectic.


To any feminists on here... what are some goals that you're actually working toward?
My goals? Again, these are my humanist goals, which encompass all groups who're treated unfairly. If you substituted "humanism" or "human rights" for "feminism" in your post above, Jack, you'd see the folly in it right away.
- To get equal pay for equal work
- To receive equal educations and have teachers and professors nurture girl and women, gay, and racially diverse students in the same way they do straight white male students, from K - post-graduate professional school
- To get equal consideration for all jobs
- To be free from religious or political judgment or oppression
- To receive and give equal courtesy (to have doors opened for us and to open doors for others, both literally and figuratively)
- To be seen as intellectually equal with 25- 55-something white men no matter what gender, race, age or sexual preference we are
- To compete and be considered for physical jobs when we demonstrate physical equality (military combat and fire-fighting are two that pop into my head)
- To have men of all races and geographies, particularly the ones who have a touch of machismo or religious-influenced women/gays/blacks-are-second-class-citizens attitudes, regard us as intellectual equals, and to have any women/gays/people of color who don't perceive us as such (and there are a frightening lot of them) regard us the same way
- To have mastery of our own physical destiny, which extends to

1. Medical care (women, people of color, gays, and poor people lag behind in their quality of health care)
2. Our reproductive rights (men and women, particularly, but also transgendered people. Here I mean birth control, abortion, and surgery to add, subtract or create female or male reproductive organs )
3. Our right to die with dignity and, if we need it, with compassionate assistance
- To have equal rights to marry or not to marry, whether we're women in a non-equality culture like Saudi Arabia, or gays

I seem to have exhausted my brain and can't think of any more, but I suspect there are lots more. I've studied for 9 hours today. So I don't have much ability to generate deep thought tonight.

[Matt the Funk]

I've decided to make another post in here. Both my parents work pretty much all day everyday and still work quite a few hours and work a lot from home. Anyways as a child I rarely saw my mom and dad. I'm not saying women should be the ones staying home, but I feel as though one of the parents should be with the child if posible. Not being with my parents allowed me to grow close to my grandmothers but keeps my family isolated and made me learn stuff on my own. My mom was also still doing houseowork such as cleaning,cooking,etc. She was really stressed out and would lash out over nothing. My dad was also under lots of pressure from work and I would see him maybe the hour before I went to bed. But the way I see it, their should be equalness and more or less responsibility. Everyone just has to take care of themselves, and if they need help they should get a little. It shouldn't be women cleaning and cooking, it should be a mix of men and women. Also women are people, and people should all be treated with the same respect and dignity. End rant.

[Breukelen advocaat]

If that does happen--and I passionately hope it won't--but if it does, I'm betting that agreement could only come from someone who's still a girl and who hasn't yet encountered the adult world. If a self-respecting adult woman declares her agreement with Jack, I, too, will be tongue-severed, Lady Greenjeans. And apoplectic.


My goals? Again, these are my humanist goals, which encompass all groups who're treated unfairly. If you substituted "humanism" or "human rights" for "feminism" in your post above, Jack, you'd see the folly in it right away.

- To get equal pay for equal work
We already have laws for that.

- To receive equal educations and have teachers and professors nurture girl and women, gay, and racially diverse students in the same way they do straight white male students, from K - post-graduate professional school
Translation: Affirmative action based on sex and race. "Special" considerations, and additional coddling for said recipients.

- To get equal consideration for all jobs
See above

- To be free from religious or political judgment or oppression
Women and minorities are not free of this type of behavior, but get away with it even more today.

- To receive and give equal courtesy (to have doors opened for us and to open doors for others, both literally and figuratively)
American men are still chivalrous, to a large extent, but you can't please everybody.

- To be seen as intellectually equal with 25- 55-something white men no matter what gender, race, age or sexual preference we are
To be "seen", whether they are or are not intellectually equal in every case? Generally speaking, nobody really takes intelligence into account as far as these criteriaâ??s go, but who is responsible for most of the world's inventions and scientific discoveries?

- To compete and be considered for physical jobs when we demonstrate physical equality (military combat and fire-fighting are two that pop into my head)
Men cannot be chivalrous and work with women in dangerous jobs at the same time. They have been raised, at least in America, to protect - and it is very dangerous for them to have women on the front lines in hazardous occupations such as firefighting. Their wives and female loved ones know this better then anyone.

- To have men of all races and geographies, particularly the ones who have a touch of machismo or religious-influenced women/gays/blacks-are-second-class-citizens attitudes, regard us as intellectual equals, and to have any women/gays/people of color who don't perceive us as such (and there are a frightening lot of them) regard us the same way


- To have mastery of our own physical destiny, which extends to
[INDENT]1. Medical care (women, people of color, gays, and poor people lag behind in their quality of health care)
2. Our reproductive rights (men and women, particularly, but also transgendered people. Here I mean birth control, abortion, and surgery to add, subtract or create female or male reproductive organs )
[B]Who is supposed to pay for this multi-minority sexual-fetish utopia?

3. Our right to die with dignity and, if we need it, with compassionate assistance[/INDENT
No argument there. :thumbsup:

- To have equal rights to marry or not to marry, whether we're women in a non-equality culture like Saudi Arabia, or gays
Let's not interfere with Saudi Arabia anymore. Gays should be allowed to have civil unions equivilent to marriage.

I seem to have exhausted my brain and can't think of any more, but I suspect there are lots more. I've studied for 9 hours today. So I don't have much ability to generate deep thought tonight.

Yes, it's "deep" - but I'd rather not say any more tonight, either!

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Because one creepazoid tells you he's a feminist, now you question your own belief? Oh my, that won't do.

Dear sweetie, please repeat after me :
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
This you must never forget:hippy:
OHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I officially love you.

edited to say: I somehow missed an entire page of this thread. Bad cannabis, messing with my perceptions like that. For shame.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

I for one am tired of the door holding argument. I have never in my life railed at a man for holding the door for me, and I don't personally know any woman who has. I think it's some sort of troglodyte urban legend, like saying black people eat babies.

It's just plain common courtesy to hold a door open. I do it for anyone, and when people do it for me, I am appreciative and show the proper gratitude.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

This post angered me so badly I am having problems typing...so sorry if I don't make sense, perhaps I will come back to this later with a clearer head.

First off, I would like you to prove how America went downhill after we EARNED AND FOUGHT FOR the RIGHT to vote (you did not GIVE us the vote, we took it). In my opinion, America was doomed from the beginning...capitalism and Christianity's control over the country is causing this 'great decline'.

You ARE a neanderthal as far as I am concerned, because you seem to think that this world would be best if it were run solely by men.

I really hope you go around telling more people your "informed" opinion on this matter, because many other minorities would gladly tear you apart with their bare hands. When women got the right to vote, it spearheaded the equality movement for all minorities. Shortly after white women got the right to vote, women of color got to vote too. With the women's right to vote, minorities in North America were finally seen as 'people' in the eyes of the law- however, it is people like you who make many minorites still feel unhuman.

edit to say: I don't care if any of you make fun of me for getting "angry over something someone posted on the internet"... more people should care about issues, regardless of their location
We really need a smooch smiley, cause I can't rep you any more, so here's a big ol fat kiss! MMMMuuuuuwwwaaahhhh!

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Ok...First off, I am one of the most liberated men you are likely to ever meet.It's easy to be liberated when you've never been oppressed. I think Margret Thatcher was an excellent leader and so was the woman from India whose name I can't remember. Okay, that right there just tore the pocket for me. If I had to guess, you're talking about Golda Meier, and she was Israeli, not Indian. I may even vote for Clinton. How enlightened of you. Would you like some crackers with that patronization?
Second...I was playing devils advocate and I was playing to the crowd a bit but I also can't stand any kind of radicalisim; weather it is feminisim, religious or bigotry. Or apparently education.
If you don't care for it then fine, disagree and lets have an open discussion but, please, I am sensative and don't care to be called names or to have you wishing me harm.Stop acting like a woman.

- Slow -
I feel a heart problem coming on, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with voting and everything to do with throwback ideology. Ungh, you make Og's brain hurt.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Dutch.Lover wrote....
Here are some questions to get this thread off the ground, boys- feel free to answer them too (men can be feminists too!):

Do any of you identify yourselves as being a feminist? If so, do you feel comfortable telling other people this?

What stereotypes do you feel feminists have? Do you feel these are negative or positive?

What does feminism mean to you?

What issues do you think are most important for feminists?

Dutch, I would like to bring this back home If i may. You might have noticed this is a subject I feel pretty strongly about. I have a question....

How do you women who consider yourselves feminists feel about those women who choose to be stay at home moms? Does anyone remember how upsetting the notion was to the militant feminist that some women might preffer to be moms instead of working women?

- Slow -
I consider myself a feminist, and I am a stay at home mom. I do side jobs, and such when I need extra scratch for something special. To me, the two are not mutally exclusive. Feminism is about being able to CHOOSE my destiny, as opposed to having it DICKtated to me.*intentional misspelling*

[Psycho4Bud]

We really need a smooch smiley, cause I can't rep you any more, so here's a big ol fat kiss! MMMMuuuuuwwwaaahhhh!

How about this one:s2: or this one:s3: .......

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Yeah, I should use the first one. The second one looks a little too um, intimate. I mean, I love Dutch and all, but damn.

snicker

[Demeter]

Birdgirl, Purple Banana, Dutchlover, Mrs. G- I am so proud to read your responses and know that the intelligence of women can offset some feeble and narrow opinions that still threaten the development of the human species! I have had a similar argument many, many times in my position as an educator, and while I am usually able to maintain my patience with young men and women who haven't yet read enough or thought enough to know the facts about oppression, I felt little explosions in my head when I read what the aptly named "slow" and his ilk had to say. SO THANK YOU for saying what you did so well!

Thanks also to the men who replied in support of women's rights to choose their destiny -esp Dave Byrd, no wonder bg adores you- you recognize that feminism is a civil rights issue! You are able to see beyond the connotations the word has developed (poor "feminism"- she got demonized, big surprize, no, not in this patriarchy, surely!) to the core issues of human freedom. :thumbsup:

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

You know Dave Byrd gets maaaaaad lovin' from BG.;)

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

- To get equal pay for equal work
We already have laws for that.
And we see how well those are being enforced. We also have a million loopholes that allow employers to disregard said laws. See my earlier post about making less money than the penis-havers.
- To receive equal educations and have teachers and professors nurture girl and women, gay, and racially diverse students in the same way they do straight white male students, from K - post-graduate professional school
Translation: Affirmative action based on sex and race. "Special" considerations, and additional coddling for said recipients. See my earlier post re: leveling the playing field.

- To get equal consideration for all jobs
See above .Ditto

- To be free from religious or political judgment or oppression
Women and minorities are not free of this type of behavior, but get away with it even more today. Back this up or back off.

- To receive and give equal courtesy (to have doors opened for us and to open doors for others, both literally and figuratively)
American men are still chivalrous, to a large extent, but you can't please everybody. Right. Just like working a fulltime job, and being Betty Crocker still hasn't made y'all happy. You live in the Bizarro world don't you?

- To be seen as intellectually equal with 25- 55-something white men no matter what gender, race, age or sexual preference we are
To be "seen", whether they are or are not intellectually equal in every case? Generally speaking, nobody really takes intelligence into account as far as these criteriaâ??s go, but who is responsible for most of the world's inventions and scientific discoveries? Oh don't get me started, I will Google you to death. Off the tippy top of my head, does the name Madame Curie ring a bell?

- To compete and be considered for physical jobs when we demonstrate physical equality (military combat and fire-fighting are two that pop into my head)
Men cannot be chivalrous and work with women in dangerous jobs at the same time. They have been raised, at least in America, to protect - and it is very dangerous for them to have women on the front lines in hazardous occupations such as firefighting. Their wives and female loved ones know this better then anyone. Oh holy. I'm not gonna touch this.I'll choke on my own venom.

- To have men of all races and geographies, particularly the ones who have a touch of machismo or religious-influenced women/gays/blacks-are-second-class-citizens attitudes, regard us as intellectual equals, and to have any women/gays/people of color who don't perceive us as such (and there are a frightening lot of them) regard us the same way
Religions are primarily supported by women, minorities, and the working class. But who is in charge of the power structure behind those religions? Men.

- To have mastery of our own physical destiny, which extends to 1. Medical care (women, people of color, gays, and poor people lag behind in their quality of health care)
2. Our reproductive rights (men and women, particularly, but also transgendered people. Here I mean birth control, abortion, and surgery to add, subtract or create female or male reproductive organs )
Who is supposed to pay for this multi-minority sexual-fetish utopia? [I]You freaking xenophobe. Who is supposed to pay for your exclusionary ideals? Everything costs money, including keeping people down.

3. Our right to die with dignity and, if we need it, with compassionate assistance[/INDENT
No argument there. :thumbsup:

- To have equal rights to marry or not to marry, whether we're women in a non-equality culture like Saudi Arabia, or gays
Let's not interfere with Saudi Arabia anymore. Yeah, we're too deeply in bed with them. Call me crazy, but if I'm getting the high hard one from somebody, I like to have a say in how thingsgo. We need to quit buying their oil, and they need to quit flying planes into our buildings.
Gays should be allowed to have civil unions equivilent to marriage. That's mighty white of you.

Why do you do this to me BA? You enjoy knowing I'm banging my forehead on my desktop? I think you do.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Hey come on pussy cat, smile a little bit..huh?
Huh?

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Doggone server lag.

I'd like to quote Lennon/Ono if I may...
"Woman is the n***** of the world."

I added the asterisks myself. Y'all know what it means.

[dutch.lover]

Wow this thread has sure taken off...my internet hasnt really been working lately so I havent been able to check up on this in awhile.

All I really have to say right now, is for newcomers who are watching the debate on the last few pages, to read the first page of this thread first. I think a lot of you (like Jack and Breulekan among others) haven't bothered to read it....in the first page I go thru what feminism is, what the goals are, what the misconceptions are, etc. It's strictly "educational" if you will, no arguing or anything, so please read it first before commenting or asking questions because I may have already covered it. Thanks.

And one more thing, to those of you who are saying/thinking "women have the same rights as men...the law says they do"...laws do not equal enforcement! Rights and laws don't mean anything unless those whom it pertains to are able to exercise those rights. Women are making much less than men in North America, and there are huge double standards. Most women work what is called the 'second shift'- they work 8+ hours a day at their job, then come home, and it's their 'job' to cook, clean and look after the kids. My stepmom does this cause my dad is a dominant a-hole...I'm glad my real mom divorced him.

[slowlickitysplit]

With trepidation I dive back in....
Birdgirl writes;
My goals? Again, these are my humanist goals, which encompass all groups who're treated unfairly. If you substituted "humanism" or "human rights" for "feminism" in your post above, Jack, you'd see the folly in it right away.
- To get equal pay for equal work
- To receive equal educations and have teachers and professors nurture girl and women, gay, and racially diverse students in the same way they do straight white male students, from K - post-graduate professional school
- To get equal consideration for all jobs
- To be free from religious or political judgment or oppression
- To receive and give equal courtesy (to have doors opened for us and to open doors for others, both literally and figuratively)
- To be seen as intellectually equal with 25- 55-something white men no matter what gender, race, age or sexual preference we are
- To compete and be considered for physical jobs when we demonstrate physical equality (military combat and fire-fighting are two that pop into my head)
- To have men of all races and geographies, particularly the ones who have a touch of machismo or religious-influenced women/gays/blacks-are-second-class-citizens attitudes, regard us as intellectual equals, and to have any women/gays/people of color who don't perceive us as such (and there are a frightening lot of them) regard us the same way
- To have mastery of our own physical destiny, which extends to

1. Medical care (women, people of color, gays, and poor people lag behind in their quality of health care)
2. Our reproductive rights (men and women, particularly, but also transgendered people. Here I mean birth control, abortion, and surgery to add, subtract or create female or male reproductive organs )
3. Our right to die with dignity and, if we need it, with compassionate assistance

- To have equal rights to marry or not to marry, whether we're women in a non-equality culture like Saudi Arabia, or gays

Lets take these one at a time..
1) Equal pay for equal work. I agree. My boss is an idiot and I should be paid more then her. But how is that a woman issue? There are laws against discrimination on gender in the work force.

2)Have teachers nurture girls? I think that's backwards. In American primary education girls get a much better education. The whole system is geared towards girls and thier ability vs. boys to sit still, verbaly comunicate, use fine motor skills and cooperate.

3)Equal courtesy? Personaly I feel it was radical feminisim that beat the stuffing out of chivilry.

4)to be treated as intelectual and physical equalls? Show me! Prove to me that you (anyone) can pass the same physical tests to become a NYC firefighter and I will treat you exactly as I treat your male counterpart. You make it sound like you want entitelment for being a woman. Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. Same for intellectual pursuits. I know many (most) women who are smarter then me. That dosen't mean I'm going to approach the next woman with the assumption she is smarter. Nope.

5) The rest of your current causes sound very much like humanisim and not feminisim.

NOW..... New thought that brought me here today...

Has/should feminisim morph into general activisim? Most of the battles have been won in this arena and I see many would be feminitst becoming involved in other social causes. Is this good? bad? Comments?

- Slow -

[birdgirl73]

Breuk, lately every time you post, I realize that you're one of the most archaicâ??and frighteningly uninformedâ??men I've ever been acquainted with. You also distort the most simple concepts put forth by others. Cases in point below:

- To get equal pay for equal work
We already have laws for that.
No we certainly do not. We have laws for equal opportunity employment which aren't always honored, but we don't have any such law for equal pay. Unless you have one in NYC. Nationally? No sir. Women still make .73 - .82 cents for every dollar men do.

- To receive equal educations and have teachers and professors nurture girl and women, gay, and racially diverse students in the same way they do straight white male students, from K - post-graduate professional school
Translation: Affirmative action based on sex and race. "Special" considerations, and additional coddling for said recipients.
Affirmative action was your translation, not mine. Here I simply want teachers to pay the same attention to women and minorities as they do to boys and men. Do your research. They donâ??t do this in primary or secondary schools. They donâ??t do this in colleges, grad schools or law/medical schools, either. What a pity youâ??re not aware of this. Itâ??s been studied and proven repeatedly.

- To get equal consideration for all jobs
See above
Again, you're seeing it through your own disparagement filter here. I mean real equal consideration. That does not happen right now. Ask the EEO Commission or the Dept of Labor. They see thousands of cases every day that have nothing to do with affirmative action or lack of it.

- To be free from religious or political judgment or oppression
Women and minorities are not free of this type of behavior, but get away with it even more today.
I don't even know what that meant, but, as is so often the case with you, it conveyed disdain instead of coherent thought. I want us all to be free from religious or political judgment or oppression. Even you.

- To receive and give equal courtesy (to have doors opened for us and to open doors for others, both literally and figuratively)
American men are still chivalrous, to a large extent, but you can't please everybody.
My goal was of a many-way street of courtesy but, yet again, you didn't grasp that and interpreted this only through a sexist male-female filter. I want us all opening doors for each other, and I mean women for men, men for transvestites, all people for old folks, men for women, all people for people of color and vice versa. And I want us opening the thought and perception doors (like in education, health care, and religion) that have been closed to these groups before now.

- To be seen as intellectually equal with 25- 55-something white men no matter what gender, race, age or sexual preference we are
To be "seen", whether they are or are not intellectually equal in every case? Generally speaking, nobody really takes intelligence into account as far as these criteriaâ??s go, but who is responsible for most of the world's inventions and scientific discoveries?
To be acknowledged as equal when intellectual equality exists. Here I began to get nauseated with the realization of just how out-of-balance intellectual equality is with you.

- To compete and be considered for physical jobs when we demonstrate physical equality (military combat and fire-fighting are two that pop into my head)
Men cannot be chivalrous and work with women in dangerous jobs at the same time. They have been raised, at least in America, to protect - and it is very dangerous for them to have women on the front lines in hazardous occupations such as firefighting. Their wives and female loved ones know this better then anyone.
Malarkey. Men wouldn't be asked to be chivalrous any more than women in these jobs would, and if they felt inclined toward it, then that wouldn't be reason to prevent women from having those jobs even so. I was a firefighter-medic for 7 years. Physically strong women do that work every day. You probably didn't know that paramedics pass all the same firefighting and physical endurance exams and get all the same training that men do. We suit up and fight fires in addition to doing medical rescue work every day. We work as police officers, too. Those of us who are physically capable, as we are in firefighting and police work, can do the same in military combat. Both genders can support each other in dangerous situations. In reality, that's how that actually works in those jobs.

- To have men of all races and geographies, particularly the ones who have a touch of machismo or religious-influenced women/gays/blacks-are-second-class-citizens attitudes, regard us as intellectual equals, and to have any women/gays/people of color who don't perceive us as such (and there are a frightening lot of them) regard us the same way
Religions are primarily supported by women, minorities, and the working class.
Check your facts more closely. In America, slightly more women attend church than men. But people who consider themselves religious both here and around the world are a balanced mix of women, men, minorities, and various classes. Universally, the primary financial and political supportâ??and every aspect of organized religion/church leadershipâ??comes from men. Your response really had nothing whatsoever to do with the goal I cited.

- To have mastery of our own physical destiny, which extends to
1. Medical care (women, people of color, gays, and poor people lag behind in their quality of health care)
2. Our reproductive rights (men and women, particularly, but also transgendered people. Here I mean birth control, abortion, and surgery to add, subtract or create female or male reproductive organs )
Who is supposed to pay for this multi-minority sexual-fetish utopia?
Here youâ??re distorting through your â??curmudgeonâ?� filter again. And itâ??s again a simple answer, not a utopian one. Same people pay for it who pay for it now. Insurance. Patients who pay fee-for-service/out-of-pocket. In some cases, health care social services, but thatâ??s rare. If we can get universal health care, thatâ??d help. You neednâ??t worry about that personally, though. You wonâ??t support it. When you have time, you need to read about the causes of transexualism (hormonal influence in fetal development) and also educate yourself on the actual definition of â??fetish.â?�

3. Our right to die with dignity and, if we need it, with compassionate assistance[/INDENT
No argument there.
Nor from me reciprocally. I do wish you regarded people who are different from you with equal amounts of dignity in life, however.

- To have equal rights to marry or not to marry, whether we're women in a non-equality culture like Saudi Arabia, or gays
Let's not interfere with Saudi Arabia anymore. Gays should be allowed to have civil unions equivilent to marriage.
Yet again you distorted a simple statement and answered it with a different tangent involving â??interference.â?� Please educate yourself. Saudi Arabia is simply a single example of the women-as-marriage-chattel behavior and attitude that goes on around the world all the time and even still occurs in well-developed countries (mostly by the more primitive religious groups). Thatâ??s what I want to stop for women. At least you understood the part about civil unions.

Iâ??m so glad Mrs. Greenjeans chimed in. For a while there, thought my brainy male and female friends here were probably either so perplexedâ??or so exhaustedâ??by you that they were not even going to waste their time commenting. After this, I shall follow their lead. Youâ??re not really someone who can follow simple debate points accurately enough to be able to respond logically.

Slowlickity, you can read my responses above to Breuk, which may answer some of yours. Especially about firefighting and the military and teacher-preferences for boys. Thatâ??s a proven fact. Over and over in now more than 20 recognized academic studies. Ask anyone from people in basic teacher training to the dean of the Harvard School of Education. Check it for yourself on Google. This is something we all need to be aware of.

[slowlickitysplit]

Wow. Mrs. GJ where's the love? Did i fertilize your garden? Why you jump on me? And Demeter; Negative reps? Why? because we disagree? Now I understand the pink Floyd song "We don't need no education" Better. Sure glad you're not coercing. uh, teaching my sons. Nice reasoning skills ladies!

Why do you want the right to vote? Just cause we have it? Voter appathy is at an all time high. You got the right but don't use it. We men no longer feel sole responsability for the course of our nation so why bother? Yes, that was tounge in cheek.

Wish I was enlightened enough to end this with a signature tha delt with your anatomy too. Unfortunately, my MOTHER taught me better.

- Slow -

[Breukelen advocaat]

And one more thing, to those of you who are saying/thinking "women have the same rights as men...the law says they do"...laws do not equal enforcement! Rights and laws don't mean anything unless those whom it pertains to are able to exercise those rights. Women are making much less than men in North America, and there are huge double standards. Most women work what is called the 'second shift'- they work 8+ hours a day at their job, then come home, and it's their 'job' to cook, clean and look after the kids. My stepmom does this cause my dad is a dominant a-hole...I'm glad my real mom divorced him.
The alleged pay disparity between men and women in America is too big a topic to tackle here. Suffice to say, there are good reasons for it - mostly due to education, part-time vs. full-time, etc. People that do the same work are getting paid 98% the same. 94% of job fatalities in the U.S. involve men. Why? Because they are the ones that are willing to take on physically dangerous jobs ( Male-female income disparity in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA))

As far as considering childrearing "work" - nobody can force a woman to have kids - that is their decision. It's not my responsibility to pay them.
I have interests, like music, that I nurtured after work - on my own and for free. Children are a hobby and luxury. You must be prepared to sacrifice for them, and not expect society to force taxpayers to foot more of the bill and even pay wages to mothers.

[slowlickitysplit]

Birdgirl,
I am a primary schol teacher. All my siblings and father are either educators or administrators. Let's remember what mark twain once said..."There are white lies, damned lies and statistics." Who paid for those studies you have quoted? You have a grown son. Think about it. Who is better able to sit and write for hours on end? Girls. Who is better suited to book learning versus hands on? Girls. The whole system is slanted towards women because women were at the heart of public education (Not university as in Plato's time) in America. I am happy to see this slowly changing. There are more and more resources for boy's particular strenghts but it is far from equal.

- Slow -

[Breukelen advocaat]

Breuk, lately every time you post, I realize that you're one of the most archaicâ??and frighteningly uninformedâ??men I've ever been acquainted with. You also distort the most simple concepts put forth by others. Cases in point below:

-
Iâ??m so glad Mrs. Greenjeans chimed in. For a while there, thought my brainy male and female friends here were probably either so perplexedâ??or so exhaustedâ??by you that they were not even going to waste their time commenting. After this, I shall follow their lead. Youâ??re not really someone who can follow simple debate points accurately enough to be able to respond logically.

I deleted most of your responses because it's ground that has already been covered.


To be called "archaic", by you, is a compliment. If you consider my life's experiences and opinions based on them to be "uninformed", then we have a difference of opinion about what elements "information" consists of.

You have a different view of what "logic" is. I can assure you that there are many people capable of deductive reasoning, and logical thinking, that do not agree with most of your opinions about feminism and other issues. Many of the "simple points", which I may often disagree with, that you accuse me of "missing", are so obvious to an intelligent person, that they would assume even a simpleton would not need to address them head-on merely to acknowledge comprehension.

[suhl]

i dont really care about feminists. girls go around dressed in next nothing and getting places on their looks, then blame it on men and the media. youd think if they knew who to blame theyd be able to do something about it. im all for equal rights, and i think women have them at this point, and the ones they dont have, well, stop blaming your problems on men and the media, get together and make a difference you know, it is like how chapelle says black people need to stop blaming their problems on white people. true, whites have held blacks in america back as men have held women back, but now equal footing is totally possible, so if you know who to blame you know you can do something about it.

[dutch.lover]

Wow. Mrs. GJ where's the love? Did i fertilize your garden? Why you jump on me? And Demeter; Negative reps? Why? because we disagree? Now I understand the pink Floyd song "We don't need no education" Better. Sure glad you're not coercing. uh, teaching my sons. Nice reasoning skills ladies!

Why do you want the right to vote? Just cause we have it? Voter appathy is at an all time high. You got the right but don't use it. We men no longer feel sole responsability for the course of our nation so why bother? Yes, that was tounge in cheek.

Wish I was enlightened enough to end this with a signature tha delt with your anatomy too. Unfortunately, my MOTHER taught me better.

- Slow -

I don't agree with Demeter giving you negative rep Slow, but I thought I would point something out to you. What you have been saying has been insulting women to no end. You may not even realize you are doing this, but you seem to be blaming women for endless amounts of things. So you make us all angry (as im sure you have noticed), and then go on to post with the attitude of a kicked puppy. Frankly, it's exhausting. You piss us all off, then you make a post that sounds like you're crying about it. The reason I am telling you this is because I am trying to be civil, and wanted to bring this to your attention.

[slowlickitysplit]

Dutch,
If I insulted anyone or any group I appologize. It certainly wasn't my aim. I was trying to show you all an alternative view and challange everyone's assumptions.

- Slow -

[dutch.lover]

i dont really care about feminists. girls go around dressed in next nothing and getting places on their looks, then blame it on men and the media. youd think if they knew who to blame theyd be able to do something about it. im all for equal rights, and i think women have them at this point, and the ones they dont have, well, stop blaming your problems on men and the media, get together and make a difference you know, it is like how chapelle says black people need to stop blaming their problems on white people. true, whites have held blacks in america back as men have held women back, but now equal footing is totally possible, so if you know who to blame you know you can do something about it.

I already covered the topic of women blaming men on THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS THREAD. I would really appreciate it if you would respect me by not wasting my time complaining about something I have already covered, and sympathize with. Here's my post in response to someone who brought up women blaming men for things such as girls having eating disorders...


True that. In my women's studies class we talk about problems like this, and their causes. I think those issues you brought up are related to the high standards of beauty our society has today. Aside from the medias direct role in that, women are actually largely to blame for those kinds of things as well.

For example, eating disorders are commonly passed down from mother to daughter. A young girl will grow up listening to her mother's negative comments about her weight, and will end up criticizing her own body as well.

Perhaps there is a male root to this all (bear with me here boys), but women are often the ones doing the reinforcement which is the most significant thing imo, because if we keep on reinforcing shit like this it will never stop. One of the biggest thing women need to realize, is their own role in this sort of thing. Women oppress women all the time, without even realizing it. We perpetuate stereotypes on a daily basis, and there is even a large occurrance of violence done to women, by women (very common in the lesbian community). Women can be racist, classist, sexist...all of which contribute to the general oppression many groups face. It's a very complex issue.

[Purple Banana]

Birdgirl,
I am a primary schol teacher. All my siblings and father are either educators or administrators. Let's remember what mark twain once said..."There are white lies, damned lies and statistics." Who paid for those studies you have quoted? You have a grown son. Think about it. Who is better able to sit and write for hours on end? Girls. Who is better suited to book learning versus hands on? Girls. The whole system is slanted towards women because women were at the heart of public education (Not university as in Plato's time) in America. I am happy to see this slowly changing. There are more and more resources for boy's particular strenghts but it is far from equal.

- Slow -

How can you claim women learn better 'by the book?' I, for one, enjoy learning hands-on, and I don't enjoy sitting for hours on end. I'm not the only one.

Primary school is a whole different ballpark from secondary and post-secondary education. Different people learn different ways; I honestly can't see how you would equate learning styles to gender-specific categories. It's all relative to the individual, not some group consensus.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Y'all (slow and ba) give me a headache. I'm going to post on a fun thread so I'm "up" and happy first, then I'll come back.

I'll give you this much...you two are persistent, despite being roundly trounced by women who are clearly your intellectual betters. But hey, why let a little thing like reality stand in the way of dogma?

[Breukelen advocaat]

Equal Pay Act (http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html)

Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination

The right of employees to be free from discrimination in their compensation is protected under several federal laws, including the following enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women be given equal pay for equal work in the same establishment. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. It is job content, not job titles, that determines whether jobs are substantially equal. Specifically, the EPA provides:

Employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment. Each of these factors is summarized below:

Skill - Measured by factors such as the experience, ability, education, and training required to perform the job. The key issue is what skills are required for the job, not what skills the individual employees may have. For example, two bookkeeping jobs could be considered equal under the EPA even if one of the job holders has a master's degree in physics, since that degree would not be required for the job.

Effort - The amount of physical or mental exertion needed to perform the job. For example, suppose that men and women work side by side on a line assembling machine parts. The person at the end of the line must also lift the assembled product as he or she completes the work and place it on a board. That job requires more effort than the other assembly line jobs if the extra effort of lifting the assembled product off the line is substantial and is a regular part of the job. As a result, it would not be a violation to pay that person more, regardless of whether the job is held by a man or a woman.

Responsibility - The degree of accountability required in performing the job. For example, a salesperson who is delegated the duty of determining whether to accept customers' personal checks has more responsibility than other salespeople. On the other hand, a minor difference in responsibility, such as turning out the lights at the end of the day, would not justify a pay differential.

Working Conditions - This encompasses two factors: (1) physical surroundings like temperature, fumes, and ventilation; and (2) hazards.
Establishment - The prohibition against compensation discrimination under the EPA applies only to jobs within an establishment. An establishment is a distinct physical place of business rather than an entire business or enterprise consisting of several places of business. However, in some circumstances, physically separate places of business should be treated as one establishment. For example, if a central administrative unit hires employees, sets their compensation, and assigns them to work locations, the separate work sites can be considered part of one establishment.
Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex. These are known as "affirmative defenses" and it is the employer's burden to prove that they apply.

In correcting a pay differential, no employee's pay may be reduced. Instead, the pay of the lower paid employee(s) must be increased.

Title VII, ADEA, and ADA

Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA prohibit compensation discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Unlike the EPA, there is no requirement under Title VII, the ADEA, or the ADA that the claimant's job be substantially equal to that of a higher paid person outside the claimant's protected class, nor do these statutes require the claimant to work in the same establishment as a comparator.

Compensation discrimination under Title VII, the ADEA, or the ADA can occur in a variety of forms. For example:

An employer pays an employee with a disability less than similarly situated employees without disabilities and the employer's explanation (if any) does not satisfactorily account for the differential.

A discriminatory compensation system has been discontinued but still has lingering discriminatory effects on present salaries. For example, if an employer has a compensation policy or practice that pays Hispanics lower salaries than other employees, the employer must not only adopt a new non-discriminatory compensation policy, it also must affirmatively eradicate salary disparities that began prior to the adoption of the new policy and make the victims whole.

An employer sets the compensation for jobs predominately held by, for example, women or African-Americans below that suggested by the employer's job evaluation study, while the pay for jobs predominately held by men or whites is consistent with the level suggested by the job evaluation study.

An employer maintains a neutral compensation policy or practice that has an adverse impact on employees in a protected class and cannot be justified as job-related and consistent with business necessity. For example, if an employer provides extra compensation to employees who are the "head of household," i.e., married with dependents and the primary financial contributor to the household, the practice may have an unlawful disparate impact on women.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on compensation or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII, ADEA, ADA or the Equal Pay Act.

Statistics

In Fiscal Year 2006, EEOC received 663 charges of compensation discrimination discrimination. EEOC resolved 743 compensation discrimination charges in FY 2006 and recovered $3.1 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).

[Pipe Dreams]

I equate feminists with the extreme side, the women who tell other women that they're "setting [women] back 20 years" because they pose in a bikini.

I also disagree with "feminists" telling me that I'll never understand what they go through as women because I'm a man.


This is the way I see feminists also. THESE women need to get all that goddamn sand out of their vagina and straighten the fuck up.

EDIT: If youre THAT type of feminist, then youre an idiot.:S3: :S4:

[birdgirl73]

I'm all for people--not just women, I keep pointing out--who support other people for doing whatever the heck it is they want to. From supporting women and men who want to pose in bathing suits (physical beauty is fine with everyone I know) to women or men who want to be stay-at-home parents or working professionals. That's been my whole point here, and only a few have really gotten it.

I'm for people being open to anything and everything. And that darn well better include humanisim/peopleism/feminisim/masculinism. The folks I've argued with the most passionately here are people who are just the opposite.

[dutch.lover]

BA, how many times do we need to tell you that law does NOT equal exercising of rights. Just because a law says something, doesn't mean it happens. Get it through your head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geez you're tiring.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

Geez you're tiring.


I know right? I had to take a damn nap because of this thread today.:S2:

[Breukelen advocaat]

BA, how many times do we need to tell you that law does NOT equal exercising of rights. Just because a law says something, doesn't mean it happens. Get it through your head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geez you're tiring.

I've been working for more years than I care to say, at a lot of jobs, and I haven't seen very much of what you're claiming. Maybe you have, but I doubt it.

[thcbongman]

I've been working for more years than I care to say, at a lot of jobs, and I haven't seen very much of what you're claiming. Maybe you have, but I doubt it.

I suppose you been analyzing the payroll of the various companies you were employed for in the past? Or sitting in HR meetings. lmao.

The income disparity exists, especially among women who are deemed less attractive, or are overweight. Don't kid yourself that simply making The Equal Pay Act will eventually equal out everything. As humans, bias still exists past these safeguards.

I'll tell you a story about my experience with women who are victims of the income inequality. When I was 20, my company gave me a substancial raise, which was higher than the salary of most of the my female co-workers on my team, some who were responsible for more important functions. I heard about their complaints and I think they're warranted. Here I was, some 20 year old kid, who was getting paid more than my co-workers who had kids, worked there longer, and had substancially more experience. I felt I earned it because of my specialites and dedication, but I feel why they feel unfairly treated. They should've been paid as much as me, perhaps even more. They were minorities, women, and everyday had to work their asses off for little in return. The world is unfair. Even tho we strive for equality, the climate will never be equal. That's why you need laws and people to keep fighting inequality.

[Breukelen advocaat]

I suppose you been analyzing the payroll of the various companies you were employed for in the past? Or sitting in HR meetings. lmao.

The income disparity exists, especially among women who are deemed less attractive, or are overweight. Don't kid yourself that simply making The Equal Pay Act will eventually equal out everything. As humans, bias still exists past these safeguards.

I've experienced discrimination for various reasons - women and minorities do the same thing - including women, parents, homosexuals and lesbians. Nobody says that human nature is always on the right side.

I'll tell you a story about my experience with women who are victims of the income inequality. When I was 20, my company gave me a substancial raise, which was higher than the salary of most of the my female co-workers on my team, some who were responsible for more important functions.
Maybe you didn't give yourself enough credit for your contributions to the firm .

I heard about their complaints and I think they're warranted. Here I was, some 20 year old kid, who was getting paid more than my co-workers who had kids, worked there longer, and had substancially more experience.
What does having kids matter, unless the job has something to do with child care? If they were frequently late, absent, or unable to work overtime due to their children, I can understand the reluctance of the employer to promote them.

I felt I earned it because of my specialites and dedication, but I feel why they feel unfairly treated. They should've been paid as much as me, perhaps even more.
Not everybody can promoted. Unless your promotion was political, you probably outshined your co-workers in the eyes of your employers.

They were minorities, women, and everyday had to work their asses off for little in return. The world is unfair. Even tho we strive for equality, the climate will never be equal. That's why you need laws and people to keep fighting inequality.

Yes, and whenever some of today's alleged disenfranchised get further along, they hire their own and discriminate against everybody else. This tendency of human nature is addressed by laws, which work a good deal of the time, but there are ALWAYS going to be exceptions.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Okay, I'll bite. Explain how it is that you can "feel" me, so to speak. Tell me your tales of oppression and menstruation.:p
That's not fair, you know what I meant :P

But to respond for a response's sake, I simply stated that I understand what they go through. Menstruation, I understand the idea of what happens physically and what can happen mentally and emotionally. People have different reactions to it. To say that it's impossible for me to imagine that some people have something happen to them once a month that they have seemingly no control over and don't know why they "act different" because of it, is being close minded. Will I ever know *exactly* what's happening to them? No. Will I ever know what it's like to be anyone but myself? No. Can I get a general idea? Sure.

And oppression is a pretty easy thing to understand, as almost all of us as humans have felt it.

I know you meant your post in jest, but I do feel that deserved a proper response nonetheless.

[Hardcore Newbie]

BA, how many times do we need to tell you that law does NOT equal exercising of rights. Just because a law says something, doesn't mean it happens. Get it through your head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geez you're tiring.No need for all the exclamation marks. BA was (in my eyes) clearly replying to BirdGirl when he posted the Equity Pay Act. He stated that there were laws in place, and birdgirl's reply was
No we certainly do not. We have laws for equal opportunity employment which aren't always honored, but we don't have any such law for equal pay. He was simply correcting someone. He hasn't used any hostility so far from what I've seen, so I feel it's unfair to be hostile in return. Disagreeing is fine, agreeing to disagree is fine, agreeing not to talk or respond to him is fine, there's not need to be hostile with someone who is talking in a civil manner, no matter how "wrong" you may consider him, we are all equals here, regardless of gender creed or religion.

btw sorry about the bold print, I have no idea why it's bold after the quote.

[Breukelen advocaat]

A true story. I hope that this shows up on YOUTUBE someday.

Shortly after the original Godfather movie came out, James Caan, who played Sonny Corleone (the oldest son of Vito), was on a daytime talk show being interviewed. It was probably the Mike Douglas Show . This was around the time of the beginning of modern "Women's Lib". One of the other guests was the female world champion arm wrestler. Somebody on the panel suggested that Jimmy Caan, even with his recent success as the ultra-macho Sonny, could not beat the female champ in a match, and the audience was yelling for him to try. He balked, and said that he couldnâ??t do it, he wasnâ??t in shape, too old, etc. After much badgering, enduring taunts and catcalls, etc., the good natured actor acquiesced and sat down with her for a match. He won. :thumbsup:

[slowlickitysplit]

Advocat wrote;
A true story. I hope that this shows up on YOUTUBE someday.

Shortly after the original Godfather movie came out, James Caan, who played Sonny Corleone (the oldest son of Vito), was on a daytime talk show being interviewed. It was probably the Mike Douglas Show . This was around the time of the beginning of modern "Women's Lib". One of the other guests was the female world champion arm wrestler. Somebody on the panel suggested that Jimmy Caan, even with his recent success as the ultra-macho Sonny, could not beat the female champ in a match, and the audience was yelling for him to try. He balked, and said that he couldnâ??t do it, he wasnâ??t in shape, too old, etc. After much badgering, enduring taunts and catcalls, etc., the good natured actor acquiesced and sat down with her for a match. He won.

Dude, that was very chivilrous of her to let him win. To imply that any man could beat any woman at anything physical is ludicrous. How about Stephen Hawkins kicking Martina Navratolova's But? NOT!



Hardcoe wrote;
He was simply correcting someone. He hasn't used any hostility so far from what I've seen, so I feel it's unfair to be hostile in return. Disagreeing is fine, agreeing to disagree is fine, agreeing not to talk or respond to him is fine, there's not need to be hostile with someone who is talking in a civil manner, no matter how "wrong" you may consider him, we are all equals here, regardless of gender creed or religion.

btw sorry about the bold print, I have no idea why it's bold after the
quote.

We have both noted the hostility here from some of the females. What gives? I feel like some of you need to be sent to the time out chair untill you can behave like civilized young ladies. The original post was open to men and asked for no male bashing. Seriously, what gives? Why all the personal attacks?

- Slow -

[slowlickitysplit]

OH MY GODDDD! Now polymirize has given me negative reps!

who bitchs about rep? its like you're grovelling for pity

And you sounded like such an intelegent and reasoning woman. What a shame. Let me use small words for you so there is no confusion. I WAS MAKING A POINT!

I could give a hoot what some facless people on my computer think of me. Why don't you go bury your head back in the sand? Obviously the only opinion that counts to you is your own.

Since you brought it up though..What if I was the sensative type? What if the neg reps hurt my feelings? Enjoy adding salt to the wound do you?

Polly, you have made this very personal. You really do sound like a well educated woman. Why can't you keep this a discussion or even a debate? Why do you wish to turn it into a fight?

- Slow -

[birdgirl73]

Polymirize is a man, Slow. One of the few. The proud. The evolved. You assumed because he was so articulate that he was a woman? Because women are the only ones who can be verbally articulate whereas men are the only ones who can do math and engineering? Wasn't that what you were saying back there when you were telling me you were a primary school teacher? Just like you were saying that only men can fight fires? And only women could initiate research studies showing that there's an inequity of teacher attention to female students?

You terrify me. I will be civil because I know I won't win any converts or change any other people's minds by getting strident or angry. And I already know your mind is unchangeable anyway. But you really do remind me of just how much more progress is needed in this area.

As one of my smartest correspondents told me behind the scenes, "What's scary is that for every two like BA and Slow who express those thoughts, there are dozens more men keeping silent who believe the same thing."

[Breukelen advocaat]

Advocat wrote;
A true story. I hope that this shows up on YOUTUBE someday.

Shortly after the original Godfather movie came out, James Caan, who played Sonny Corleone (the oldest son of Vito), was on a daytime talk show being interviewed. It was probably the Mike Douglas Show . This was around the time of the beginning of modern "Women's Lib". One of the other guests was the female world champion arm wrestler. Somebody on the panel suggested that Jimmy Caan, even with his recent success as the ultra-macho Sonny, could not beat the female champ in a match, and the audience was yelling for him to try. He balked, and said that he couldnâ??t do it, he wasnâ??t in shape, too old, etc. After much badgering, enduring taunts and catcalls, etc., the good natured actor acquiesced and sat down with her for a match. He won.

Dude, that was very chivilrous of her to let him win. To imply that any man could beat any woman at anything physical is ludicrous. How about Stephen Hawkins kicking Martina Navratolova's But? NOT!



Hardcoe wrote;
He was simply correcting someone. He hasn't used any hostility so far from what I've seen, so I feel it's unfair to be hostile in return. Disagreeing is fine, agreeing to disagree is fine, agreeing not to talk or respond to him is fine, there's not need to be hostile with someone who is talking in a civil manner, no matter how "wrong" you may consider him, we are all equals here, regardless of gender creed or religion.

btw sorry about the bold print, I have no idea why it's bold after the
quote.

We have both noted the hostility here from some of the females. What gives? I feel like some of you need to be sent to the time out chair untill you can behave like civilized young ladies. The original post was open to men and asked for no male bashing. Seriously, what gives? Why all the personal attacks?

- Slow -

There are some serious double and triple standards present here, as elsewhere, but let's leave that one on the back-burner for now...............:thumbsup:

Ethics are the key. Congratulations, few people have much in the way of those anymore.

[slowlickitysplit]

Birdgirl wrote;

Polymirize is a man, Slow. One of the few. The proud. The evolved. You assumed because he was so articulate that he was a woman? Because women are the only ones who can be verbally articulate whereas men are the only ones who can do math and engineering? Wasn't that what you were saying back there when you were telling me you were a primary school teacher? Just like you were saying that only men can fight fires? And only women could initiate research studies showing that there's an inequity of teacher attention to female students?

You terrify me. I will be civil because I know I won't win any converts or change any other people's minds by getting strident or angry. And I already know your mind is unchangeable anyway. But you really do remind me of just how much more progress is needed in this area.


No, I assumed that Polly was a womans name.

I have no idea how I have gotten so misunderstood here. I am not a chest thumping neaderthal as you all seem to think.
Let me say first off that I NEVER said women shouldn't be fire fighters or anything of the sort. My class validictorian was an all county shot putter and went to Anapoliss (sp) and she could have kicked my but up and down the halls all day long if she wished to.

I believe in equality. I'm the guy (and I'm proud to say my boys are too) who will risk his own safety to defend the weak. Be it the kindergardener who my son protected from two much older bullies on the bus, to throwing a skinhead type of jerk out of a party when he started spouting off about Jews. I don't put up with fanaticisim and I don't put up with repression. Maybe that's why I'm so angered by some of you. You appear to be trying to repress my opinions by coersion (IE. name calling, neg reps, speaking to eachother about me as though I weren't here.)

As one of my smartest correspondents told me behind the scenes, "What's scary is that for every two like BA and Slow who express those thoughts, there are dozens more men keeping silent who believe the same thing."

Behind the scenes? Birdgirl, I am starting to question weather you should be a moderator. I have seen you on numerous threads attacking B.A. with no apparent cause. I am begining to think you are abusing your position. I'm sorry, I know we tried to bury the hatchet but I have to call it as I see it. Particularly the one where you told him you were angered by something he wrote then errased before posting. That was some serious BS.


To the rest of you....
I am not an idiot. I have been provocative in an attempt to open a discusion on the assumptions of feminisim. Has it been good for America? Could it be the cause of our current moral crisis? Anyone want to discuss this issue? Anyone left with an open mind?

- Slow -

[slowlickitysplit]

Purple bannana wrote;
How can you claim women learn better 'by the book?' I, for one, enjoy learning hands-on, and I don't enjoy sitting for hours on end. I'm not the only one.

Primary school is a whole different ballpark from secondary and post-secondary education. Different people learn different ways; I honestly can't see how you would equate learning styles to gender-specific categories. It's all relative to the individual, not some group consensus.
__________________

You're right. I made a generalization for simplicity sake. That does not change the fact though that there are very distict differences between the sexes and this is particularly true in the primary years. Girls have better fine motor skills and boys have better large motor skills. That is why girls have better penmanship and boys throw a football better at that age (Yes, generaly).

If any of you have looked in on a 6th grade classroom recently you might have been reminded of popcorn popping. Boys just can't sit still. There are simply differences between young girls and boys.

What a lot of you are alluding to is that boys take up a lot of the teachers time, primarily because of disruptive behavior. This is true. But overall girls get better grades in primary school because it is better suited to thier natures. The grade disparity slowly drops off in later years but I feel that is primarily due to societies expectation of girls and boys. It's a shame too. My 4th grade daughter is high honors and she can run circles around her two older brothers on the soccer field but, when she plays on the girl's team all she want's to do is socialize. It's not cool for her to be a good athlete. This is something that frustrates me no end. She has a niece who got a full boat scholarship to college for basketball but that has no influence. I can only pray that her two other nieces who are doctors will be enough influence to help her keep her grades up as she gets older.
Sorry. Went off on a tangent there. LOL

- Slow -

[birdgirl73]

[U]Behind the scenes? Birdgirl, I am starting to question weather you should be a moderator. I have seen you on numerous threads attacking B.A. with no apparent cause. I am begining to think you are abusing your position. I'm sorry, I know we tried to bury the hatchet but I have to call it as I see it. Particularly the one where you told him you were angered by something he wrote then errased before posting.
You need to read that thread again. Very slowly. Then read it again. Eventually you'll see that I simply told him I'd seen what he'd written previously and revised mine in similar fashion. I found that quite funny because, frankly, my revision was much more necessary than his. He's perfectly welcome to tell me what he thinks, as are you, and the rules of the road are a little different in politics. BA made his edit out of courtesy and respect to the debate and these boards, which was the same reason I changed my own. I happen to enjoy debating and talking with BA. We've done this since practically my first week here. I suspect he and I wouldn't keep at it with each other if we didn't get some fun out of it. Of all the people on these boards I'd like to meet and shake hands with, BA ranks up near the top.

I'm glad you question my being a mod!! Just like you've questioned women's ability to qualify physically to fight fires: http://boards.cannabis.com/womens-issues/107234-feminism-male-input-welcomed-5.html#post1323081 Or be anything other than verbal, emotional creatures who have ruined the economy and society by working outside the home. Means I've at least irritated you enough to get you looking at things differently for a brief time. And it shows, yet again, that when the going gets tough, you cry "insult!", question the most recent arguer or whoever's freely voiced an opinion on you by giving you negative reps, and try and redirect the conversation in another direction. You also sign off real quickly and read from the sidelines as a guest. I've been enjoying watching that happen, too.

I do rather think we're starting to go in circles here. Dutch Lover, since you were the brave soul who started this thread, I want you to say the word if you decide at some point you want to close it. I'm having fun, but I think some of the guys are licking their wounds, and I know that doesn't feel good. And that truly doesn't feel good for me, either. Let me know what you think!

[Breukelen advocaat]

Slow,

I remember reading, some 20 or more years ago, that a country in Scandanavia, or possibly the Netherlands, was conducting experimens in starting the education of boys later then girls. The theory was that the boys' were not suited to sit at a desk all day at as young an age as girls were. There are numerous studies that show boys mature later than girls, as well. It's happening in the high schools, also.

Here's an an interesting article.
Survey Finds Young Boys Failing in Schools Across the US
By Jeff Swicord
Washington, DC
13 April 2006

In classrooms across the U.S., there is a new trend that worries educators. In every category and demographic group, boys are falling behind in school.

Anita Doyle is a learning specialist who works with kids who are having academic troubles at the private Episcopal High School outside Washington D.C.

"In this year's freshman class, I met about five girls and about 30 boys but I have continued to meet with the boys and I don't see any of the girls. All of the girls have kind of figured out how to do things and they are on their own. Between myself and another learning specialist we meet with about 20 other boys," she says.

Episcopal is an elite private high school that admits students based on standardized test scores and grades. Students are generally of similar academic ability.

Yet Anita Doyle still sees dramatic differences in performance between the sexes. "A 14-year-old girl is academically more mature than a 14-year-old boy. This makes a huge difference, especially in the high school years. Because, what you are asking of high schoolers is to keep track of five or six subjects, plan ahead for their long term projects, decide what is important to study, to review for tests, to prioritize. And many boys are not ready to do that task."

Recent scientific research suggests that many of these differences may be hard-wired in the brain. Boys mature a year or more later than girls, and are twice as likely to have a learning disability. They tend to fidget and lose focus easily. Brain studies suggest they process language and emotions less efficiently than girls. Boys in the U.S. bring home 70 percent of poor or failing grades and receive the bulk of school suspensions.

Twenty years ago, it was the girls who had fallen behind, and efforts to improve their academic performance included hiring more female teachers, who were sensitive to girls' needs.

That has had an impact on boys, says Alvaro Devicente, the Headmaster of The Heights School, a private all-boys school in the Washington area. "I think that in many cases boys are falling behind because there has been a process over the last 20 years, a process of education becoming more feminine," he said. "And I mean that in sort of a realistic factual sense. Because if you look at the statistics there is a majority of women teachers and a majority of girls in the school that everything gets tailored to the girls and the young women."

Armed with the latest statistics, many parents are abandoning the idea of gender equality in schools, acknowledging the differences between the sexes, and turning to same-sex education. The faculty at The Heights School is all male and caters to what Devicente says are the special learning needs of young boys.

"There have been studies, very interesting studies about how boys hear differently than girls," Devicente notes. "For a boy to really hear the tone, the volume has to be louder. So that if the teacher is speaking at a volume that is comfortable for girls, the boy is going to get distracted because it is like elevator music almost. You start looking around and you are surely going to find a distraction if you are 12-years-old in a classroom."

At the Heights school, boys are given four breaks a day. They are allowed to play tackle football, throw snowballs and vent all of their pent-up energy. Mr. Devicente says that improves their concentration in class.

"I think that one thing that may happen in other schools is that the way that they try to control boys is by thwarting their passion," he says. "Keeping a lid on them and getting them to do the right thing. And that is very dangerous because you can't ask a boy to fake it. You have to redirect his passion, and they are going to be passionate and they should be passionate."

Ms. Doyle, says it is (sic) a character flaw. "You have got to understand that the way boys behave is not a character flaw. It is who they are," she says. "So you have to start with that premise. You have to start at a situation where they can see what they are capable of. "

Most educators agree that a wholesale change of teaching practices in schools runs the risk of doing more harm than good. But many believe accepting that differences do exist between the sexes is a starting point for realizing the full potential of every student.
Survey Finds Young Boys Failing in Schools Across the US (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-04/2006-04-13-voa4.cfm?CFID=110555106&CFTOKEN=91351402)

[Breukelen advocaat]

You need to read that thread again. Very slowly. Then read it again. Eventually you'll see that I simply told him I'd seen what he'd written previously and revised mine in similar fashion. I found that quite funny because, frankly, my revision was much more necessary than his. He's perfectly welcome to tell me what he thinks, as are you, and the rules of the road are a little different in politics. BA made his edit out of courtesy and respect to the debate and these boards, which was the same reason I changed my own. I happen to enjoy debating and talking with BA. We've done this since practically my first week here. I suspect he and I wouldn't keep at it with each other if we didn't get some fun out of it. Of all the people on these boards I'd like to meet and shake hands with, BA ranks up near the top.

I'm flattered, and hope we can some day. I still do not know what the "edit" was that I supposedly performed out of "courtesy". Slow's hunch was right about that one.

I'm glad you question my being a mod!! Just like you've questioned women's ability to qualify physically to fight fires: http://boards.cannabis.com/womens-issues/107234-feminism-male-input-welcomed-5.html#post1323081 Or be anything other than verbal, emotional creatures who have ruined the economy and society by working outside the home. Means I've at least irritated you enough to get you looking at things differently for a brief time. And it shows, yet again, that when the going gets tough, you cry "insult!", question the most recent arguer or whoever's freely voiced an opinion on you by giving you negative reps, and try and redirect the conversation in another direction. You also sign off real quickly and read from the sidelines as a guest. I've been enjoying watching that happen, too.

I do rather think we're starting to go in circles here. Dutch Lover, since you were the brave soul who started this thread, I want you to say the word if you decide at some point you want to close it. I'm having fun, but I think some of the guys are licking their wounds, and I know that doesn't feel good. And that truly doesn't feel good for me, either. Let me know what you think!

I'm not "licking my wounds" - because I do not get any from an internet discussion. If this resulted in anything more than a mild distraction and some brief entertainment, I'd give it up.

[Dave Byrd]

Not buying that. I agree with Mrs. G. Looks an awful lot like the ladies opened up a fairly big can of whoop-ass up above. I felt wounded for Slow just reading some of it. Looked like he felt wounded for you, BA. At least I think that's what he was trying to say.

[slowlickitysplit]

Birdgirl wrote;
You need to read that thread again. Very slowly. Then read it again. Eventually you'll see that I simply told him I'd seen what he'd written previously and revised mine in similar fashion. I found that quite funny because, frankly, my revision was much more necessary than his. He's perfectly welcome to tell me what he thinks, as are you, and the rules of the road are a little different in politics. BA made his edit out of courtesy and respect to the debate and these boards, which was the same reason I changed my own. I happen to enjoy debating and talking with BA. We've done this since practically my first week here. I suspect he and I wouldn't keep at it with each other if we didn't get some fun out of it. Of all the people on these boards I'd like to meet and shake hands with, BA ranks up near the top.

I'm glad you question my being a mod!! Just like you've questioned women's ability to qualify physically to fight fires: Feminism (male input welcomed) Or be anything other than verbal, emotional creatures who have ruined the economy and society by working outside the home. Means I've at least irritated you enough to get you looking at things differently for a brief time. And it shows, yet again, that when the going gets tough, you cry "insult!", question the most recent arguer or whoever's freely voiced an opinion on you by giving you negative reps, and try and redirect the conversation in another direction. You also sign off real quickly and read from the sidelines as a guest. I've been enjoying watching that happen, too.

I do rather think we're starting to go in circles here. Dutch Lover, since you were the brave soul who started this thread, I want you to say the word if you decide at some point you want to close it. I'm having fun, but I think some of the guys are licking their wounds, and I know that doesn't feel good. And that truly doesn't feel good for me, either. Let me know what you think!


Yes, I log on and off to make posts. This is because I use a proxy server that is very slow so I log off and surf then log on to post. thank you for making that public. Great mod!

[Dave Byrd]

She is good, isn't she? She's also good-looking, a good cook, a good mother, a good wife, and hysterically funny. I'm a little biased.

[dutch.lover]

Birdgirl, I still have hope that this thread will eventually turn itself around. It began very civil, and was quite a popular thread before all this arguing began, so I will hold out for awhile before giving you the word to close it. Thanks for asking me though, because I had been considering it. I will let you know when I decide.

[Polymirize]

A true story. I hope that this shows up on YOUTUBE someday.

Shortly after the original Godfather movie came out, James Caan, who played Sonny Corleone (the oldest son of Vito), was on a daytime talk show being interviewed. It was probably the Mike Douglas Show . This was around the time of the beginning of modern "Women's Lib". One of the other guests was the female world champion arm wrestler. Somebody on the panel suggested that Jimmy Caan, even with his recent success as the ultra-macho Sonny, could not beat the female champ in a match, and the audience was yelling for him to try. He balked, and said that he couldnâ??t do it, he wasnâ??t in shape, too old, etc. After much badgering, enduring taunts and catcalls, etc., the good natured actor acquiesced and sat down with her for a match. He won. :thumbsup:

Your point? Oh wait, I get it. We win!!! whoooooo! Take that women!


And slow, yeah, I'm a guy. Polymirize, or more correctly and without artistic license: polymerization. The production of polymers. That is, multiple molecules uniting to form something stronger than the mere sum of its parts.

But you know what they say about weak links in the chain, right slow?

[Breukelen advocaat]

Your point? Oh wait, I get it. We win!!! whoooooo! Take that women!
No, not at all. My "point' was that it's not always a good idea to open a Pandora's box.

At that time, in the early 1970's, many "feminists" were acting the way that they imagined men "used" to act. This is still happening, and is even apparent in some places, by some people, here.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Birdgirl, I still have hope that this thread will eventually turn itself around. It began very civil, and was quite a popular thread before all this arguing began,
Hey, don't look at me!
so I will hold out for awhile before giving you the word to close it.
Thanks for asking me though, because I had been considering it. I will let you know when I decide.
We await this momentous decision with baited breath.

:thumbsup:

[Polymirize]

Ethics are the key. Congratulations, few people have much in the way of those anymore.

What kind of ethics? You seem to be arguing from a justice based view. Which is basically like saying, you stay out of my way, and I'll stay out of yours. It completely ignores the factors at work in society. Also, its subject to feminist critique.
Some good feminists recognise that we can't all live according to justice ethics. If a mother was to take this approach with her child, one of "you stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours", the child dies of starvation. So it opens the doors to feminist moral theory. Which is basically a form of care ethics.
It's not feminist derived per say. I'd say that the buddhist ideal of compassion is the same thing. ideally that is.
I've heard it said that Compassion is the highest manifestation of Justice. May have been Krishnamurti, or Gibran... not really important though.

So, in this light... why are you so threatened to allow women to push for equal standing?
Or, rather, why are you threatened to allow for anyone to strive for equal standing?

[Polymirize]

No, not at all. My "point' was that it's not always a good idea to open a Pandora's box.

At that time, in the early 1970's, many "feminists" were acting the way that they imagined men "used" to act. This is still happening, and is even apparent in some places, by some people, here.

ok. I'm not going to argue that women don't occasionally make complete asses out of themselves. But on the whole, I think that's a rather human flaw, and not gender biased.

In the end, my thoughts on the necessity of equality have nothing to do with how women think they should act, but everything to do with how I think a man actually should.

[Breukelen advocaat]

What kind of ethics? You seem to be arguing from a justice based view. Which is basically like saying, you stay out of my way, and I'll stay out of yours. It completely ignores the factors at work in society. Also, its subject to feminist critique.
Nothing so complicated. Just small talk, and behavior on message correspondences.

Some good feminists recognise that we can't all live according to justice ethics. If a mother was to take this approach with her child, one of "you stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours", the child dies of starvation. So it opens the doors to feminist moral theory. Which is basically a form of care ethics.
It's not feminist derived per say. I'd say that the buddhist ideal of compassion is the same thing. ideally that is.
I've heard it said that Compassion is the highest manifestation of Justice. May have been Krishnamurti, or Gibran... not really important though.

So, in this light... why are you so threatened to allow women to push for equal standing?
I am more than happy with "equal standing" - it's the extremes that I worry about.
Or, rather, why are you threatened to allow for anyone to strive for equal standing?
I never said that they shouldn't be equal, but they have a large amount of money (in our economy), jobs, property, the right to vote, a longer life span than men, usually get child custody and child-care in the case of divorce, don't have to serve in the military, and many other benefits and rights.

As far as "compassion", I'm one of the most compassionate people around - but I believe in self-reliance as well. Compassion should go to those that deserve it - not people that are wasting your time.

[Demeter]

Wow. Mrs. GJ where's the love? Did i fertilize your garden? Why you jump on me? And Demeter; Negative reps? Why? because we disagree? Now I understand the pink Floyd song "We don't need no education" Better. Sure glad you're not coercing. uh, teaching my sons. Nice reasoning skills ladies!

Why do you want the right to vote? Just cause we have it? Voter appathy is at an all time high. You got the right but don't use it. We men no longer feel sole responsability for the course of our nation so why bother? Yes, that was tounge in cheek.

Wish I was enlightened enough to end this with a signature tha delt with your anatomy too. Unfortunately, my MOTHER taught me better.

- Slow -


No, slow, your premise is off. I do not give bad rep to someone who disagrees with me any more than I give a bad grade to a student who disagrees with me. I tell my students that if they can make a cogent, well-informed argument in favor of any philosophical stance, then they will receive a good grade. However, if they present an opinion based on sloppy reasoning and scant evidence, they will have earned the D or F that I give them, as did you.

Likewise, if someone on this site makes a post that is insightful and intelligent, I give reps. Isn't that the point of the rep system?

[dutch.lover]

^sure is!

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

In the end, my thoughts on the necessity of equality have nothing to do with how women think they should act, but everything to do with how I think a man actually should.

I am posting out of sequence here, because I just had to say this is quoteworthy as all get out.

[Mrs. Greenjeans]

We await this momentous decision with baited breath.

:thumbsup:

Who's we? You got a mouse in your capri pockets?

[dutch.lover]

i think he was mocking me...but whatever...

[slowlickitysplit]

Demeter, in another forum you wrote "I wrote some disgustingly violent poems about ripping men's heads like lettuce..."
'nough said!

For the rest of you. Please, if any of you could explain to me what I did to deserve your wrath I will do my best to maintain an open mind. Seriously.....educate me. Mold my mind. Inform me.

- Slow -

[dutch.lover]

^^As if you have never thought about murdering a woman! We have all had violent thoughts about the opposite sex at one time or another...so that's a very unfair thing to bring up, Slow.

And I told you why you upset us. You blame women for: child problems (we arent there to look after them so they end up messed up), the "decline" of America, our lavish lifestyles... You insinuated America would be a better place if we just stayed at home, and finally you have brought up gender stereotypes and played them off as fact. Like I said earlier, I'm sure you didn't realize the extent of our 'discontent'... but there it is. Don't try to deny it either, if you were in our shoes you would understand the insult you have inflicted upon us.

[slowlickitysplit]

Dutchlover,
This was my original post ...
I would love to have this discussion in person becasue i speak much better then I type but...

I graduated HS in 1978 so I know of radical feminisim. I lost a quarter to my radical cousin on the Billy Jean/Bobby Rigs tennis match. Billionfold opened an interesting point but didn't follow through....

Pre-Feminisim a man could support his family on one income but, along came feminisim and the liberal wife next door got a part time job and they could suddenly afford a nicer vacation/car/education for the kids ect.. Well, if she can I can...suddenly all the women are working and you're living in an upscale neighborhood and two incomes is the norm....then, suddenly....it is a necessity.

I hate to be the devils advocate (Ok - not really true) but I think America started it's great decline the day they gave women the vote. I am not a neaderthal, this is simply my informed opinion.

PS.
I heard a story about a woman yelling at a guy for holding the door for her:
"You don't have to hold the door for me because I'm a woman!" she said.

"I'm not. I'm holding the door for you because I'm a gentelman." He repied.

Things that make you go Hmmm.

- Slow -
I don't blame women for anything. I am simply suggesting that feminisim and womens lib brought about unforsene consequences. Perhaps it is a MISinformed opinion to your way of thinking. None of which explains the rancor. I did suggest America MIGHT be a better place if the feminist reveloution had never happened. I was hoping to open a discussion. This is not something I believe! It is something I was hoping to explore with some open minded women.

I tried to listen to you with an open mind Dutchlover but I think you have made some wrong assumptions and read more into my posts then were there.

- Slow -

[slowlickitysplit]

I tried to edit my last post but I took too long. After more consideration this is what i tried to post. Ignore the first one please..



Dutchlover,
This was my original post ...
I would love to have this discussion in person becasue i speak much better then I type but...

I graduated HS in 1978 so I know of radical feminisim. I lost a quarter to my radical cousin on the Billy Jean/Bobby Rigs tennis match. Billionfold opened an interesting point but didn't follow through....

Pre-Feminisim a man could support his family on one income but, along came feminisim and the liberal wife next door got a part time job and they could suddenly afford a nicer vacation/car/education for the kids ect.. Well, if she can I can...suddenly all the women are working and you're living in an upscale neighborhood and two incomes is the norm....then, suddenly....it is a necessity.

I hate to be the devils advocate (Ok - not really true) but I think America started it's great decline the day they gave women the vote. I am not a neaderthal, this is simply my informed opinion.

PS.
I heard a story about a woman yelling at a guy for holding the door for her:
"You don't have to hold the door for me because I'm a woman!" she said.

"I'm not. I'm holding the door for you because I'm a gentelman." He repied.

Things that make you go Hmmm.

- Slow -
I don't blame women for anything. I am simply suggesting that feminisim and womens lib brought about unforsene consequences. Perhaps it is a MISinformed opinion to your way of thinking. None of which explains the rancor. I did suggest America MIGHT be a better place if the feminist reveloution had never happened. I was hoping to open a discussion. I have always felt that the moral decline in our country is directly tied to the changes in the family dynamic brought about by feminisim. I was honestly hoping some of you well educated women would be able to throw out some facts to convince me I am wrong. I am bothered by my own conclusions. It seems too simple and obvious but I can come to no other conclusion on my own.

I tried to listen to you with an open mind Dutchlover but I think you have made some wrong assumptions and read more into my posts then were there.

- Slow -


I just re-read what you said Dutchlover and my response. I will keep it here for you to see but I think I am begining to see where your comming from and how I angered some members here. I suppose i could have presented my beliefes in a more gentle way but I have to say, none of you have done a thing to change my mind. I do still blame a lot of societies woes on feminisim. I still see a connection between the womans rights movement and the moral decline of America. I also think you (feminists) traded in your bondage to family for financial bondage.

Just my opinion.

- Slow -

[dutch.lover]

^I have thought a lot about what you said about dual incomes causing higher prices, and I would have to agree with you. Whenever there is an entity willing to pay more for something, prices go up. My little restaurant just got overtook by Pottery Barn so I know about this personally.

How do you figure it caused(or is connected to) a moral decline? I ask this with an open mind. If you are talking about the family, this is how I see it: if both parents are working then YES children will not get raised as well as if one or both parents stayed at home. If your argument is that women working caused children's decline in some way or another, you need to consider the implications of that. Why should women be the primary caregivers? Aren't men equally capable? If this is your argument/belief, please respond to my questions...if not, please let me know how you think feminism is 'connected' to the moral decline of America.

[slowlickitysplit]

I am a single custodial father to 4 kids.
You hit the nail on the head. If BOTH parents are working. How about if there is only one parent? Why are there so many more single parent families? Society today makes it so much easier for a man to say "You can work....go get a job and raise the kids. Bye." I know that sounds absurd but I think there is a truth there. It's no more "Shut up and get my dinner!"...............sounds like the same sad morality but it's worse because now the children of these broken homes don't even have a bad role model of the missing parent. What becomes of them? If your answer is that the custodial parent is more moral and will raise up a more moral child I think the statistics will prove that false. I think the sense of "responsability" goes missing. A child back then may have witnessed his father being a total jerk but the dad still fufilled his responsabilities.

- Slow -

[dutch.lover]

so you ARE saying that the moral decline is because of single parent families? i just want to be clear on your postion- and that sounds reasonable. I also understand what you mean when you are talking about men leaving families easier because they know the women are capable without them (you're not assuming that it's only men who leave women though, are you?). But I don't quite see what you are getting at with the rest of your post there...

[slowlickitysplit]

Yes Dutchlover, that is exatly what I'm saying. The rest of it was that there is a snowball effect in that the children from single parent homes are growing up with one less moral value (responsability). Of course, in theory, this can be overcome by a good parent but in reality it rarely is.

- Slow -

[birdgirl73]

Thank you, Slow, for articulating your position and also making it legible by not underlining it! I was having a hard time reading between all the added-in lines. (My eyes are tired, tired from studying.)

[thecreator]

I guess I'm a feminism but I hate labels like that. I wish we just treated each other like human beings and could be done with all the organizations and labels that have been conjured up in order to fight intolerance. I like the thread :thumbsup:

[birdgirl73]

The sad truth, however, is that fewer and fewer families, especially those without enough education to get really good jobs, can truly do that (arrange things so that one parent can stay home), and I suspect more of the societal degradation you alluded to is a result of high divorce rates and single-parent situations than working moms..
So you've finally come around . . . you've finally decided that what I said three pages ago back in post #64 is true, then?

Hallelujah. Glad I was able to make a point that you finally circled back around and decided was true.

[Polymirize]

I am posting out of sequence here, because I just had to say this is quoteworthy as all get out.

Thanks!


And slow, recouched as such... you might have something. But I don't know why the rise of single parent families or rising divorce rates would be laid at the feet of feminists. I might understand the thought behind doing so, but I'd immediately question its validity.

I'd also like to know just what the hell this "moral decline" is, that everyone keeps talking about. It sounds like senile individuals reminiscing about "back in the day". It seems that human nature has remained relatively unchanged throughout the past several thousand years of recorded history. Humans lie, cheat, steal, beat their spouses, etc.
Does the fact that these issues are discussed publically, and revealed (in part through feminist critique, civil rights, and ethnic inequality issues) mean that we're in a moral decline?

Or just the opposite?

[dutch.lover]

^Slow has never actually elaborated on what he means by a moral decline. He has said that no parents to raise children are connected to it, but he has never defined what "it" is.

Very good point about bringing things into the open Poly!! (This is the second time i have wanted to give you rep but i cant :()

[Purple Banana]

This is what I'm wondering, and I know it's a bit off-topic, but why is it that people need to announce they recieved bad rep from someone, and feels a need to bitch about it on the board for everyone to see? It's just rep, people.

Just wondering.

[Breukelen advocaat]

This is what I'm wondering, and I know it's a bit off-topic, but why is it that people need to announce they recieved bad rep from someone, and feels a need to bitch about it on the board for everyone to see? It's just rep, people.

Just wondering.

I posted something about it yesterday. It's a status thing, I guess.

If you let things here get to you, or take it too seriously, it's time to go - for a while, at least. It's only light entertainment, and a way to kill some time.
All this "rep" stuff is just supposed to be for fun. I can't believe people actually care about it or even bother to do it.
http://boards.cannabis.com/cannabis-com-lounge/108575-lip-come-back-you-damn-boat-doctor.html#post1329531

[Polymirize]

This is what I'm wondering, and I know it's a bit off-topic, but why is it that people need to announce they recieved bad rep from someone, and feels a need to bitch about it on the board for everyone to see? It's just rep, people.

Just wondering.

I saw the first one as an incredible invitation to kick him when he was down...

But yeah, it's completely ridiculous.

[Demeter]

Demeter, in another forum you wrote "I wrote some disgustingly violent poems about ripping men's heads like lettuce..."
'nough said!

For the rest of you. Please, if any of you could explain to me what I did to deserve your wrath I will do my best to maintain an open mind. Seriously.....educate me. Mold my mind. Inform me.

- Slow -


That's right pumpkin, I wrote that when I was 19, yes, I was a very mean girl. Funny how rape and incest can spawn such feelings in a young girl.

But I am much older and wiser now. The years have taught me many things that clearly you have yet to learn.
In this thread we have already explained what is wrong with your arguments. I personally don't have more time for such an overgrown student;) I have enough trouble keeping up with the 90+college kids I teach every semester.
You want to be educated- then read! Education is a lot deeper than a freaking Pink Floyd song suggests, yea, duh!
Read books about women's issues. Read books about the marginalization of other groups. Read about history and mythology and philosophy. Read poetry. Study science. Mold yourself big guy!
Then we might be able to converse.
until then - buh bye

[Purple Banana]

You want to be educated- then read! Education is a lot deeper than a freaking Pink Floyd song suggests, yea, duh!

I'm sorry, but my Floydian urges are kicking in... :stoned:

The song isn't about anti-education, Waters and Gilmour specifically state that in many interviews about the song, it's about the mistreatment of the school-aged youth in the '40s and '50s. it's very pro-education in a backwards way.

[Demeter]

I'm sorry, but my Floydian urges are kicking in... :stoned:

The song isn't about anti-education, Waters and Gilmour specifically state that in many interviews about the song, it's about the mistreatment of the school-aged youth in the '40s and '50s. it's very pro-education in a backwards way.

Oh please don't get me wrong pb, I LOVE Pink Floyd, and of course, you are certainly correct about the intent of the song when it was written- I was simply referring to the way that slow was using it- as an indictment against little old me. He was using the wrong song to put down my pedagogy:wtf:
Many students also love to be silly and sing the song right before midterms- and they mean it the way slow did, not knowing what you do about it, and that is what I was objecting to.
This makes me want to smoke a bowl and listen to Dark Side of the Moon! That particular album was very big when I first started smoking, way back in the day. The first time I ever listened to that album some friends of mine got me very high and put me in the back seat of a friend's car with awesome speakers, and just left me there to trip. It was amazing:stoned:

[slowlickitysplit]

OK...I'm a noob and I have learned my leason about reps. I simply went to my account and found these negative remarks and I was like WTF? Leason learned.


Thanks!


And slow, recouched as such... you might have something. But I don't know why the rise of single parent families or rising divorce rates would be laid at the feet of feminists. I might understand the thought behind doing so, but I'd immediately question its validity.

I'd also like to know just what the hell this "moral decline" is, that everyone keeps talking about. It sounds like senile individuals reminiscing about "back in the day". It seems that human nature has remained relatively unchanged throughout the past several thousand years of recorded history. Humans lie, cheat, steal, beat their spouses, etc.
Does the fact that these issues are discussed publically, and revealed (in part through feminist critique, civil rights, and ethnic inequality issues) mean that we're in a moral decline?

Or just the opposite?

Plyy,
First off, let me say you have one hell of a sharp mind!
OK...Why do you question that the rise in divorce rates is tied to feminisim? To me it seems obvious, as I explained. Can you suggest other reasons for it?

What is moral decline? Hmmm. You have a good point. What is morality? I agree with you on human nature but morality is relative to the society one lives in (It's considered immoral to practice canibalisim here and now but was perfectly acceptable to many peoples of the past.) I'll have to think on it a bit.

I would like to go back to the issue of feminism's effect on the economy. Please remember, I am not an expert but here is how I see it....
Back in the heyday of feminisim almost every radical speach spoke of being "Chained to the stove" or "Enslaved to our fathers and husbands" and all kinds of Emancipation talk. They related womens plight to that of slaves. Now without a doubt the emancipation of slaves had a profound effect on the economy, both immediate and long term. How could it be that the emancipation of women (though drawn out longer) could not have an effect?

- Slow -

[slowlickitysplit]

That's right pumpkin, I wrote that when I was 19, yes, I was a very mean girl. Funny how rape and incest can spawn such feelings in a young girl.

But I am much older and wiser now. The years have taught me many things that clearly you have yet to learn.
In this thread we have already explained what is wrong with your arguments. I personally don't have more time for such an overgrown student;) I have enough trouble keeping up with the 90+college kids I teach every semester.
You want to be educated- then read! Education is a lot deeper than a freaking Pink Floyd song suggests, yea, duh!
Read books about women's issues. Read books about the marginalization of other groups. Read about history and mythology and philosophy. Read poetry. Study science. Mold yourself big guy!
Then we might be able to converse.
until then - buh bye



Demeter,
I'm sorry. It was a cheap shot. I was hurt by what you wrote and I was trying to be mean. It was wrong of me and i sincerely appologize.

- Slow -

[slowlickitysplit]

So you've finally come around . . . you've finally decided that what I said three pages ago back in post #64 is true, then?

Hallelujah. Glad I was able to make a point that you finally circled back around and decided was true.


Is this to me Birdgirl? If so I'm a little lost. I think the issue is why is a dual income necissary not that it is or that it is hard for a single parent to support a family.

- Slow -

[lonewolf88]

i'm a firm believer in complete chaos. i believe we shouldn't fight for equality but superiority. cuz im jus fuckin insane and i love it:D

[sailboat]

i'm a feminist.
im not ashamed of it.... not even with the misconceptions.
and i dont know why any one would be ashamed to call themselves thus if they are believers in equality.

men often say the with feminism, chivalry died. this isnt that case.... feminism goes far deeper than the political correctness of opening a door for someone....

people often say with feminisim came the decline of 'family'
if 'family' is dependent on woman with no voice, few rights and a prefit mold that ALL females are expected to fit in (unless of course they are spinsters, or even worse gay which does a whole new number on 'family'...) then I question the real value of 'family' anyways.

feminism *may* have impacted divorce rates, but who should be blamed, the women who have finally found a voice or the men who see women as chattel?
(of course im not saying all men are that way... its just a point to think about)

it's so easy to blame the 'feminis't the revolutionary, the person who think everyone deserves an equal say.... and few people question the society that created the NEED for the radical.

if there was equality, pure equality, not the 'well you can vote so stop bitching' ideaology of so many then there would no need for feminists. but there really truly isnt...

women do not recieve equal treatment, equal pay or equal respect.
they start jobs in lower positions, are promoted at lower frequency and recieve less pay, statisticly. they are face with double standards, and when they complain are told they are either 'not true women' (well how dare we ask for more... we must all be bull dykes!) or that we, because of our gender cannot handle more, or do not deserve more.

i am NOT speaking for everything or everyone....
just my general insight after semesters upon semesters of gender studies and sociology courses, and of course... opinon (but i am proud of my oppinion and always open for other educated veiws...)

[LIP]

I'm a bloke. Women are good.

[Staurm]

I am a taurus, and a proud hairy man. I was born that way.

As such I have a rather more stubborn edge to my character. But I am not bullish, and I am not scared to display a more gentle side of my character.

I consider myself to have feminist views, but I am not gay. I feel comfortable telling most people, but few people understand where I am coming from, so tend to I draw the line at telling my construction work mates the few times I have worked on building sites. Most people suspect I am gay or bisexual as a result of my identifying with feminism, but I'm pretty sure I am at least not one. I think its more likely I am latently asexual. Anyway, I think it is an important human experience to be able to identify yourself with both feminine and masculine qualities, its part of being human, it's part of being conscious.

So my own personal opinion of feminism transcends the identification with male and female charactersitics, and I think I understand why. It is more of a humanistic point of view- compassion, co-operation. I feel blessed with these qualities, and it saddens me when I see so much brutality and mindlessness in the world. I feel like I want to offer some sort of apology to "women" for having to put up with men's shit for so long, I feel the need to protect them from these bastards who are not representative of me in any way, and I feel pain and anguish when they reject me for that. I guess these are probably self-centred male instincts though, and ones that may well be partly responsible for the emergence of patriarchy in the last place.

Or, I hope instead, the resurgence of a more spiritual society in the new age. Not neccesarily with more emphasis on feminine values, but one that accommodates those within everyone, and also one that does not deny the true character of the male psyche as well. I think the world as it is now denies both.

Feminism is not just about being female, its about being human.

[friendowl]

i believe that in order for a woman to truly
be independant they must first suffer from
things like abandonment ,neglection and more than not
'they grew up without a father.

i know quite a few women and the ones who are true feminists
have major major issues. a lot of the time these women are very educated
and professional and in societys eyes they are fine
but
behind closed doors its a game of hide and seek
empty bottles of anti-depressants and lots of psycho therapy

[katyowns]

I am a feminist.


If you believe men and women should be treated equally, that women should be respected, and women should have the right to choose what they do with their lives....

YOU ARE A FEMINIST

[SaanenGoats]

Wow, this post is still going... I posted on it a long time ago and just happened on it and read something like five pages at two in the morning. I'm not going to say much, just on the last page or two I've been impressed with a couple posts so I'd like to give a shout-out to a few posters.

To friendowl - I agree that to be a true feminist you have to see the shit, so to speak, I remember, with shame, a far younger me trying to impress a very forgiving TA that women have equality. *sigh. I've since come facetoface with that which I didn't believe.

To Staurm - I work in a sawmill and as usually the only woman in the lunchroom, if not the whole shift. I have to thank men like you that make my 8.5 hours a day a respectful, enriching, and openminded experience. (Save the patronizing idiot that calls himself the gentleman, of course.) Feminism is totally about being human!

To thecreator - second time today I totally agree with you on the same issue and similary to Staurm's comment, if we treated people as humans every day the world would be a far better place.

To Polymirize - as Slow said, you are a sharp mind and I admire the wisdom you displayed in your posts.

Cheers!

[Hardcore Newbie]

I am a feminist.


If you believe men and women should be treated equally, that women should be respected, and women should have the right to choose what they do with their lives....

YOU ARE A FEMINISTNo I'm not, I'm an equalitist.

[GraziLovesMary]

I only read the first page, but I just wanted to say that acceptance is much easier in the long run, and much more effective than tolerance.

[natureisawesome]

I'll try to keep my opinion concise.


Do any of you identify yourselves as being a feminist? If so, do you feel comfortable telling other people this?

No, I'm not a feminist, and I'm not a masculinist either. I honestly find either label out of balance. I don't understand why there needs to be a label at all. I eat food, do I need to be a foodist? I find a label for such things as treating women nicely is unnecessary.


What stereotypes do you feel feminists have? Do you feel these are negative or positive?

I think stereotypes can often be out of balance, but I find more and more that stereotypes
have a basis for them, and they are often based upon typical examples, or a combined societal perspective. I don't think most feminists are butch are lesbian etc, but I think probably every butch or lesbian is a feminist. I'm not quite sure what you mean by negative or positive so I won't answer that.


What does feminism mean to you?

I would say that feminism is a movement for women to give them equal rights, equal authority (and sometimes more) as men. It is also a philosophy that exalts all things feminine.

My belief plain and simple, is that men and women are equal in value, but not in roles, not in gifts, not in strengths by any measure. I believe that women have not been as abused as they think they have in the past. It seems to be very easy to stir up animosity over the mistreatment of women because they are weaker and less able to defend/protect themselves, and I think this has been used to innacurately distort history and public perception. I think that on one hand, I believe in the equality of scripture which says to treat another as you would want to be treated. But on the other hand this again has been manipulated and is very deceptive. We have been taught from an early age that we are all created equal. And on one hand that's true, being we're all human and we all have the same value. But on the other hand no, we not equal at all.

I think that feminism no matter how hard it tries will always come in conflict with Christian and family values because it works against the very natural design of male, female, marriage, and family. The new idealogies emerging place women as equal in authority, breadwinner, parent, and everything else. This is not balanced and never will be.

My honest belief is that feminism is born out of selfish desires and rebellion. It's amazing how much has changed so quickly, and it makes me stop and examine the past and look to where the future is headed.

I will also say that feminists have no moral foundation for their claims and rights, and more and more I understand that so many of these newly emerged civil rights groups have none either and only scream louder and louder until they get what they want and firebrand anyone as a sexist or rascist who gets in thier way.


What issues do you think are most important for feminists?

self-defense. feminine self exaltation. more women in polotics. money,money,money and lots more money.

[Quantummist]

I'm a feminist... 98% of all men are ass holes... their butt scratchin , fartin, nose picking, smelly, sweaty, foul mouthed, bone heads..... Its why I like Gurls.....

[Quantummist]

And yes.. I'm a man and I wouldn't go out with me either....

[sexy smoke]

OK. I'm aware that some of you would like to drop this but I feel I need to respond but I will keep it short.
Purplebanana - Why is two incomes now necissary but one generation ago it wasn't?
Birdgirl - When my wife fell into a major post partum depression that included hitting my kids, I became a stay at home dad for my three young kids. I am proud of the job I did and it was a difficult but very rewarding time for me. I also worked full time nights to provide for them. It was something that needed to be done and I did it. Where did I learn these values? My parents. Mom was a stay at home mom untill the youngest went off to elementry school. I believe that the family unity and it's decline is at the root of most of societies problems now. i feel the crises in families today is due to economic issues that is a direct result of women entering the work force. I believe they entered the work force as a direct result of feminisim which began with the fight for voting rights.
I appologize to anyone I have offended and I am quite cognisant of the fact that the barn door will never be closed again. Thank you all for listening with open minds.
Peace.

- Slow -

That is completely true. The statistics ARE there. A family with a working father and a stay at home mother is much more likely to produce a successful and hard working child.

The problem is, although I may not agree with your opinion to such a radical degree, it is impossible to convince most people, women mainly of course, that this is the case as it is now "fashionable" to take offence when this topic is even lightly glossed over.

What a lot of women don't seem to understand is that it is in the males nature, GENETIC LINEUP, to look after and to provide for his family. It is accepted to say to a man "why are you not providing for your family" but not acceptable to say to a women "why are you not careing for your family".

[Innominate]

Women have great power. They are probably more intelligent than man. I hope one day that women will understand the advantage they have; overlook the apparent pressure of conforming to idealism is a daunting task they must surpass. Man forced women to believe we have control. That is a huge mistake that lives to this day.

More women need to understand that there are other parts of the world where women are in fact dominant. But I think we are beginning to learn the evils of dominance.

[Canadian_Cron]

Do any of you identify yourselves as being a feminist? If so, do you feel comfortable telling other people this?

- well, i think the problem with this is most ppl dont realy know how to classify feminism since theres what i like to call "normal" feminism and "extreme" feminism. im all for normal feminism, but im not comfortable saying i am a feminist because when you say that most ppl picture huge, manly, man hater women, with hairy armpits fighting in the streets.

What stereotypes do you feel feminists have? Do you feel these are negative or positive?

- "huge manly, man, hater women, with hairy armpits fighting in the streets..." i guess that would be the big one huh...?

What does feminism mean to you?

what normal feninism means to me is that women and men are completely equal and should be treated as such.

What issues do you think are most important for feminists?

- equality.



i just have a question... dont you all think that the "extreme" feminist should be allowed to call themselves "femenists" because personally ive watched some of what you would call "extreme" femenist videos... and as a man it really pissed me off. they used such bogus statistics like "the majority of women in the world die in violence," like yea thats really horrible, but im pretty sure it would be the exact same for men, like just think of all the wars going on and such... the vast majority of soilders in the world are men and im fairly sure men get murdered just as much as women (most likely for different reasons tho). and they kept saying things like today in age its "the war on women", and one woman also said things like "i cant walk down the street without being scared of what a man could do to me..." etc.

also i know things are way way worse for women in 3rd world countries but this was a video focusing on europe and north america and they were using world statistic and trying to give the impression like its the same here too. it really turnt me off on the whole subject...

anyways my point is... dont you think that this kind of "extreme" feminism would deter any man from wanting to call himself a femenist or even listen to what they have to say?

i think theyre just acheiveing the opposite of what they want to accomplish and theyre prevent the "normal" women from doing it as well. because lets face it for femenism to succeed you need the support of both males and females. i dont want anyone to hide the truth but dont blow things out of porportion and make them seem even more unfair than they are.

i also think its a big reason why many women dont want to classify themselves as femenist. do you agree?

like im all for femenism because i have a freind whos a girl and shes told me that she thinks guys are smarter than girls and that girls should only do "girl" jobs. pissed me off so much! but at the same time i felt kind of bad for her because she obviously doesnt think a whole lot of herself... which i knew from before, but im not going to get into all that...