# Male Privilege.



## DanaS

It was suggested this topic be made from the virgin/***** thread so I thought I'd make it. 

For the women here, what are your thoughts on it? While I can't keep men from posting their thoughts I am only interested in hearing from women since they aren't biased and men will just defend it saying the same thing they always say in other forums where it's brought up "Oh, but women really rule, men have to do what they say" or "Male privilege doesn't exist, we are equal and deal with the same stuff" etc. etc. ad nauseam.


----------



## Cletus

LOL. When you're on a roll, might as well keep rolling.


----------



## MarriedDude

DanaS said:


> It was suggested this topic be made from the virgin/***** thread so I thought I'd make it.
> 
> For the women here, what are your thoughts on it? While I can't keep men from posting their thoughts I am only interested in hearing from women since they aren't biased and men will just defend it saying the same thing they always say in other forums where it's brought up "Oh, but women really rule, men have to do what they say" or "Male privilege doesn't exist, we are equal and deal with the same stuff" etc. etc. ad nauseam.



I wouldn't say it doesn't exist.....Merely that we live in an imperfect world and there isn't a damn thing in it that's fair.

Once a problem is identified -the issue becomes one of actionable ideas for change. I can't recall ever hearing one on this topic. 

That would be refreshing to hear though.


----------



## DanaS

MarriedDude said:


> I wouldn't say it doesn't exist.....Merely that we live in an imperfect world and there isn't a damn thing in it that's fair.
> 
> Once a problem is identified -the issue becomes one of actionable ideas for change. I can't recall ever hearing one on this topic.
> 
> That would be refreshing to hear though.


Well, there is one way but men sure won't like it: Hold other men accountable! What that means is, if you're around a bunch of guys and they start going off about how they'd like to "screw" or "****" other women, or talking about them as if they're meat, tell them to KNOCK IT OFF! Petition to have rape be one of, if not the top priority of law enforcement and make the sentences harsh such as 20 years minimum. 

When a sexist pig headed judge gives a rapist only a few months in jail, make an outcry about that. There are many things men can do, but won't.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> I wouldn't say it doesn't exist.....Merely that we live in an imperfect world and there isn't a damn thing in it that's fair.
> 
> Once a problem is identified -the issue becomes one of actionable ideas for change. I can't recall ever hearing one on this topic.
> 
> That would be refreshing to hear though.


What do you mean you haven't heard any actionable ideas? Read some feminists. 

It's a pretty big topic. And so you have to break it down and start to change things that way. And dana is only talking about male privilege. There are other kinds of privilege as well.


----------



## larry.gray

DanaS said:


> Petition to have rape be one of, if not the top priority of law enforcement and make the sentences harsh such as 20 years minimum.


My state passed sentencing reform in 1994. Prior to that, rapists would serve around a year. As part of the mandatory sentences, it's 8-1/3 for the first, 25 for the second and life without parole for the third rape. Not many make it to the third.




DanaS said:


> When a sexist pig headed judge gives a rapist only a few months in jail, make an outcry about that.


Isn't that what we did?




DanaS said:


> There are many things men can do, but won't.


Two years later the bleeding hearts gathered enough signatures to put it to a vote again. This time it was upheld by 94% of the population.

I'm not so good at math, but I'm guessing a few men must have had to voted yes to get it to 94% yes, because I don't think we have that many women.


----------



## Pooh Bear

larry.gray said:


> My state passed sentencing reform in 1994. Prior to that, rapists would serve around a year. As part of the mandatory sentences, it's 8-1/3 for the first, 25 for the second and life without parole for the third rape. Not many make it to the third.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what we did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two years later the bleeding hearts gathered enough signatures to put it to a vote again. This time it was upheld by 94% of the population.
> 
> I'm not so good at math, but I'm guessing a few men must have had to voted yes to get it to 94% yes, because I don't think we have that many women.


Yes. Changes such as this. What would be even better is to teach children about boundries and appropriate touch and both girls and boys that is ok to be sexual beings and no means no. People are starting to do that too.


----------



## Cletus

larry.gray said:


> I'm not so good at math, but I'm guessing a few men must have had to voted yes to get it to 94% yes, because I don't think we have that many women.


<Cough> Yes we do. They wear flannel and have bushy beards. You can be excused for having miscounted.


----------



## ocotillo

DanaS said:


> I am only interested in hearing from women since they aren't biased....


If you truly mean that, why don't you obtain a copy of the book, _Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man_ by Nora Vincent. 

Briefly, Ms. Vincent is/was a feminist on the LGBT spectrum who set out to prove the idea of male privilege by living an entire year as a man.

The book is an eye opener, especially for those who buy into and repeat what are becoming some very tiresome canards on this subject.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> If you truly mean that, why don't you obtain a copy of the book, _Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man_ by Nora Vincent.
> 
> Briefly, Ms. Vincent is/was a feminist on the LGBT spectrum who set out to prove the idea of male privilege by living an entire year as a man.
> 
> The book is an eye opener, especially for those who buy into and repeat what are becoming some very tiresome canards on this subject.


Sounds interesting.


----------



## Pooh Bear

What do you think about male privilage, Dana? It's a huge topic.


----------



## MarriedDude

DanaS said:


> Well, there is one way but men sure won't like it: Hold other men accountable! What that means is, if you're around a bunch of guys and they start going off about how they'd like to "screw" or "****" other women, or talking about them as if they're meat, tell them to KNOCK IT OFF! Petition to have rape be one of, if not the top priority of law enforcement and make the sentences harsh such as 20 years minimum.
> 
> When a sexist pig headed judge gives a rapist only a few months in jail, make an outcry about that. There are many things men can do, but won't.


1. This shouldn't shock you to know that most male conversations do not revolve around women. Past maybe age 24 or so...that's typically done...Not saying it doesn't happen...just fairly rare. IME- and I work in Heavy Construction. 

2. Incarceration is not a deterrent to crime. Don't get me wrong...I like prisons, lots of money is made building and maintaining them. But have you noticed there are never enough of them? Even with stiff sentences, mandatory minimums, 3 strikes, etc. 

Judges apply the law as written. If the law allows for light punishment...that's what they will do. Like I said...not fair. They have other pressures as well...See # 2. 

I'm not saying your wrong.....just what are some REAL actions? 

Isn't relying on those that have the "privilege", to make the changes...dis-empowering to those without said privilege(s)? Something given tends to hold less value....something taken (or even earned) is typically fiercely defended.


----------



## Cletus

Of all the privileges I enjoy in life, the largest by far is the accident of my birth location. That one dwarfs all of the others into insignificance.

The effects of white male privilege on me personally are more things that never happened as opposed to things that did. I never beat out a woman for a job because of my penis, but I also haven't been stopped and frisked. Or pulled over for driving white. Or shot at for wearing a hoody. I've never been turned down for an apartment because of my gender or skin color, though I was evicted once for skinny dipping (too white?).

There's no secret handshake or decoder ring where they hand you oodles of money and opportunity for being a man - where the advantage exists is that there are no artificial barriers that come along for the ride simply because I'm a woman or some other ethnicity. 

I also work in STEM. If there's any discrimination today in most of that field, it's in reverse as companies try desperately to up their gender balance.


----------



## Cletus

ocotillo said:


> The book is an eye opener, especially for those who buy into and repeat what are becoming some very tiresome canards on this subject.


Oh c'mon, give us just a taste.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I'm not saying your wrong.....just what are some REAL actions? *

Change discussions. Change the way we talk to our kids. Change what we see on tv. Change how we talk about men and women's sexuality. Change how we talk about God. Change how we talk about violence against women. So much of this is language that translates into action and then laws and who is given power.

*Isn't relying on those that have the "privilege", to make the changes...dis-empowering to those without said privilege(s)? Something given tends to hold less value....something taken (or even earned) is typically fiercely defended.[/QUOTE]
*
Well, that's the problem isn't it? When you are talking about privilege, the group with privilege have to be willing to share. Changes can still be made but unless most everyone is onboard it doesn't necessarily go anywhere.


----------



## MarriedDude

Pooh Bear said:


> *I'm not saying your wrong.....just what are some REAL actions? *
> 
> Change discussions. Change the way we talk to our kids. Change what we see on tv. Change how we talk about men and women's sexuality. Change how we talk about God. Change how we talk about violence against women. So much of this is language that translates into action and then laws and who is given power.
> 
> *Isn't relying on those that have the "privilege", to make the changes...dis-empowering to those without said privilege(s)? Something given tends to hold less value....something taken (or even earned) is typically fiercely defended.*


*
*
*Well, that's the problem isn't it? When you are talking about privilege, the group with privilege have to be willing to share. Changes can still be made but unless most everyone is onboard it doesn't necessarily go anywhere*.[/QUOTE]

There you go.BOOM..How do you make that happen? Thats the action part...that will create change


----------



## DanaS

larry.gray said:


> My state passed sentencing reform in 1994. Prior to that, rapists would serve around a year. As part of the mandatory sentences, it's 8-1/3 for the first, 25 for the second and life without parole for the third rape. Not many make it to the third.


That may be what it is in theory, but in practice I HIGHLY doubt they get anywhere near those kinds of sentences. Look at this: Montana man serves 30-day sentence for rape of 14-year-old girl | US news | The Guardian

A man had a 30 day sentence for raping a 14 year old! Unless the judge loves to rape himself and/or is very sympathetic to rapists and very sexist himself how could he ever in his mentally retarded male brain ever think that was an appropriate sentence? 

https://rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment

97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive No Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows.

I don't care what "laws" or "reforms" there are, I don't have any faith in men to give a **** what happens to women and punish accordingly. So even in your state with the "reform" I don't believe for one second many rapists are prosecuted and even if they are I doubt they get much more than a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> [/B]
> *Well, that's the problem isn't it? When you are talking about privilege, the group with privilege have to be willing to share. Changes can still be made but unless most everyone is onboard it doesn't necessarily go anywhere*.


There you go.BOOM..How do you make that happen?[/QUOTE]

You have to make that happen, MarriedDude. And that means listening to women's experiences, standing up to other men who demean women, educating yourself about how to be an advocate.


----------



## GusPolinski

I hate myself so much right now.


----------



## MarriedDude

DanaS said:


> That may be what it is in theory, but in practice I HIGHLY doubt they get anywhere near those kinds of sentences. Look at this: Montana man serves 30-day sentence for rape of 14-year-old girl | US news | The Guardian
> 
> A man had a 30 day sentence for raping a 14 year old! Unless the judge loves to rape himself and/or is very sympathetic to rapists and very sexist himself how could he ever in his mentally retarded male brain ever think that was an appropriate sentence?
> 
> https://rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment
> 
> 97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive No Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows.
> 
> *I don't care what "laws" or "reforms" there are, I don't have any faith in men to give a **** what happens to women and punish accordingly. So even in your state with the "reform" I don't believe for one second many rapists are prosecuted and even if they are I doubt they get much more than a slap on the wrist*.


There you go....There is the part that needs action. What you have to ask yourself is "what are you WILLING to do about it?" Stomping your feet and crying out for change....does NOTHING. That is NOT ACTION. 

In case you haven't noticed....On this planet- there is really only one effective instrument of change. All battles- all wars are won in the will. The one with the WILL to do what the other won't. Wins. Always.


----------



## Cletus

DanaS said:


> \I don't care what "laws" or "reforms" there are, I don't have any faith in men to give a **** what happens to women and punish accordingly. So even in your state with the "reform" I don't believe for one second many rapists are prosecuted and even if they are I doubt they get much more than a slap on the wrist.


You realize that a minimum sentence gives the judge no leeway, right? If a jury convicts on a count of rape, then the minimum sentence is Constitutionally mandated. 

Getting the conviction might be a sticking point, and plea bargains will probably reduce many of those cases long before trial, but you simply can't impugn the judge. His hands are tied.


----------



## DanaS

Pooh Bear said:


> There you go.BOOM..How do you make that happen?


You have to make that happen, MarriedDude. And that means listening to women's experiences, standing up to other men who demean women, educating yourself about how to be an advocate.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that will never happen. Most men don't have the empathy/sympathy needed to do so.


----------



## Pooh Bear

GusPolinski said:


> I hate myself so much right now.


Why? :scratchhead:


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> There you go....There is the part that needs action. What you have to ask yourself is "what are you WILLING to do about it?" Stomping your feet and crying out for change....does NOTHING. That is NOT ACTION.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed....On this planet- there is really only one effective instrument of change. All battles- all wars are won in the will. The one with the WILL to do what the other won't. Wins. Always.


Change happens all the time without violence.


----------



## Cletus

DanaS said:


> Yeah, but that will never happen. Most men don't have the empathy/sympathy needed to do so.


Those seeking empathy would do well to model it.

Martin Luther King effected much greater and long lasting change than did Malcolm X.


----------



## DanaS

Cletus said:


> You realize that a minimum sentence gives the judge no leeway, right? If a jury convicts on a count of rape, then the minimum sentence is Constitutionally mandated.
> 
> Getting the conviction might be a sticking point, and plea bargains will probably reduce many of those cases long before trial, but you simply can't impugn the judge. His hands are tied.


So what? The president and congress isn't supposed to do things that violate the constitution but it happens all the time.

Tell you what, why don't you find me 5 men that have spent time in prison for 20 or more years (that is just for rape, nothing else with it).


----------



## Pooh Bear

DanaS said:


> You have to make that happen, MarriedDude. And that means listening to women's experiences, standing up to other men who demean women, educating yourself about how to be an advocate.


Yeah, but that will never happen. Most men don't have the empathy/sympathy needed to do so.[/QUOTE]

That's not true, Dana. I have a son and I don't anyone talking about him that way. I think if it seems that most men don't have empathy it is because they are taught that it is not ok to express emotions. That is another part of the equation.


----------



## DanaS

Cletus said:


> Those seeking empathy would do well to model it.
> 
> Martin Luther King effected much greater and long lasting change than did Malcolm X.


You are right, during WWII the Jews should've shown empathy to Hitler and the Nazi regime instead of fighting against it wanting justice.


----------



## Pooh Bear

DanaS said:


> So what? The president and congress isn't supposed to do things that violate the constitution but it happens all the time.
> 
> Right. And then it goes to the supreme court and they decide if it can stand.


----------



## DanaS

Pooh Bear said:


> Yeah, but that will never happen. Most men don't have the empathy/sympathy needed to do so.


That's not true, Dana. I have a son and I don't anyone talking about him that way. I think if it seems that most men don't have empathy it is because they are taught that it is not ok to express emotions. That is another part of the equation.[/QUOTE]

....Which men have only themselves to blame. Men have created and controlled and modeled society to their ways so if there's anything they don't like/think is unfair today then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can tell you I am very happy to be having a daughter and not a son, I don't want to deal with all the testosterone/machismo BS.


----------



## MarriedDude

Pooh Bear said:


> Change happens all the time without violence.


You are talking about a massive shift in power and control involving a group that OP, by OP's mere question, understands the depth and breadth of control a.ka. "privilege." 

Care to offer an example of such MASSIVE global change/paradigm shift that has occurred without force? without any violence?


----------



## richie33

The one you threw out your house?


----------



## DanaS

Pooh Bear said:


> Right. And then it goes to the supreme court and they decide if it can stand.


You do realize congress can, and does overrule the supreme court, right? Overruling the Court

Our entire "justice system" is a complete joke run by sexist neanderthals that will do whatever they want every other law be damned, especially when it comes to women. Women still only make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes. Yet despite there being "laws" for equal pay in reality that's hardly ever the case.


----------



## Cletus

DanaS said:


> So what? The president and congress isn't supposed to do things that violate the constitution but it happens all the time.
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you find me 5 men that have spent time in prison for 20 or more years (that is just for rape, nothing else with it).


We don't have a 20 year minimum sentence. It's 8+ years for Rape I, 6+ years for Rape II. 

Since the minimum went into effect, 613 have been sentenced to at least a Rape I minimum and 142 for Rape II. That's over a ten year period.


----------



## MarriedDude

DanaS said:


> You have to make that happen, MarriedDude. And that means listening to women's experiences, standing up to other men who demean women, educating yourself about how to be an advocate.


*Yeah, but that will never happen. Most men don't have the empathy/sympathy needed to do so.*[/QUOTE]

Sooooo....That means..."I'd like to do something but I'm just one woman, and the men won't help me?" Don't give up before you start.

You have to take what you want sometimes. You have to defend what you take sometimes. You have to want the change bad enough to be willing to do what it takes to make it happen. You have to be a True Believer...They are dangerous, volatile, unpredictable....but also- instruments of change.

6 years as a US soldier....3 more as an occasional private soldier. Those True Believers...they are spooky as F**K.


----------



## Cletus

DanaS said:


> Our entire "justice system" is a complete joke run by sexist neanderthals that will do whatever they want every other law be damned, especially when it comes to women. Women still only make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes. Yet despite there being "laws" for equal pay in reality that's hardly ever the case.


Man, I'm going to regret this.

The 77 cents on the dollar statistic is the mean of all pay for women compared to the mean for all men. It is NOT a job for job comparison of what someone doing my job with my experience makes. 

It implies that overall women are in lower paying fields than men. Some of that is bias, and some of it is self selection (education being an excellent example). 

It is real, but it is not describing what you seem to think it describes.


----------



## MarriedDude

DanaS said:


> You do realize congress can, and does overrule the supreme court, right? Overruling the Court
> 
> Our entire "justice system" is a complete joke run by sexist neanderthals that will do whatever they want every other law be damned, especially when it comes to women. Women still only make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes. *Yet despite there being "laws" for equal pay in reality that's hardly ever the case*.


Laws are just words. Have words ever made you feel protected walking alone....past 1am...in a bad part of town?

No. Probably not


----------



## DanaS

Cletus said:


> We don't have a 20 year minimum sentence. It's 8+ years for Rape I, 6+ years for Rape II.
> 
> Since the minimum went into effect, 613 have been sentenced to at least a Rape I minimum and 142 for Rape II. That's over a ten year period.


Well, first off, the fact that theoretically rape only gets you 6-8 years minimum is ridiculous and a total miscarriage of justice. I guarantee a man that spends those amount of years in prison will end up faring much better than a woman does considering how rape TRAUMATIZES the woman for life yet obviously the rapist doesn't care and I'm sure makes some good friends in prison at that. 

Spending any less than 20 years for just one rape to me is absolutely criminal and the fact that those are supposedly the "minimum" shows the men that made it don't view rape as that bad nor fully understand just how bad it is for the woman that is raped. God forbid one of these judges daughters get raped they'll probably still only give them a year or so.


----------



## MarriedDude

DanaS said:


> Well, first off, the fact that theoretically rape only gets you 6-8 years minimum is ridiculous and a total miscarriage of justice. I guarantee a man that spends those amount of years in prison will end up faring much better than a woman does considering how rape TRAUMATIZES the woman for life yet obviously the rapist doesn't care and I'm sure makes some good friends in prison at that.
> 
> Spending any less than 20 years for just one rape to me is absolutely criminal and the fact that those are supposedly the "minimum" *shows the men that made it don't view rape as that bad nor fully understand just how bad it is for the woman that is raped. God forbid one of these judges daughters get raped they'll probably still only give them a year or so.*



That's pretty outrageous talk....speculative- unfounded- marginally offensive. 

But hey....some *true believers* took "actions" a long time ago that let you say what you want.


----------



## DanaS

*sigh* just as I though would happen and why I DIDN'T care what men say. They are not women and they don't, nor ever will understand how terrifying it can be sometimes or how absurd the laws are THEY MADE. Heck, as it is you can go to prison for a much longer time just for smoking pot than rape, how screwed up is that? 

Men: Please just stop posting, you don't have anything valuable to add to this conversation and you will always defend men regardless of how badly they treat women.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I see two very different topics her.

1). How to stop, or at least reduce rape. Virtually everyone agrees that rape is bad and should be stopped (if anyone doesn't agree, please say so). The disagreement is over the best way to stop rape: its difficult. No rational human would risk years in prison, and the effective destruction of their lives to have sex. Ignoring the damage to the victim, an assuming that the rapist is pure evil, is is still fundamentally an irrational crime. Since its irrational, it is very difficult to know what will deter it. 

2), Male privilege - the original topic. 

I think that this varies a lot by sub-culture. In some social / business groups harassing comments against women are common. People in those groups naturally assume that this sort of behavior is universal because THEY see it all the time. They see no one taking action against this sort of thing.

In other social / work groups it is almost non-existent. People in those groups have trouble believing that it exists because THEY never see it. 

My wife has worked in a male-dominated industry and has not had any problems in the last almost 30 years. I last saw problems about 30 years ago, but have seen no issues since (we have female high level executives). I have never had friends make misogynistic comments, presumably because everyone in our social group clearly finds them unacceptable. 

I know these problems exist elsewhere, I hear about them and believe them, but they don't appear within my line of sight. 

I think people who treat women badly tend to cluster, and people who treat them well tend to cluster.


----------



## Cletus

DanaS said:


> Men: Please just stop posting, you don't have anything valuable to add to this conversation and you will always defend men regardless of how badly they treat women.


How 'bout you just piss off somewhere in a quiet corner and ferment in your own bile? 

Congratulations on winning the Most Spiteful Poster of 2015 to date. And by a landslide too.


----------



## Pooh Bear

DanaS said:


> That's not true, Dana. I have a son and I don't anyone talking about him that way. I think if it seems that most men don't have empathy it is because they are taught that it is not ok to express emotions. That is another part of the equation.


....Which men have only themselves to blame. Men have created and controlled and modeled society to their ways so if there's anything they don't like/think is unfair today then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can tell you I am very happy to be having a daughter and not a son, I don't want to deal with all the testosterone/machismo BS.[/QUOTE]

We teach them those things though. "Be a man", "boys don't cry" etc.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> You are talking about a massive shift in power and control involving a group that OP, by OP's mere question, understands the depth and breadth of control a.ka. "privilege."
> 
> Care to offer an example of such MASSIVE global change/paradigm shift that has occurred without force? without any violence?


Women's right to vote in the United States.


----------



## MarriedDude

DanaS said:


> *sigh* just as I though would happen and why I DIDN'T care what men say. They are not women and they don't, nor ever will understand how terrifying it can be sometimes or how absurd the laws are THEY MADE. Heck, as it is you can go to prison for a much longer time just for smoking pot than rape, how screwed up is that?
> 
> *Men: Please just stop posting, you don't have anything valuable to add to this conversation and you will always defend men regardless of how badly they treat women.*



OK then. But consider that by discounting those of us that actually want to see change (Some of us believe the current state of affairs untenable and want to see it all burn) -You are marginalizing allies. 

I don't disagree with much of what you stated in terms of male privilege and the general crappy unfair state of the balance of power between males and females. But sweeping statements that imply that men would defend a rapist simply because he is part of the guy club - we'll -they tend to subvert your argument.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> You are talking about a massive shift in power and control involving a group that OP, by OP's mere question, understands the depth and breadth of control a.ka. "privilege."
> 
> Care to offer an example of such MASSIVE global change/paradigm shift that has occurred without force? without any violence?


Kicking Britain out of India, MLK did not use violence although he faced violence. Women entering the workforce. Gay marriage in various states. Lots of change can happen without violence.


----------



## BradWesley

DanaS said:


> You are right, during WWII the Jews should've shown empathy to Hitler and the Nazi regime instead of fighting against it wanting justice.


Are you really serious with this statement?


----------



## MarriedDude

Pooh Bear said:


> Women's right to vote in the United States.


How very ethnocentric. 

If you believe that things that happen in the US are of *Global *Significance....You should spend some time in Africa, The Middle East, Eastern Europe....and so on. 

Its a big wide world out there.


----------



## DanaS

Pooh Bear said:


> ....Which men have only themselves to blame. Men have created and controlled and modeled society to their ways so if there's anything they don't like/think is unfair today then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can tell you I am very happy to be having a daughter and not a son, I don't want to deal with all the testosterone/machismo BS.


We teach them those things though. "Be a man", "boys don't cry" etc.[/QUOTE]

Yes but these are the kinds of pressures made BY men, FOR men. So if it bothers men so much then they need to get other men to change.


----------



## MarriedDude

Pooh Bear said:


> Kicking Britain out of India, MLK did not use violence although he faced violence. Women entering the workforce. Gay marriage in various states. Lots of change can happen without violence.


Yet none of these examples are a GLOBAL PARADIGM SHIFT.


----------



## MarriedDude

Pooh Bear said:


> ....Which men have only themselves to blame. Men have created and controlled and modeled society to their ways so if there's anything they don't like/think is unfair today then they have no one to blame but themselves. I can tell you I am very happy to be having a daughter and not a son, I don't want to deal with all the testosterone/machismo BS.


*We* teach them those things though. "Be a man", "boys don't cry" etc.[/QUOTE]

Are you part of that "We"?


----------



## DanaS

MarriedDude said:


> Yet none of these examples are a GLOBAL PARADIGM SHIFT.


Yeah, as WWI and II and the Cold War showed you need men and their primitive neanderthal brain to do that. All wars men have fought have pretty much boiled down to **** waving. 

This is precisely why women should be in charge of society/government so that we won't have wars (could you really see women sending other women into battle to fight other women?) or stupid petty conflicts like the cold war that last decades. Or slavery for that matter.


----------



## MarriedDude

DanaS said:


> Yeah, as WWI and II and the Cold War showed you need men and their primitive neanderthal brain to do that. All wars men have fought have pretty much boiled down to **** waving.
> 
> This is precisely why women should be in charge of society/government so that we won't have wars (could you really see women sending other women into battle to fight other women?) or stupid petty conflicts like the cold war that last decades. Or slavery for that matter.


Well....I've actually seen a female commander send myself and others to fight other men and women. It happens. 

She had a will of Iron. I would have followed her to hell- because she showed us in word and deed that she was capable of winning. She was a person of Honor -A true leader. 

It always has- and always will come down to someone...female or male...with the courage to do what it takes.


----------



## EleGirl

DanaS said:


> That's not true, Dana. I have a son and I don't anyone talking about him that way. I think if it seems that most men don't have empathy it is because they are taught that it is not ok to express emotions. That is another part of the equation.
> 
> 
> 
> ....Which men have only themselves to blame. Men have created and controlled and modeled society to their ways so if there's anything they don't like/think is unfair today then they have no one to blame but themselves. *I can tell you I am very happy to be having a daughter and not a son, I don't want to deal with all the testosterone/machismo BS*.
Click to expand...

Wow, see you are not winning anyone over with statements like this.

I have a son. He's 26 now. He's a wonderful, loving, intelligent young man. There is no testosterone/machismo BS with him. He's too well rounded for that nonsense. He's also very much supportive of women's rights. Shoot he was raised with me as his mother... so he gets that women and men are both strong and capable.

Why do you have such strong negative feelings about all men?


----------



## EleGirl

BradWesley said:


> Are you really serious with this statement?


She stated that in sarcasm.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Here is a post that resonates with me, an excellent list 



> . Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to soldiers selecting male civilians to be executed, to male workers dying of exposure to unsafe chemicals – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also immeasurably harms boys and men.
> 
> However, although I don’t deny that men suffer, this post is focused on advantages men experience.
> 
> Several critics have also argued that the list somehow victimizes women. I disagree; pointing out problems is not the same as perpetuating them. It is not a “victimizing” position to acknowledge that injustice exists; on the contrary, without that acknowledgment it isn’t possible to fight injustice.
> 
> An internet acquaintance of mine once wrote, “The first big privilege which whites, males, people in upper economic classes, the able bodied, the straight (I think one or two of those will cover most of us) can work to alleviate is the privilege to be oblivious to privilege.” This checklist is, I hope, a step towards helping men to give up the “first big privilege.”
> 
> The Male Privilege Checklist
> 
> 1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
> 
> 2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).
> 
> 3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.
> 
> 4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
> 
> 5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).
> 
> 6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
> 
> 7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).
> 
> 8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.
> 
> 9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
> 
> 10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
> 
> 11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).
> 
> 12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
> 
> 13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
> 
> 14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
> 
> 15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
> 
> 16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).
> 
> 17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.
> 
> 18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).
> 
> 19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
> 
> 20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.
> 
> 21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

> 22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
> 
> 23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
> 
> 24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “****,” nor is there any male counterpart to “****-bashing.” (More).
> 
> 25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).
> 
> 26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).
> 
> 27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).
> 
> 28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).
> 
> 29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
> 
> 30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a *****.
> 
> 31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)
> 
> 32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
> 
> 33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
> 
> 34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
> 
> 35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
> 
> 36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.
> 
> 37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
> 
> 38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).
> 
> 39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
> 
> 40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
> 
> 41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
> 
> 42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).
> 
> 43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More).
> 
> 44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).
> 
> 45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)
> 
> 45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men. (More.)
> 
> 46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.


----------



## DanaS

LittleDeer that is all spot-on! Of course no doubt men will come in trying to debunk it and spin it around.



EleGirl said:


> Why do you have such strong negative feelings about all men?


Got a history book? Ever looked at some rape/domestic violence stats lately?

I don't hate ALL men, but there are are only a very few I have respect for such as my husband. But even then he himself said he thinks most men are stupid and isn't into any of the machismo garbage or anything like that.



Personal said:


> Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Indo-Pakistani War 1971
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard, War in Afghanistan 2001-Present (while Prime Minister 20010-2013)
> Prime Minister Golda Meir, Yom Kippur War 1973
> Chancellor Angela Merkel, War in Afghanistan 2001-Present (while Chancellor 2005-Present)
> Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Falklands War 1982, Gulf War 1990-1991 (while Prime Minister 1990).


Not really fair. Those women were presurred into war BECAUSE of the actions of men. I am talking about a hypothetical world where women are in complete control of all the highest levels of govt in most/all countries. I can't see a woman thinking things like slavery, genocide, child labor etc. would be fun things to employ. Not to mention there would be MUCH harsher sentences for men that hurt women.


----------



## that.girl

DanaS said:


> I am talking about a hypothetical world where women are in complete control of all the highest levels of govt in most/all countries. I can't see a woman thinking things like slavery, genocide, child labor etc. would be fun things to employ. Not to mention there would be MUCH harsher sentences for men that hurt women.


But that would be female privilege. And that would lead to men getting hurt and mistreated because women held the power. Are we talking about fairness and equality, or about retribution?


----------



## DanaS

that.girl said:


> But that would be female privilege. And that would lead to men getting hurt and mistreated because women held the power. Are we talking about fairness and equality, or about retribution?


Not necessarily. In a hypothetical female-dominated world I believe things would be much more fair and equitable all around. 

Part of being a woman is being the fairer sex. We are nurturing, loving, compassionate, and empathetic by nature.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I don't think a female dominated world would be that different (in relation to war).


----------



## that.girl

DanaS said:


> Not necessarily. In a hypothetical female-dominated world I believe things would be much more fair and equitable all around.
> 
> Part of being a woman is being the fairer sex. We are nurturing, loving, compassionate, and empathetic by nature.


How idealistic of you. 

Sounds lovely and all, but it would never work. Men and women need each other for balance. We suit each other so well. 

Now, if we split the power equally between the sexes, i think we could get somewhere. I bet our government would work very differently if half of the politicians had to be female!


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> How very ethnocentric.
> 
> If you believe that things that happen in the US are of *Global *Significance....You should spend some time in Africa, The Middle East, Eastern Europe....and so on.
> 
> Its a big wide world out there.


You asked for a change that happened without violence. That is what I gave you. There are problems women face all over the world, of course, but I can only really focus on changing my area of the world. Women are working all over the world to make changes. And I support them. But they also know the intricacies of their country. People can only really make change where they are at.


----------



## Pooh Bear

DanaS said:


> We teach them those things though. "Be a man", "boys don't cry" etc.


Yes but these are the kinds of pressures made BY men, FOR men. So if it bothers men so much then they need to get other men to change.[/QUOTE]

Dana, we are on the same side. But you do know that we are all born into this, right? None of us had a choice about this. We have a choice what we do with it. Some of us are not even aware of privilege until we are.


----------



## EleGirl

DanaS said:


> Yeah, as WWI and II and the Cold War showed you need men and their primitive neanderthal brain to do that. All wars men have fought have pretty much boiled down to **** waving.
> 
> This is precisely why women should be in charge of society/government so that we won't have wars (could you really see women sending other women into battle to fight other women?) or stupid petty conflicts like the cold war that last decades. Or slavery for that matter.


Apparently you are not aware that there have always been a lot of women who owned slaves. There are more slaves in the world today than there ever have been. A good number of those slaves are owned and/or used by women to make their lives easier.

Did you know that a lot of sex slave rings are run by women? yep they sell children and other women for money.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> Yet none of these examples are a GLOBAL PARADIGM SHIFT.


That's impossible. People have not even been able to do that with violence. People have tried. To able to change the world completely, as big as it is, is unrealistic.


----------



## EleGirl

DanaS said:


> Got a history book? Ever looked at some rape/domestic violence stats lately?


Have you looked at what percentage of men commit those crimes?



DanaS said:


> I don't hate ALL men, but there are are only a very few I have respect for such as my husband. But even then he himself said he thinks most men are stupid and isn't into any of the machismo garbage or anything like that.







DanaS said:


> Not really fair. Those women were presurred into war BECAUSE of the actions of men. I am talking about a hypothetical world where women are in complete control of all the highest levels of govt in most/all countries. I can't see a woman thinking things like slavery, genocide, child labor etc. would be fun things to employ. Not to mention there would be MUCH harsher sentences for men that hurt women.


I think you have a very distorted view of both men and women.

There are a lot of good men in the world. 
There are a lot of good women too.

And there are both men and women who are pretty rotten people. Women have participated in every horrible thing that you list here. Women ran child labor work houses. In countries around the world today that use child labor, women are as involved in it as men are. Genocide? Yep women have condoned that as well through out history.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> *We* teach them those things though. "Be a man", "boys don't cry" etc.


Are you part of that "We"?[/QUOTE]

I won't be teaching my son those things, no. I know he will hear them. Yet, I know I have some built in oppression I am not even aware of. It's hard. I am going to teach him about feminism though. So maybe he can make changes as he goes.


----------



## Pooh Bear

DanaS said:


> Yeah, as WWI and II and the Cold War showed you need men and their primitive neanderthal brain to do that. All wars men have fought have pretty much boiled down to **** waving.
> 
> This is precisely why women should be in charge of society/government so that we won't have wars (could you really see women sending other women into battle to fight other women?) or stupid petty conflicts like the cold war that last decades. Or slavery for that matter.


Let's see what happens when we have the first woman President. But women send their sons off to war all the time. We're not perfect.


----------



## Pooh Bear

DanaS said:


> Not necessarily. In a hypothetical female-dominated world I believe things would be much more fair and equitable all around.
> 
> Part of being a woman is being the fairer sex. We are nurturing, loving, compassionate, and empathetic by nature.


I don't agree. That would imply that we are perfect beings and we aren't. It also puts women in a box to assume that they are nurturing, loving, and compassionate. Not all women are.


----------



## Cletus

There's a bunch of you good folk here who think you're having a rational conversation with a rational person.

You are wrong.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Cletus said:


> There's a bunch of you good folk here who think you're having a rational conversation with a rational person.
> 
> You are wrong.


I don't think that's a helpful comment, Cletus. And the conversation is interesting.


----------



## WandaJ

DanaS said:


> Well, there is one way but men sure won't like it: Hold other men accountable! What that means is, if you're around a bunch of guys and they start going off about how they'd like to "screw" or "****" other women, or talking about them as if they're meat, tell them to KNOCK IT OFF! .


I am not sure about that one. sometimes with the girlfriends we do talk dirty about men....


----------



## Catherine602

I don't like to criticize my own gender but I can't let this go without posting.

Women have as much privilege as men. They don't know it. Like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. Women have a voice, sometimes it's indirect but it is powerful. Every married women who post on this forum is aware of the profound influence they have on their husbands. It is usually a good influence but sometimes silence is the most powerful influence of all. 

The system of racism, sexism, genocide, brutality, animosity towards women, the weak and infirm are supported by our society, men and woman. These could not exist without the complicity of many women who support the men who are in power. You need only read history and current events.

What's the difference between men who do bad things and the women who remain in relationship with them, pursue them, support abuse of other woman by shaming the women or who support the double standard along with men? 

I am not absolving men who are hostile towards women and blame shift. They could be the moral leaders they should be. But you have to call out women who support a system and then complain about it. Much more than creating a fair and just society, many women want to please men and avoid being seen as feminist and ball busters. In the next generation or so, women will have a more direct influence on how we live. Let's see if things get better for the powerless, children, the poor, the sick and the abused.


----------



## Mike6211

DanaS said:


> ... a hypothetical world where women are in complete control of all the highest levels of govt in most/all countries.... there would be MUCH harsher sentences for men that hurt women.


What about for women who hurt men?


----------



## Pooh Bear

Catherine602 said:


> I don't like to criticize my own gender but I can't let this go without posting.
> 
> Women have as much privilege as men. They don't know it. Like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. Women have a voice, sometimes it's indirect but it is powerful. Every married women who post on this forum is aware of the profound influence they have on their husbands. It is usually a good influence but sometimes silence is the most powerful influence of all.
> 
> The system of racism, sexism, genocide, brutality, animosity towards women, the weak and infirm are supported by our society, men and woman. They could not exist without the women who support the men who are in power. You need only read history and current events.
> 
> What the difference between men who do bad things and the women who remain in relationship with them, pursue them, support abuse of other woman by shaming the women or who support the double standard along with men?
> 
> I am not absolving men who are hostile towards women and blame shift. They could be the moral leaders they can be. But you have to call out women who support a system and then complain about it. Many women want to please men and not be seen as a feminist and ball buster much more than they want a fair and just society. In the next generation or so, women will have more direct influence on how we live. Lets see if things get better for the powerless, children, the poor, sick and the abused.


I'm not sure how you can say women have as much privilege as men. We have never had a woman President. Although there are more women in Congress than there have ever been, it is not even close to being equal. The Supreme Court has more women than there has ever been, 3. That is only a third. If we do go into politics, the question is generally asked how we will take care of the kids. If we go to a Christian church God is male. There are churches who refuse to ordain women. We always have to fight for reproductive rights. We are rarely believed in the cases of rape. We are generally blamed in the cases of domestic violence. There is pressure on women to be stay at home moms and then stay at home moms are judged. Single moms are judged as lazy good for nothings. Women have to be nice even in job settings and then we are blamed if we are not getting paid equally because we are not agressive enough. 

Little Deer posted a good list. You might want to look at it. 

I know that men and women sustain the power structure in the society but we are not always aware of our privilege or inequality. And some of us, men and women included, are just more comfortable with the way things are.


----------



## larry.gray

Cletus said:


> I also work in STEM. If there's any discrimination today in most of that field, it's in reverse as companies try desperately to up their gender balance.


*IF?*

I've worked for two different huge companies now. At both employers, I've had an HR person stop by in person and tell me that I would only be hiring a female or a non-white, non-asian male for an opening I had. 

No, they won't put it in writing, or in an email, voice mail or any other format. It's highly illegal to do what they are doing. I was just told that if I didn't play ball, I'd have trouble at performance review time. 

I played ball. One time we hired a woman, and she was OK but there were better in the pool. The other time it was a A-A male and he sucked at his job. He was so far from the best it was sad. Now if some defense attorney ever disposes me, I will name persons, dates and times. 

No what I do love is when the asians get wind of it. They get lividly pissed. Welcome to the club of the unwanted buddy.

Do I think it's hurt me much? Probably not. What bothers me more is the work disruptions it causes.


----------



## larry.gray

BradWesley said:


> Are you really serious with this statement?


Yes, because the way women are treated in the US is quite close to Hitler's treatment of the Jews.


----------



## larry.gray

DanaS said:


> Part of being a woman is being the fairer sex. We are nurturing, loving, compassionate, and empathetic by nature.


Clearly you've never known somebody with a NPD or BPD mother.

Or a woman with Asperger's.


----------



## Maricha75

Cletus said:


> There's a bunch of you good folk here who think you're having a rational conversation with a rational person.
> 
> You are wrong.


It's ok, Cletus. I'm reading through and I have noticed just how irrational she is. The other women in the thread have been much more rational, from what I have seen. EleGirl, for one. I am very appreciative of her assertion regarding her son. My two sons don't have any of that machismo BS either. My daughter, however... I love that little girl, but she has that diva BS trying to rear its ugly head. She thinks she's 8 going on 14. Yet my 14 year old son is the sweetest boy. I know he has interest in girls because of subtle actions (wearing cologne just to go outside and play... ONLY when a certain girl is around). Yet, this same boy will not even say the word "sex". His younger siblings have no such reservations.

Anyway, for DanaS to imply that women have no bias on this subject is utterly ridiculous. Of course women, in general, have JUST AS MUCH bias as men IN GENERAL do. But, yes, Cletus, I noticed from the very first post that rational thought was out the window. It was further confirmed when I read how thankful she was that she has a daughter, rather than a son, because her daughter doesn't come with the "machismo BS".*shudder* I am more concerned that her daughter will pick up her mother's ideas about men! I certainly know now what NOT to teach my daughter... not that I didn't before. Fortunately, my children have their father and me, rather than parents who hate the opposite sex. 

And spare me the "I don't hate men" rhetoric. Your posts say otherwise, Dana. You even dismissed men's opinions as insignificant when they clearly composed rational thoughts on the subject. Why? Because they proved the fallacy of your arguments. You belittled them and minimized their arguments, which makes you just as bad as those men you seem to think are so horrible.

Ftr, this woman right here wouldn't want a world run completely by women. It wouldn't be ANY better than the current world we live it.


----------



## Wolf1974

Projecting.............


----------



## richie33

I have seen people banned for such small offenses but this poster spouts putrid of men and gets a pass. She is off her rocker or medication.


----------



## Cletus

Pooh Bear said:


> I don't think that's a helpful comment, Cletus. And the conversation is interesting.


I wasn't aiming for helpful. There is no helpful to be applied when someone is this far off the balance beam. It is not incumbent upon us to just accept it with grace. Could you have rationalized a certain failed Austrian painter out of a string of actions still reverberating through history 80 years later? 

I'm sorry, but what's been posted here is a twisted and evil mindset. I do not have to try to be helpful in the presence of evil. And for the record, yes it's every bit as wrong when a man does this to women, in case the but, but, but... crowd was getting spun up. 

The rest of the conversation is interesting. By all means, continue.


----------



## Cletus

richie33 said:


> I have seen people banned for such small offenses but this poster spouts putrid of men and gets a pass. She is off her rocker or medication.


I hate bans, being a dyed-in-the-wool free speech lover. Like they say, there is no better disinfectant than bright sunlight.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> MLK did not use violence although he faced violence.



Dr. King was a great man and my family supported him. Although it was no longer being enforced at the time, there were still signs at beaches in the D.C. area saying, "White *gentiles* only" so a lot of Jewish people back then felt a common bond with people of color.

Concurrent with Dr. King was another man who went by the moniker, Rap Brown. The first time I ever heard the word, "******" Rap Brown was screaming on a bull horn, "Get yourself a gun and shoot yourself a ******" to a cheering crowd. He didn't care what your political beliefs were and neither did his supporters. All they cared about was the color of your skin. 

So with respect Pooh Bear, the civil rights movement had many faces. You can find shining examples of all that is good in humans, but you can also find the exact opposite. 

Feminism is similar. There are great humanitarians within the movement, but there are also people who only care about your gender.


----------



## Pooh Bear

larry.gray said:


> *IF?*
> 
> I've worked for two different huge companies now. At both employers, I've had an HR person stop by in person and tell me that I would only be hiring a female or a non-white, non-asian male for an opening I had.
> 
> No, they won't put it in writing, or in an email, voice mail or any other format. It's highly illegal to do what they are doing. I was just told that if I didn't play ball, I'd have trouble at performance review time.
> 
> I played ball. One time we hired a woman, and she was OK but there were better in the pool. The other time it was a A-A male and he sucked at his job. He was so far from the best it was sad. Now if some defense attorney ever disposes me, I will name persons, dates and times.
> 
> No what I do love is when the asians get wind of it. They get lividly pissed. Welcome to the club of the unwanted buddy.
> 
> Do I think it's hurt me much? Probably not. What bothers me more is the work disruptions it causes.


What do you mean by this post larry.gray? In comparison, how many white men work for your company? Would you say all (all is the key word) of them are excellent employees? Are women and asians always unqualified in your opinion? So the only way they could possibly get jobs is because of affirmative action? It is not my understanding that affirmative action breaks requirements up by gender or different races. You just have to hire a certain percentage of non-white or female people. However, that is nowhere near 50 per cent.


----------



## Pooh Bear

intheory said:


> DanaS,
> 
> From your previous threads, I understand that your ex-husband did not treat you; or your daughter very well.
> 
> And I know you are having issues with your daughter right now.
> 
> And you are going to be having a baby soon.
> 
> So, you have a history with an abusive man. You are dealing with the consequences of that to this day in the fallout with your daughter. Your body is under a lot of stress.
> 
> Maybe this is coloring your thinking right now?
> 
> Would your new husband agree with everything you post about men? Think of the guys like him, who are good people.
> 
> If women rule the world ever, as a majority? They'll often have to be as ruthless as men. Because that's the way of the world.
> 
> Take it as easy as possible right now? I hope things are going better with your daughter. And that you and your husband are looking forward to the new arrival (making all the preparations, having fun getting the room ready etc)


Oh, that's rough. Dana have you seen a therapist? Some things you just need help with. I was raped when I was younger and really the only thing that helped me deal with it and let it go was counseling.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> Dr. King was a great man and my family supported him. Although it was no longer being enforced at the time, there were still signs at beaches in the D.C. area saying, "White *gentiles* only" so a lot of Jewish people back then felt a common bond with people of color.
> 
> Concurrent with Dr. King was another man who went by the moniker, Rap Brown. The first time I ever heard the word, "******" Rap Brown was screaming on a bull horn, "Get yourself a gun and shoot yourself a ******" to a cheering crowd. He didn't care what your political beliefs were and neither did his supporters. All they cared about was the color of your skin.
> 
> So with respect Pooh Bear, the civil rights movement had many faces. You can find shining examples of all that is good in humans, but you can also find the exact opposite.
> 
> Feminism is similar. There are great humanitarians within the movement, but there are also people who only care about your gender.


MarriedDude was asking for an example of change that can happen without violence. That was the point of that list. Noone is perfect within any movement or philosophy. Sometimes the ideas are great but it they are hard to live out. I subscribe to Christianity and feminism. Both have fantastic ideas, not always easy to live out. I have found that Buddhism has actually helped me to be a better Christian. Buddhism teaches you how to live Christianity.


----------



## Cletus

Pooh Bear said:


> What do you mean by this post larry.gray? In comparison, how many white men work for your company? Would you say all (all is the key word) of them are excellent employees? Are women and asians always unqualified in your opinion? So the only way they could possibly get jobs is because of affirmative action? It is not my understanding that affirmative action breaks requirements up by gender or different races. You just have to hire a certain percentage of non-white or female people. However, that is nowhere near 50 per cent.


We work in the same industry, Larry and I. 

There is a "shortage" of certain demographics in hi-tech, if you ascribe to the notion that all careers should have a population representative of the nation as a whole.

When affirmative action requires you to consider anything other than talent in hiring, you are forced to hire less qualified applicants. It's not that women or blacks or Asians as a group are any more or less talented, it's that the pool of applicants is small enough that you have to select from among the less qualified to fill the quota. 

On the flip side, this absolutely doesn't mean that every person of color or internal genitalia in the industry is sub-par. I work with an absolutely brilliant black MIT grad in our marketing department whom I would recommend to any potential employer. I work with 4 other women, one of whom is excellent, one is perfectly adequate, and one is a giant PITA for reasons having nothing to do with being a woman. 

I am ambivalent about affirmative action. On the one hand, I can understand for the necessity of institutionalized reform to make up for hundreds of years of white male privilege. On the other hand, as a white man who worked very hard to work from nothing into a successful professional, it's hard to see qualified people not get recognized based on nothing but their abilities.

It's an imperfect solution to a complex problem, like just about everything in life.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> MarriedDude was asking for an example of change that can happen without violence. That was the point of that list.


It would have been nice if the change had not been accompanied by violence. But it was...


----------



## ConanHub

intheory said:


> Why is someone who gathers signatures for a ballot initiative to make the punishment for rape harsher, a "bleeding heart"?


The bleeding hearts were trying to get reduced sentences for rapists.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Cletus said:


> We work in the same industry, Larry and I.
> 
> There is a "shortage" of certain demographics in hi-tech, if you ascribe to the notion that all careers should have a population representative of the nation as a whole.
> 
> When affirmative action requires you to consider anything other than talent in hiring, you are forced to hire less qualified applicants. It's not that women or blacks or Asians as a group are any more or less talented, it's that the pool of applicants is small enough that you have to select from among the less qualified to fill the quota.
> 
> On the flip side, this absolutely doesn't mean that every person of color or internal genitalia in the industry is sub-par. I work with an absolutely brilliant black MIT grad in our marketing department whom I would recommend to any potential employer. I work with 4 other women, one of whom is excellent, one is perfectly adequate, and one is a giant PITA for reasons having nothing to do with being a woman.
> 
> I am ambivalent about affirmative action. On the one hand, I can understand for the necessity of institutionalized reform to make up for hundreds of years of white male privilege. On the other hand, as a white man who worked very hard to work from nothing into a successful professional, it's hard to see qualified people not get recognized based on nothing but their abilities.
> 
> It's an imperfect solution to a complex problem, like just about everything in life.


But he is not complaining about the unqualified white men that that scoot by all the time solely because they are white men. People generally ignore that there are useless white men in organizations because they are white men. Unless they are completely incompetant. I have no doubt that you worked hard, Cletus. But, it sounds like you are white man from you are saying, you have the upper hand immediately solely because of gender and the color of your skin. You kind of get a free pass to start. Then you have to prove yourself to a certain extent. But if you are a person of color or a woman you have to do twice as well. You have to make up for not being a white male. Then you have to prove yourself.


----------



## 'CuseGal

OK, if we accept that there are problems because adult males/fathers raise their sons to share their mindsets which are apparently all about how women are somehow less important than men and therefore should be treated any way a man wants to treat them, I offer you this question:

Current statistics show that more than HALF of all children in the United States are being raised by single mothers (yeah - that's sad). Considering how a woman BECOMES a single mother (doesn't generally involve a particularly NICE guy), I'm going to guess that a lot of them don't like men very much and probably communicate this to their kids (guilty and not particularly proud of it). So what kind of attitude is going to exist in 20 years when these boys who have been raised by single mothers who don't like men are grown up and starting to be leaders in our society?


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> It would have been nice if the change had not been accompanied by violence. But it was...


Not by MLK. The pushback was violent. Yet, I think that it made white people in the United States think twice about racism in the South and in the country and start to be involved in changing things with the civil rights movement. People generally don't like violence. And the amount of violence directed at peaceful protestors in the civil rights movement made white people think twice. If he had gone in with a gun and started shooting and fighting back violently, I think people would have been able to justify their racism. Actually the nonviolence on MLK's part is what brought the change. So sometimes, non-violence is required to bring change.


----------



## Cletus

Pooh Bear said:


> But he is not complaining about the unqualified white men that that scoot by all the time solely because they are white men. People generally ignore that there are useless white men in organizations because they are white men. Unless they are completely incompetant. I have no doubt that you worked hard, Cletus. But, it sounds like you are white man from you are saying, you have the upper hand immediately solely because of gender and the color of your skin. You kind of get a free pass to start. Then you have to prove yourself to a certain extent. But if you are a person of color or a woman you have to do twice as well. You have to make up for not being a white male. Then you have to prove yourself.


Without being angry at you, I can honestly say that this is a monstrously demeaning thing to say.

I graduated valedictorian from my high school class of 400 back in the day when there was only 1. I am the first in my family to ever go to college. I paid for school by working two full time jobs in the summer and 30 hours/week during the school year without a dime of support from my parents. My now-wife came over to my house to find two packages of Top Ramen on the shelf one day, as I didn't have the money to go grocery shopping. I was held up at gunpoint 3 times during the night shift and no one on the other end of the barrel cared a whit about the color of my skin or if I peed standing up. I graduated with honors in a difficult degree program that washes out more people than it graduates. I have a history of exemplary performance reviews. I rise to the top of every group I have ever worked with. 

Did the women have to prove themselves more than I did? No. They had to learn the material, pass the tests, get the grades and make the cut or go home. Those that did found a virtual army of recruiters beating down their doors to give them a job. The first two of my graduating class to be offered jobs were women, both of whom I had vastly out-performed academically. 

I have proven myself at so much more than a "certain extent" than you can possibly imagine, and none of this came because I was a white male. I will concede the privilege of being born with a modicum of brains in the USA as the primary dice roll that allowed me this opportunity, but if you think my penis played an outsized role in that success, I cannot agree. My first job was at the local NEC America plant (Japanese management), where - I kid you not - I was hired as a token white engineer with no real responsibility to fill _their_ diversity quota. I left that job in under a year because it was humiliating. 

I have never seen anyone in my industry ever fired for cause - neither men, nor women, nor anyone of color. The herd thinning happens when the economic cycle dictates a layoff, and it is almost without exception performance related, unless it's political. By far most of the employees let go are white men because they make up the vast majority of the employee base. No one saves them a job unless they've shown that they can do that job, not in this industry. 

No one has ever given me a job because I was a man. No qualified woman was passed over for hiring or a promotion because I was in her way. I am no superman, I try very hard not to be arrogant, but dammit, I have *earned* my position in life through hard work, and I will not be denied the respect that comes from that effort. The one true hurdle that I did not have to overcome was living in a sea of crime and poverty, which is the REAL albatross around your neck when it comes to opportunity. 

I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh, but I think you overestimate the role that white male privilege plays in the lives of some of us who were born with a Y chromosome in this era.


----------



## Pooh Bear

'CuseGal said:


> OK, if we accept that there are problems because adult males/fathers raise their sons to share their mindsets which are apparently all about how women are somehow less important than men and therefore should be treated any way a man wants to treat them, I offer you this question:
> 
> Current statistics show that more than HALF of all children in the United States are being raised by single mothers (yeah - that's sad). Considering how a woman BECOMES a single mother (doesn't generally involve a particularly NICE guy), I'm going to guess that a lot of them don't like men very much and probably communicate this to their kids (guilty and not particularly proud of it). So what kind of attitude is going to exist in 20 years when these boys who have been raised by single mothers who don't like men are grown up and starting to be leaders in our society?


I don't know. I have no evidence of this but it seems if men grow up with mothers who do not value them they hate women. I can't imagine that all single mothers hate their sons though. Maybe some do but if they hate a child solely because of the dead-beat dad, wouldn't they hate the girls? I can't imagine hating your child whether their dad is an a$$ or not. The love that I have for my son has nothing to do with his Dad. I love him so much it hurts.


----------



## jld

Your work ethic is impressive, Cletus, and definitely something to be proud of.


----------



## Cletus

jld said:


> Your work ethic is impressive, Cletus, and definitely something to be proud of.


Thank you. I always thought it was just the way you did things.


----------



## jld

Cletus said:


> Thank you. I always thought it was just the way you did things.


It is, for people without family or gov't support.


----------



## that.girl

'CuseGal said:


> OK, if we accept that there are problems because adult males/fathers raise their sons to share their mindsets which are apparently all about how women are somehow less important than men and therefore should be treated any way a man wants to treat them, I offer you this question:
> 
> Current statistics show that more than HALF of all children in the United States are being raised by single mothers (yeah - that's sad). Considering how a woman BECOMES a single mother (doesn't generally involve a particularly NICE guy), I'm going to guess that a lot of them don't like men very much and probably communicate this to their kids (guilty and not particularly proud of it). So what kind of attitude is going to exist in 20 years when these boys who have been raised by single mothers who don't like men are grown up and starting to be leaders in our society?


I'm a single mom, and i love men. There's one in particular i'm not too fond of, but i don't even speak poorly of him in front of my kids. 

Saying single moms hate men is just as bad as many of the other huge generalizations made on this thread.


----------



## GusPolinski

DanaS said:


> ...I am also 6 months pregnant.


Well, I hope it's not a boy.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Cletus said:


> Without being angry at you, I can honestly say that this is a monstrously demeaning thing to say.
> 
> I graduated valedictorian from my high school class of 400 back in the day when there was only 1. I am the first in my family to ever go to college. I paid for school by working two full time jobs in the summer and 30 hours/week during the school year without a dime of support from my parents. My now-wife came over to my house to find two packages of Top Ramen on the shelf one day, as I didn't have the money to go grocery shopping. I was held up at gunpoint 3 times during the night shift and no one on the other end of the barrel cared a whit about the color of my skin or if I peed standing up. I graduated with honors in a difficult degree program that washes out more people than it graduates. I have a history of exemplary performance reviews. I rise to the top of every group I have ever worked with.
> 
> Did the women have to prove themselves more than I did? No. They had to learn the material, pass the tests, get the grades and make the cut or go home. Those that did found a virtual army of recruiters beating down their doors to give them a job. The first two of my graduating class to be offered jobs were women, both of whom I had vastly out-performed academically.
> 
> I have proven myself at so much more than a "certain extent" than you can possibly imagine, and none of this came because I was a white male. I will concede the privilege of being born with a modicum of brains in the USA as the primary dice roll that allowed me this opportunity, but if you think my penis played an outsized role in that success, I cannot agree. My first job was at the local NEC America plant (Japanese management), where - I kid you not - I was hired as a token white engineer with no real responsibility to fill _their_ diversity quota. I left that job in under a year because it was humiliating.
> 
> I have never seen anyone in my industry ever fired for cause - neither men, nor women, nor anyone of color. The herd thinning happens when the economic cycle dictates a layoff, and it is almost without exception performance related, unless it's political. By far most of the employees let go are white men because they make up the vast majority of the employee base. No one saves them a job unless they've shown that they can do that job, not in this industry.
> 
> No one has ever given me a job because I was a man. No qualified woman was passed over for hiring or a promotion because I was in her way. I am no superman, I try very hard not to be arrogant, but dammit, I have *earned* my position in life through hard work, and I will not be denied the respect that comes from that effort. The one true hurdle that I did not have to overcome was living in a sea of crime and poverty, which is the REAL albatross around your neck when it comes to opportunity.
> 
> I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh, but I think you overestimate the role that white male privilege plays in the lives of some of us who were born with a Y chromosome in this era.


I am not trying to diminish your accomplishments by what I said. They are admirable and you should be proud. Yet, how many girls are not in your field because they were told girls are not good at math or science. And your field makes good money.

I have good friend who is an engineer and she is probably about 10 years older than I am. I am 42. She said when she first started in the field, her boss took her into his office and said he doesn't trust women for this sort of work but she was hired by so and so for such and such a reason. I can't remember. By the end of her time there he was complimenting her. But he kind of set it up at the beginning as like I don't trust that you can do this job. Which means she had to go above and beyond. Which she did because she's awesome but there would not have been that expectation if she had been a white man. Have you heard Neil de Grasse Tyson talk about his struggles trying to make it in his field? You should. He said he made it despite all the barriers that were placed in his way. Starting with a teacher in high school telling him that science was probably not the best field for him. He responded to a question asking about whether men were just naturally better at science. It's on youtube, you can google it if you want. 

It is not easy to see our privilege. That is why it is so easy to discount that we have it. I have white privilege, and I have to rely on others or my experience with people of color to tell me about their experience. I dated a black man when I was younger and he was stopped by the police a couple times. One was for registration and one was for a light out, so they were justified. Yet both times we were stopped the police officer asked for my id although I was not the driver. I gave a little push back but not a lot. And he would never have pushed back because he was a really sweet guy. Maybe a year later I was no longer with him and I was hanging out with a white guy. He refused to change a light on his car and we were stopped three times for the same light. Not once did a police officer ask for my id. Not once. That was very significant to me. It said that there was some harrassement going on by the police with my ex. There also seemed to be no problem that he was stopped three times for the same light. Not so sure that that wouldn't have been an issues with my ex-boyfriend.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> Not by MLK.


No, not by Dr. King and not by those who truly understood his message and took it to heart. 

As I've already point out though, he was one of many voices at the time and to pretend that he was the only voice or even always the principal voice is pure revisionism.


----------



## Catherine602

Pooh Bear said:


> I'm not sure how you can say women have as much privilege as men. We have never had a woman President. Although there are more women in Congress than there have ever been, it is not even close to being equal. The Supreme Court has more women than there has ever been, 3. That is only a third. If we do go into politics, the question is generally asked how we will take care of the kids. If we go to a Christian church God is male. There are churches who refuse to ordain women. We always have to fight for reproductive rights. We are rarely believed in the cases of rape. We are generally blamed in the cases of domestic violence. There is pressure on women to be stay at home moms and then stay at home moms are judged. Single moms are judged as lazy good for nothings. Women have to be nice even in job settings and then we are blamed if we are not getting paid equally because we are not agressive enough.
> 
> Little Deer posted a good list. You might want to look at it.
> 
> I know that men and women sustain the power structure in the society but we are not always aware of our privilege or inequality. And some of us, men and women included, are just more comfortable with the way things are.


I believe women have the vote now. If women want a female president, why do they vote against their own interest? There have been woman candidates for office on the local, state and national level. They reach a certain level and then stay there. Why are Hillary Clinton's looks of such a an interest to the electorate? She is an eminently intelligent and hard working woman. One of the most talented and able politicians on the national stage. Instead of excitement, there are comments about her looks. Women are insignificant when they are no longer deemed fvckable. Who supports that cultural norm? One hint - ultra conservatives are virulently mysogenistic yet they get over 40% of the female vote. Oppression does not follow women into the voting booth, does it? 

I am not blaming women for the situation we find ourselves in. I have had bad things happen to me because I am a woman - I have been touched by strangers on trains and buses, had rude things said to me even when I am with my children, approached by old married men as if i was a vj waiting for their attention. They do it because they can. They get away with it. Women are 51% of the population. We vote, we are now well educated, we are in positions to legislate and advocate but my life gets no better. I have to carry a stratigically placed backpack to take a damn train and watch my perimeter at all times. I can't even tell my husband. He would get so worked up that he would urge me to stop working. There are more laws in place now to prevent assult but it is still common. 

These things exist for women. We have to be careful how we dress, where we walk, how we enjoy sex, how we look, our age and weight. I'm not a victim but I am very challenged and stressed by the status quo. Waiting for men to see the light is only 1/2 of the equation. Women are finally able to scribe our own orbits. Let see if we can think outside of the box. Stop blaming men and ourselves for the bad things. We need a team approach. That means we recognize the tremendous capacity for good in men and women and work to make it live.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus

Catherine602 said:


> We need a team approach. That means we recognize the tremendous capacity for good in men and women and work to make it live.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


True enough. Male privilege has it's history so far back in the mists of time when might made right that we can't even as a species remember it.

Time for you women to start flexing your collective muscle. Personally, I look forward to it, because I don't find it at all frightening. I think you women could probably do a better job of running the show anyway, truth be told.


Like Robin Williams used to say - Put a woman in the White House, and we could do away with war, but there would still be very intense negotiations every 28 days.


----------



## jld

Cletus, just curious based on your other post, did you pay for college for your kids?


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> No, not by Dr. King and not by those who truly understood his message and took it to heart.
> 
> As I've already point out though, he was one of many voices at the time and to pretend that he was the only voice or even the principal voice is pure revisionism.


I wasn't talking about other takes on civil rights. I was talking about him. I think he probably made the most lasting change. I could be wrong. And he did it non-violently. I was responding to a specific question. I was not talking about the whole civil rights movement.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I believe women have the vote now. If women want a female president, why do they vote against their own interest?
*
You're right. We do do that. We are raised in this society, too. We are raised to believe that women are not as capable too. So it is a matter of all of us working to become aware of our unconcious actions and to teach our kids differently.

*We need a team approach. That means we recognize the tremendous capacity for good in men and women and work to make it live.*

I agree. We need men and women working together to change things.


----------



## Cletus

jld said:


> Cletus, just curious based on your other post, did you pay for college for your kids?


Partially. It's hard to work 30 hours/week and get 40 hours/week of class time and homework done, I acknowledge that. So we struck a deal with my children. We would pay tuition and books to a state school (I'm also not a believer in private colleges as a good value for the dollar), and they could stay home and commute to school if they chose, but we live 30 miles from town. 

Spending money, rent, and food if they wanted to live independently (which both ultimately did) was their responsibility. They needed to have some stake in their education lest they decide to just fritter away four years of their life. 

Both are still in school now - my daughter will graduate with a degree in Biology (no one ever told her to shy away from the sciences, but she decided her original choice of Pediatrician was not for her) and my son in Computer Science.


----------



## ConanHub

If everything was ruled and controlled by women, there would be no more war because everyone would be dead.


----------



## sisters359

ConanHub, that's just plain stupid. But I don't want to get side-tracked.

First, it's wrong to assume that b/c some women may not "like" men, that they are doing anything to shift the balance of power toward equality or even toward women. The problem is not "men" at all; it's patriarchy--especially the set of assumptions so rooted in Western (and most other) Culture that it will take generations to un-root them. 

Second, feminism began as a movement for equality--and anyone who claims to be a feminist but thinks "women are superior" is not a true feminist. Equality means respecting an individual without making assumptions about that person b/c of their sex, race, religion, etc. This is extremely hard to do b/c our assumptions are so entrenched that we do not even realize we are making assumptions. The idea that women are more gentle, etc., is a form of sexism. It is tied with the history of patriarchy. People just do not appreciate that EVERYTHING we think about men and women is so completely rooted in our social-constructions, and therefore, subject to change. In addition, a vast amount of what people *think* they know about men and women as biological organisms is actually based on "reasoning backwards" from what they see today, without reference to the actual evidence (for example, women's remains have been found at prehistoric hunt sites. Whoa, that's not something most people would expect). 

I hear people saying stupid, sexist s*it all the time and rationalizing it is b/c he or she "is hard-wired that way." 99% of the time, that's just ridiculous. We are hard-wired to breathe, for example, not to mate only with the most attractive specimen of the opposite sex (humans would not have survived as a species if that had been true). So much garbage floats around pretending to be "science" when it is nothing more than poorly-reasoned socio-biology. 

There are so many good men and good women--and there are many, many people who still do not accept that we are equals in all ways, with *all* of the alleged differences attributable to socialization (outside the purely reproductive differences). Accepting that men and be kind, gentle, and fair means accepting that women can be unkind, rough, and inequitable. Accepting that women have been socialized away from many industries means accepting that they are biologically competent to do the same work as men--while differences in strength are real, the truth is that women can do much more than most give them credit for *and* that they would be equally competent at inventing the machinery to help them, had they been socialized to take on the challenges in the first place. 

We are humans, first and foremost, and our world will be a better place only when every human has the right to choose their own path without regards to what is "appropriate" for their age/race/sex, etc. We are so far from that it is not funny. Most women in the world share none of the freedoms many Western women have fought for--and even Western women--and men--continue to be bound by patriarchy. We have such a long way to go, but the good news is, at least we are on our way.


----------



## ConanHub

We do not disagree sisters. I have simply observed a level of brutality and ruthlessness in competitive women and women in power that dwarfs that of men. I was not slamming women. I just strongly disagree that they are more peaceful and restrained in violent tendencies than men.

I am always far more excited watching women fight than men. Women take it to a different level.


----------



## Pooh Bear

sisters359 said:


> ConanHub, that's just plain stupid. But I don't want to get side-tracked.
> 
> First, it's wrong to assume that b/c some women may not "like" men, that they are doing anything to shift the balance of power toward equality or even toward women. The problem is not "men" at all; it's patriarchy--especially the set of assumptions so rooted in Western (and most other) Culture that it will take generations to un-root them.
> 
> Second, feminism began as a movement for equality--and anyone who claims to be a feminist but thinks "women are superior" is not a true feminist. Equality means respecting an individual without making assumptions about that person b/c of their sex, race, religion, etc. This is extremely hard to do b/c our assumptions are so entrenched that we do not even realize we are making assumptions. The idea that women are more gentle, etc., is a form of sexism. It is tied with the history of patriarchy. People just do not appreciate that EVERYTHING we think about men and women is so completely rooted in our social-constructions, and therefore, subject to change. In addition, a vast amount of what people *think* they know about men and women as biological organisms is actually based on "reasoning backwards" from what they see today, without reference to the actual evidence (for example, women's remains have been found at prehistoric hunt sites. Whoa, that's not something most people would expect).
> 
> I hear people saying stupid, sexist s*it all the time and rationalizing it is b/c he or she "is hard-wired that way." 99% of the time, that's just ridiculous. We are hard-wired to breathe, for example, not to mate only with the most attractive specimen of the opposite sex (humans would not have survived as a species if that had been true). So much garbage floats around pretending to be "science" when it is nothing more than poorly-reasoned socio-biology.
> 
> There are so many good men and good women--and there are many, many people who still do not accept that we are equals in all ways, with *all* of the alleged differences attributable to socialization (outside the purely reproductive differences). Accepting that men and be kind, gentle, and fair means accepting that women can be unkind, rough, and inequitable. Accepting that women have been socialized away from many industries means accepting that they are biologically competent to do the same work as men--while differences in strength are real, the truth is that women can do much more than most give them credit for *and* that they would be equally competent at inventing the machinery to help them, had they been socialized to take on the challenges in the first place.
> 
> We are humans, first and foremost, and our world will be a better place only when every human has the right to choose their own path without regards to what is "appropriate" for their age/race/sex, etc. We are so far from that it is not funny. Most women in the world share none of the freedoms many Western women have fought for--and even Western women--and men--continue to be bound by patriarchy. We have such a long way to go, but the good news is, at least we are on our way.


Woohoo! You go girl!


----------



## Pooh Bear

ConanHub said:


> We do not disagree sisters. I have simply observed a level of brutality and ruthlessness in competitive women and women in power that dwarfs that of men. I was not slamming women. I just strongly disagree that they are more peaceful and restrained in violent tendencies than men.
> 
> I am always far more excited watching women fight than men. Women take it to a different level.


That's basically what she said. Basically women can be just as brutal as men. Did you read what she posted?


----------



## ConanHub

Pooh Bear said:


> That's basically what she said. Basically women can be just as brutal as men. Did you read what she posted?


Sure did. I agree with the majority of it. I believe women to be far more intense in certain situations.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma

DanaS said:


> I am only interested in hearing from women since they aren't biased ....


Women don't have a bias about the topic of male privilege?

:lol:


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh, but I think you overestimate the role that white male privilege plays in the lives of some of us who were born with a Y chromosome in this era.


In all fairness, Cletus, I don't think Pooh Bear was saying that you particularly, or white men generally, don't work hard, or haven't earned their positions.

Rather, the point was a response to the implication that affirmative action inevitably leads to the hiring of less qualified employees: women and minorities. 

Just because someone is hired through affirmative action doesn't mean they are less qualified, and just because someone is hired without it doesn't mean that they are moreso, or that they have either the skills or work ethic that you do. You may have been valedictorian, but plenty of your fellow white males would have barely scraped through.

I don't know the Engineering industry at all, but in my field, also a male dominated field, the odds are definitely stacked against women. First, we are told not to even enter the field because clearly we don't have the brains or work ethic to hack it. Second our projects and contributions are often subject to extra scrutiny. So many times, I would be in conference, would make a point that no one listened to, but when buddy at the end of the table repeated it, verbatim, everyone oohed and aahed, "what a great idea." I also had to deal with an endless stream of sexual harassment and innuendo.

So I guess what I'm suggesting is that you may be underestimating the additional challenges that those who lack this privilege face.

That said, I do agree that there are all sorts of privilege, and am not convinced that male privilege is the most potent. Seems to me economic privilege is really what puts you at the top of the heap, probably closely followed by racial privilege.


----------



## tacoma

DanaS said:


> Hold other men accountable! What that means is, if you're around a bunch of guys and they start going off about how they'd like to "screw" or "****" other women, or talking about them as if they're meat, tell them to KNOCK IT OFF!.......


Do you practice what you preach when women do this?

In fact this is quite typical of women.

Men can be crude, women can be crude.

Such is life.


----------



## tacoma

DanaS said:


> Men: Please just stop posting, you don't have anything valuable to add to this conversation and you will always defend men regardless of how badly they treat women.


Sorry doll, posting here is my privilege.

:rofl:


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Seems to me *economic privilege is really what puts you at the top of the heap*, probably closely followed by racial privilege.


Truth.


----------



## tacoma

that.girl said:


> *But that would be female privilege. *And that would lead to men getting hurt and mistreated because women held the power. Are we talking about fairness and equality, or about retribution?


And THAT is what 3rd wave feminism is all about.

Retribution.


----------



## Cletus

jld said:


> Truth.


And probably the winner in a huge landslide. 

A wealthy black man or woman in this country will find most doors still open to them, with a few exceptions for bigoted holdouts. But don't make the mistake of being born too poor, as you may never even see a role model for how to move up. 

All this talk of women being told not to pursue STEM fields is alien to me as well. I know several young women (my daughter and her roommate included) who are getting college degrees of these sort, but I don't know firsthand of any who were discouraged by anyone, unless it was her parents in private. I know for a fact that their teachers were not doing this in the little podunk public school that my children attended nor at the university.


----------



## jld

My daughter is in her second year of chemical engineering. She is at the top of her classes, often the group leader with all the other members being male. At her university there is a lot of encouragement and support for young women in STEM fields.


----------



## tacoma

Cletus said:


> Thank you. I always thought it was just the way you did things.


Sadly it doesn't seem to be the way things are done anymore.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> Sadly it doesn't seem to be the way things are done anymore.


Personally, I would like to see public colleges be tuition-free.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> All this talk of women being told not to pursue STEM fields is alien to me as well. I know several young women (my daughter and her roommate included) who are getting college degrees of these sort, but I don't know firsthand of any who were discouraged by anyone, unless it was her parents in private. I know for a fact that their teachers were not doing this in the little podunk public school that my children attended nor at the university.


It's generational, I think, at least part of it. Nowadays, there are more women than men pursuing university degrees at the undergraduate level, and so the numbers in these male dominated fields are gradually evening out. Also there are/have been a significant number of programs specifically designed to counteract the sexist messages that were "known facts" in my day, actively recruiting women into STEM fields.

Also, women these days are much more likely to assume that they will need to pay their own bills, and look after themselves, and there is usually a lot more money with STEM training, than, say, with English or Art History, where your odds of ending up working as a barista to pay off your school debts are that much higher. No one wants that!


----------



## CantePe

DanaS said:


> Yeah, as WWI and II and the Cold War showed you need men and their primitive neanderthal brain to do that. All wars men have fought have pretty much boiled down to **** waving.
> 
> This is precisely why women should be in charge of society/government so that we won't have wars (could you really see women sending other women into battle to fight other women?) or stupid petty conflicts like the cold war that last decades. Or slavery for that matter.


Women in charge of government and legislation? Have you seen the state of Ontario with a female premier?

It isn't good, that much I can tell you and she is openly lesbian to boot.

Politics, government and legislation doesn't depend on gender. It depends on the morals and agendas of the parties (liberal, republican, democrat, etc)

Makes no difference what is or isn't between their legs when it comes to legislation or government. It is all about personal agenda and what keeps them in power for another 4 years. At least here it does.

As to the original question:

Well male privilege vs female privilege is the true question.

On one side of the debate you have the good old boys screaming bloody murder and then on the other side you have the ultra feminists screaming bloody murder and the true issues get tossed to the side with the right fighters of both sides screaming for their agendas.

There is no balance anymore. There is no mutual respect anymore. There is only personal agendas and right fighters.

It is a simple solution for both sides really, teach our children boundaries, unbiased respect for both themselves and others. It is in our hands to change this screaming match between the genders into productive communication and mutual respect.


----------



## larry.gray

intheory said:


> Why is someone who gathers signatures for a ballot initiative to make the punishment for rape harsher, a "bleeding heart"?


Because if they did nothing it would have stayed the law. They didn't like the new, tougher sentences so they got a do over by getting 5% of the electorate to sign a petition.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> My daughter is in her second year of chemical engineering. She is at the top of her classes, often the group leader with all the other members being male. At her university there is a lot of encouragement and support for young women in STEM fields.


This is happening even in lower grades.

My daughter will be out going into high school next year.

Straight A's(advanced science math classes), Odyssey of the mind world champion, first place science fairs.

She is being heavily recruited by numerous public high schools holding out STEM college scholarship/credit opportunities to go to their school.

PUBLIC high schools..recruiting a 14 year old girl.

They're seriously promoting women in STEM fields hard all the way down to the elementary levels.


----------



## larry.gray

Cletus said:


> All this talk of women being told not to pursue STEM fields is alien to me as well. I know several young women (my daughter and her roommate included) who are getting college degrees of these sort, but I don't know firsthand of any who were discouraged by anyone, unless it was her parents in private.


The only incidence I knew of was a dinosaur of a professor when I was in school. He retired and taught a few classes. He mouthed off to one of the women but she handled it rather well. She cussed him out, and then informed him that she would earn the A, and he would give her the A or we'd all be witnesses to him losing the ability to teach anymore classes.

That's it as far as anything I know personally.



Cletus said:


> I know for a fact that their teachers were not doing this in the little podunk public school that my children attended nor at the university.


Oregon State has a women in STEM program that reaches out to girls in JR high. At no charge they will do an 8 week program where they go down for 4 hours one day a week and learn about all of the programs. They are individually matched with a mentor who is a woman pursuing a degree in a STEM field. 

My daughter went both years in JR high, and has every intention of being an engineer. NOT ONCE has anyone said anything to her. She knows that dad totally has her back if anyone dared to try.


----------



## larry.gray

I fully support the outreach programs for women into STEM fields.

I would also support getting more men into med school. Many med schools are over 70 percent female. Any women with me?


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> My daughter is in her second year of chemical engineering. She is at the top of her classes, often the group leader with all the other members being male. At her university there is a lot of encouragement and support for young women in STEM fields.


Good for her! Chemical Engineering is one of the hard three: Chemical, Electrical and Nuclear. You should be a very proud mamma.


----------



## larry.gray

Pooh Bear said:


> What do you mean by this post larry.gray? In comparison, how many white men work for your company?


It's about 25% white. The head honcho is Indian. Management is about 50% white. We have on site manufacturing and it's mostly Mexican out there.



Pooh Bear said:


> Would you say all (all is the key word) of them are excellent employees? Are women and asians always unqualified in your opinion?


You're inferring something I didn't imply. I cited two anecdotes, and in those cases we didn't hire the most qualified person. 

The first hire I had like this also came with the stipulation that no women or non-asian minorities would be laid off. This guy wouldn't do his job and knew he didn't have to. Then we get a new CEO and he ends the BS. My boss fired the guy ASAP when the (unwritten) policy went away.

The second one isn't unqualified, just not the best of the pool. She does OK.

I will re-quote part of that above:




Pooh Bear said:


> Are women and *asians *always unqualified in your opinion?



When people misconstrue what I said, I always go back and re-read to make sure I was clear. This one is a bit tough because it requires a double negation:



larry.gray said:


> I've had an HR person stop by in person and tell me that I would only be hiring a female or a non-white, non-asian male for an opening I had.


My instruction was: don't hire Asians. We have too many.




Pooh Bear said:


> So the only way they could possibly get jobs is because of affirmative action?


That, my dear, is a straw man. 

It isn't what I said. You take my position to the extreme so you can whack what I say. The pure definition of a straw man argument.

All I'm saying is that the ONLY gender discrimination I've seen in person in hiring, retaining and firing was anti-male.

The only racial discrimination I've seen in person in hiring, retaining and firing was anti-Asian, anti-white racism.



Pooh Bear said:


> It is not my understanding that affirmative action breaks requirements up by gender or different races. You just have to hire a certain percentage of non-white or female people. However, that is nowhere near 50 per cent.


Affirmative action is illegal for private employers in the United States. A company that has a prior history of overt discrimination against a protected class can be ordered to employ affirmative action for a limited time. A company doing it of their own volition because they don't like the gender or racial balance can be subject to stiff penalties.


----------



## tacoma

larry.gray said:


> Oregon State has a women in STEM program that reaches out to girls in JR high. At no charge they will do an 8 week program where they go down for 4 hours one day a week and learn about all of the programs. They are individually matched with a mentor who is a woman pursuing a degree in a STEM field.


USF has a similar program here my daughter was in last year.


----------



## Catherine602

tacoma said:


> Do you practice what you preach when women do this?
> 
> In fact this is quite typical of women.
> 
> Men can be crude, women can be crude.
> 
> Such is life.





tacoma said:


> Sorry doll, posting here is my privilege.
> 
> :rofl:





tacoma said:


> And THAT is what 3rd wave feminism is all about.
> 
> Retribution.





tacoma said:


> Sadly it doesn't seem to be the way things are done anymore.


This. Does it really matter what she or other women do? Do you do that because it's the right thing to do. Or not because you think women don't do it. There are many very supportive women on this forum. They are as supportive towards men as towards women. I am surprised that you don't honor them by being supportive as well. What you do and say does matter. You influence people around you and they in turn influence others. That's leadership and responsibility. 

The women who are posting are just expressing how they feel. It's not an accusation or attack. How could anyone accuse you of hurting women? You care enough to be here to do all you can to express your love for a woman you committed to. 

I think you are angry because you the things read are upsetting and you cannot bear the possibility that you are not protecting the women in your life. You have little in the way of an actionable plan. So you get angry instead of worried. 

What women are saying here is important for men to hear. Why shut down communication because it's not what you want to hear? If you are not open to hearing what may be unpleasant in the lives of the woman you love, they will stop telling you. If you pull out all of your grievances in response then communication will shut down completely. She stops talking and she stops listening.


----------



## Maricha75

In fact, Catherine, I called her out myself, just as Tacoma did. So does my post mean just as little as his? Dana started this thread and bashed men, stating they had nothing significant to say. She implies that men are horrible... except, of course, her own husband. So, my question is this: why is what SHE has to say any more important than what the MEN have said? It isn't. One is JUST as important as the other. In this case, the majority of what I have seen, I am inclined to follow the men's examples. Dana has shown nothing that even closely resembles my husband nor my sons. But she has certainly given an example of what I do NOT want my daughter to become!


----------



## Catherine602

I am sorry Maricha75 You are right I was not rigorous and did not read the entire thread. I will do so and respond.

I certainly did not mean to say that Tacoma post means nothing. They do to me. My response was meant to challenge him not demean him.


----------



## Catherine602

Maricha75 said:


> In fact, Catherine, I called her out myself, just as Tacoma did. So does my post mean just as little as his? Dana started this thread and bashed men, stating they had nothing significant to say. She implies that men are horrible... except, of course, her own husband. So, my question is this: why is what SHE has to say any more important than what the MEN have said? It isn't. One is JUST as important as the other. In this case, the majority of what I have seen, I am inclined to follow the men's examples. Dana has shown nothing that even closely resembles my husband nor my sons. But she has certainly given an example of what I do NOT want my daughter to become!


I didn't mean to single Tacoma out exclusively. But I like to ague with him because he does not back down. That is not to say that there are others just like him. Maybe it's the red peace symbol. It's so incongruous to some of the things he post.  

I realize that I did address Dana directly. It exposes one of my biases. I just hate to criticizes women. I am very hard on myself and I know so many women who are. I see myself a few years ago in her anger and bias. Something happened to Dana that makes her angry and provocative. Maybe she will say what it is.


----------



## tacoma

Catherine602 said:


> This. Does it really matter what she or other women do?


Yes it does matter.
It matters because the new feminism isn't about equality at all.
It is about retribution.
The OP of this thread isn't pushing for womens rights, she's pushing for male subjugation as is apparent in her hypocrisy (which is what I was pointing out)



> There are many very supportive women on this forum. They are as supportive towards men as towards women. I am surprised that you don't honor them by being supportive as well.


Please point to a single comment of mine which is unsupportive of gender equality.

if you cannot then you are simply making **** up ...again. 



> The women who are posting are just expressing how they feel. It's not an accusation or attack. How could anyone accuse you of hurting women? You care enough to be here to do all you can to express your love for a woman you committed to.


You are incorrect.
For one, I have not replied to a single woman here other than the OP.
If you cannot see how the OP is accusatory and combative then there is nothing I can do to clarify her intentions for you.

She and her ideology are the problem, not the solution.
She and her ideology lead good ethical people to leave the feminist movement due extremism.
I will not self identify as a feminist because of what her 3rd wave ideology has done to the movement.
I know many many people who reject the sane egalitarian wing of feminist movement because they fear association with the OP's extreme subjugative interpretation of feminism.



> I think you are angry because you the things read are upsetting and you cannot bear the possibility that you are not protecting the women in your life. You have little in the way of an actionable plan. So you get angry instead of worried.


I am angry because what the OP espouses disgusts me.
It is evil and contemptable and deserves the derision I and others throw at it.

I have told you many times where I stand on this issue over the past few years and it is not at all far from your own stance yet here you are once again spouting the same old vacant canards we've put to rest in dozens of threads as if you know nothing of me or my beliefs.


----------



## Catherine602

tacoma said:


> Yes it does matter.
> It matters because the new feminism isn't about equality at all.
> It is about retribution.
> The OP of this thread isn't pushing for womens rights, she's pushing for male subjugation as is apparent in her hypocrisy (which is what I was pointing out)
> 
> Please point to a single comment of mine which is unsupportive of gender equality.
> 
> if you cannot then you are simply making **** up ...again.
> 
> You are incorrect.
> For one, I have not replied to a single woman here other than the OP.
> If you cannot see how the OP is accusatory and combative then there is nothing I can do to clarify her intentions for you.
> 
> She and her ideology are the problem, not the solution.
> She and her ideology lead good ethical people to leave the feminist movement due extremism.
> I will not self identify as a feminist because of what her 3rd wave ideology has done to the movement.
> I know many many people who reject the sane egalitarian wing of feminist movement because they fear association with the OP's extreme subjugative interpretation of feminism.
> 
> I am angry because what the OP espouses disgusts me.
> It is evil and contemptable and deserves the derision I and others throw at it.
> 
> I have told you many times where I stand on this issue over the past few years and it is not at all far from your own stance yet here you are once again spouting the same old vacant canards we've put to rest in dozens of threads as if you know nothing of me or my beliefs.


She provoked some people, yourself included. I doubt that she is strong or reasonable enough to carry off any women on a feminist wave of any denomination. Dana is not a feminist, she is troubled.

What vacant canard. (had to look that up). You should not say "there you go again" without telling me where I've been. It's confusing.


----------



## tacoma

Catherine602 said:


> She provoked some people, yourself included. I doubt that she is strong or reasonable enough to carry off any women on a feminist wave of any denomination. Dana is troubled.


True, very true but she's not alone .
There is an entire movement of these types of "feminists" out there right now.
I don't think we can blame "personal issues" on all of it.



> What vacant canard. (had to look that up).


<Sigh>
I don't want to argue with you Catherine, I like you.
It just seems you and I are always butting heads in these womens rights threads and it frustrates me because we have nearly identical beliefs on the subject .


----------



## EleGirl

larry.gray said:


> *IF?*
> 
> I've worked for two different huge companies now. At both employers, I've had an HR person stop by in person and tell me that I would only be hiring a female or a non-white, non-asian male for an opening I had.
> 
> No, they won't put it in writing, or in an email, voice mail or any other format. It's highly illegal to do what they are doing. I was just told that if I didn't play ball, I'd have trouble at performance review time.
> 
> I played ball. One time we hired a woman, and she was OK but there were better in the pool. The other time it was a A-A male and he sucked at his job. He was so far from the best it was sad. Now if some defense attorney ever disposes me, I will name persons, dates and times.
> 
> No what I do love is when the asians get wind of it. They get lividly pissed. Welcome to the club of the unwanted buddy.
> 
> Do I think it's hurt me much? Probably not. What bothers me more is the work disruptions it causes.


Yet I've been working at major engineering firms for decades. 5 different companies. I interview and hire engineers and other high tech people all the time. 

I have never once been told to hire based on race, gender/sex, ethnicity, etc. The only criteria we ever use is a person's qualifications and how they interviewed.

I guess it's different depending on where on works.

Now I do know of an insurance company that, in the last 2 years, has fired every woman who held a position of responsibility.. like the head of IT for one. The CEO replaced them all with men. Not only did the CEO fire all the women, but he announced his intentions to do this when he took over as CEO.


----------



## always_alone

larry.gray said:


> The only incidence I knew of was a dinosaur of a professor when I was in school. He retired and taught a few classes. He mouthed off to one of the women but she handled it rather well. She cussed him out, and then informed him that she would earn the A, and he would give her the A or we'd all be witnesses to him losing the ability to teach anymore classes.
> 
> That's it as far as anything I know personally.


This is very blatant, but I can guarantee that it was not an isolated incident, nor was it the one professor. There were also lots of more subtle and insidious incidents as well, but as they didn't affect you directly, you probably didn't notice.


----------



## always_alone

larry.gray said:


> I fully support the outreach programs for women into STEM fields.
> 
> I would also support getting more men into med school. Many med schools are over 70 percent female. Any women with me?


No doubt that the education system is failing boys, but I'm not so sure yours is the best solution. There is no tradition telling men they are not smart enough to become doctors, or directing them into support (nursing) roles. There is no one suggesting they will be less masculine or less desirable to women if they pursue this avenue. There are no real obstacles standing in their way, and it is really only the last few years that they have been outnumbered by their female counterparts.

I think something needs to be done, but am not convinced this is the best solution.


----------



## Ikaika

larry.gray said:


> I fully support the outreach programs for women into STEM fields.
> 
> I would also support getting more men into med school. Many med schools are over 70 percent female. Any women with me?




Sorry a bit off point: 
What I would be for is anyone, male or female, recruited into medical school (based on the current stringent standards) free of charge if they made the commitment to enter into and stay in the general medicine residency practice. I would also be changing the pedagogy this education program to provide a stronger preventative medicine core. 
End Jack.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> ….I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh, but I think you overestimate the role that white male privilege plays in the lives of some of us who were born with a Y chromosome in this era.


I’m noting the following to attack you or to disrespect you. You have worked hard, excelled and earned everything you have. You have a lot to be proud of.

I just want to address how, from my life experience, this has all affected me on the financial and job/career front. 

Cletus, I could have written basically the same thing that you wrote in your long post about myself and how I got to where I am. Except I will have to add a few things.

When I started college I also had to work fulltime to support myself and to pay for tuition, etc. At the time I wanted to major in engineering. However, I was denied enrollment in engineering and higher level math classes because I was told that women don't do that.

I during while in college. My husband had an intracranial aneurism on our first anniversary. So I had to drop out of school and support us. I supporting both of us and paying his medical bills. I worked at Montgomery Wards full time selling service agreements for large appliances. My sales were 4 times what the man who had the job before me sold. Yet I earned half of what he earned. He was paid hourly and got a commission on every sale. I was paid only hourly at the lowest wage that Monkey Ward paid. I know what the guy before me made and what his sales were because I found his sales records and his pay stubs in the file cabinet next to my desk. 

When I went to my manager to ask that I be paid a commission and get a raise, he told me that they paid the other guy more because he was a man. He did not have to pay a woman as much. I then went to the manager of the appliance department, showed him my sales records and asked I he’d give me a shot at selling appliances. Selling appliances paid a high commission. His reply to me was that no one would buy an appliance from a woman. 

I made $250 a month to support us and pay my husband’s thousands of dollars of medical bills. No one would give me a chance at a job that paid more. Eventually my husband died. By then I was 26. I joined the Army. 

When I got out of the Army after 4 years, I was 30 and had the GI Bill. Between working half time as counselor to help other vets get their benefits, the GI Bill and loans I Was able to go back to college, rent a place and buy a dilapidated VW square back.

By then things had changed some. I was allowed to enroll in the engineering and math classes. I had to wait 10 years before I was even allowed to do this. I graduated with a BS and then went into an MS program. During the MS program I still had the GI Bill and I worked as a teaching assistant. After that I was hired into an engineering firm where I was paid half (1/2) of what the men with the same level of experience and education that I had.

In that first job as an engineer I had some problems because the male engineers would do things like put a pile of paper on my desk and tell me to copy them… “get me 5 copies”. In meetings, the male engineers would ask me to make them coffee. You get the jest. Now I had a way of handling this stuff.

Copies? I was not about to get into the “how dare you ask me to do this” nonsense. I just shuffled their papers and then made the copies. After a few times of that, no one ever again asked me to do things like make copies. When one of them complained, my response was “Well they don’t have a course in copiers in the master’s program. I’m so sorry.” And then I batted my baby blues at them. 

Coffee? I but 3-4 times as much coffee grinds in that were needed. When the guys could not drink it, I’d say something like “I’m sorry. At home my husband makes the coffee. I don’t drink it so I don’t really know how to make it.” After that at a few meetings they stopped asking me to do the coffee and hostess chores.

I’ve been working as an engineer for 33 years now. Not once have I been hired because of some quota. The companies that I have worked for do not use quotas. It’s hard enough to find anyone who can do the work we do. We don’t need quotas. In more recent years (like the last 20) we have had people of both genders, many races and ethnic background working with us.

Today my pay is closer to that of the males with the same education and experience. From things I’ve heard people say, I don’t think it’s equal. But it’s a firing offence to tell anyone what you earn. So we have no way to know. We have women who have made it to almost every level, though it’s far from 50% of because there are fewer women in the technical fields. But even in the non-technical fields in our company the percentage of women in higher levels is very low, it’s especially low when compared to the overall percentage of women in those fields.

I don’t see the incompetent women and minorities that some here seem to feel they are obligated to claim to be the majority of women and minorities. Yes there is an occasional incompetent that we run into. There tend to be more incompetent men (white men) because there are just far more white males working with us. They are seldom dealt with. Instead the competent employees pick up what the incompetent don’t do. What happens to the incompetents? Some eventually leave when everyone figures out that they are incompetent. Others spend most of their time kiss management a$$ and get promoted… hopefully they are promoted to another site and become someone else’s problems.

My point in all this? I, like you worked my behind off to get to where I am. Unlike you I was not just allowed to do what I wanted to. Working my behind off was not enough. Being competent and excelling was not enough.

I had to wait for major changes in society until I was even allowed to enroll in the major I wanted. That took about 10 years. I had to deal with attitudes like not being allowed to do jobs because I was a woman, having male co-workers trying to diss me by trying to turn me into their copy clerk and coffee maker. I was paid for less than the males with the same level of education and experience for over 2 decades. So that’s 30 years… 10 years of being denied access to the major I wanted and about 20 years of being seriously paid less than the men who did the exact same thing I did with the same level of experience and education. 30 years when I was held back just because I am a woman.

Sitting here, writing this, I’m getting pretty pissed off right now. 30 years…. That’s a long time.

So you see, from where I’m sitting… having a penis would have been a great help to me. I would have far more money in assets right now. Far more for retirement right now. Not having a penis had a HUGE impact on my life financially. And this is only the financial difference that it would have made to me.


----------



## EleGirl

Catherine602 said:


> ......
> 
> Waiting for men to see the light is only 1/2 of the equation. Women are finally able to scribe our own orbits. Let see if we can think outside of the box. Stop blaming men and ourselves for the bad things. We need a team approach. That means we recognize the tremendous capacity for good in men and women and work to make it live.


Part of the issue in why we are not as far as I would have hoped is that making such wide spread changes in society takes a long time. When I look at the changes that have occurred since I was a child, they are HUGE. Looking back from my grandmother's time (she was born in the late 1800's), it's like a completely different planet.

Women had to get to the point we are at right now first. We had to get to the point where we opened up opportunities in society, education, the work force, politics, etc. be before we can move to the next stage. We've come a long way but we have a lot more ground to cover.

The next stage is when both men and women will willingly vote for females in political office, to include the presidency. When a woman's idea and accomplishments are discussed instead of her looks and her age. 

What worries me is that there is a lot of pressure to stop the progress and to end working towards it.

I hear so many young women (and men) say that it's all silly and not needed because equality has been achieved.

I read on places like TAM and other forums that I have participated on that all the work is done. Women are now just trying to take rights away from men. Women basically need to shut up and be glad that we are allowed what we are allowed right now. I can point to a few threads here on TAM in the last few months where this is what many of the men were saying. These types of threads have popped up here on TAM regularly every so often. But the most resent ones have been the ones that I have found to be the most disturbing.

Women and men who believe in true equality have accomplished a lot in the last 150 years. But there is a lot more that has to be done.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Sure did. I agree with the majority of it. I believe women to be far more intense in certain situations.


Yet most violence is committed by men. 

So that defies what you say about women being more brutal or taking it to a higher level.

It's very rare for women to physically fight each other. If you see two women physically fighting it's probably because they have mental health issues... BPD comes to mind. But there are other disorders that make people more violent than the norm.

If you take two guys who are equally as mentally disturbed, you will most likely get the same level of violence and brutality.

We can also go to war to look at the level of brutality... when was the last time we saw a woman burn someone alive in a cage? Or lop off the heads of hundreds of adults and even children? Yet we have an entire Army of men right now doing that. 

We can go back in history and look at what war was like.. where hordes of men (called Armies... whether run by war lords or states) went into towns and killed every living thing, raped the women and children, beating them to ta pulp and then either leaving them to die of their injuries are finally killing them.


Look at the violence in some of our cities. Who is doing that... very little of it do done by women.

Now I remember girls fighting in junior high and high school when I was in the USA. It was a lot of screaming, scratching, hair pulling. Oddly, it was also a lot of ripping clothing off. I often wondered if it was just two girls who found a way to flash the guys .. did they just want the attention of the guys so they staged these stupid cat rights.

Women are not usually taught to wrestle, or box, or martial arts. So they fight like cats. 

Now I was taught to wrestle, box and martial arts. So I fight like a guy. It's all about socialization.


----------



## EleGirl

'CuseGal said:


> OK, if we accept that there are problems because adult males/fathers raise their sons to share their mindsets which are apparently all about how women are somehow less important than men and therefore should be treated any way a man wants to treat them, I offer you this question:
> 
> Current statistics show that more than HALF of all children in the United States are being raised by single mothers (yeah - that's sad). Considering how a woman BECOMES a single mother (doesn't generally involve a particularly NICE guy), I'm going to guess that a lot of them don't like men very much and probably communicate this to their kids (guilty and not particularly proud of it). So what kind of attitude is going to exist in 20 years when these boys who have been raised by single mothers who don't like men are grown up and starting to be leaders in our society?


I don't think that most single moms hate men and teach their children to hate men. Now they might be angry with the father of their children. But that's one guy.

If you hold such negative feelings about men because of how some men treated you, then why not get into some counseling and deal with it? There is free counseling available.


----------



## EleGirl

larry.gray said:


> I fully support the outreach programs for women into STEM fields.
> 
> I would also support getting more men into med school. Many med schools are over 70 percent female. Any women with me?




From the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges)
As in past years, the total number of men and women applying to and enrolling in medical school is fairly equally split, with male enrollees accounting for approximately 53 percent and female enrollees accounting for 47 percent of the 2013 class. In addition to the increase in first-time female applicants, the total number of men applying to medical school increased 5.8 percent from 24,338 applicants in 2012 to 25,760 male applicants in 2013. 

https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/358410/20131024.html

The report below is interesting. For example female physicians earn about 66% of what male physicians earn. :scratchhead:

http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinMedicalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf


----------



## EleGirl

larry.gray said:


> I fully support the outreach programs for women into STEM fields.
> 
> I would also support getting more men into med school. Many med schools are over 70 percent female. Any women with me?


It looks like your 70% figure is way off. According to the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) the number of males and females in medical school are about equal.


As in past years, the total number of men and women applying to and enrolling in medical school is fairly equally split, with male enrollees accounting for approximately 53 percent and female enrollees accounting for 47 percent of the 2013 class. In addition to the increase in first-time female applicants, the total number of men applying to medical school increased 5.8 percent from 24,338 applicants in 2012 to 25,760 male applicants in 2013. 

https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/358410/20131024.html

The report below is interesting. For example female physicians earn about 66% of what male physicians earn. :scratchhead:

http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinMedicalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
People see the barriers that they have faced themselves, but often not the ones other have faced. Maybe you had a professor who didn't want you in his class because "women just stay an home and have babies". Maybe you were told that "our daughter isn't going to marry some New York Jew". Or maybe you find yourself sitting alone in your office while all the white guys go out to lunch without ever inviting you. Or maybe you notice that only Indians get promoted at your company. Maybe you were fired for being too attractive and distracting the engineers. Maybe you couldn't finish college because your wealthy father decided not to pay for college, even though he easily could have, and you couldn't get financial aid because of your family income. Maybe your "perfect" wealthy family hid alcoholism, addiction and sexual abuse. 

I talk to many people, and all these stories happened. But most people don't see these things happening to other people. 

There are certainly people with more privilege than others. That privilege follows patterns but it is far from universal. If you are a white male from a 1st world country, odds are that you had a lot of advantages - but it isn't always the case. 

Many people - maybe most people have faced some serious problems in their lives - and to brand them as "privileged" may be to discredit those problems.


----------



## GusPolinski

tacoma said:


> The OP of this thread isn't pushing for womens rights, *she's pushing for male subjugation as is apparent in her hypocrisy*


Hmm... I wonder if this would bring about "death by snu snu" as a form of capital punishment...?

:smthumbup:


----------



## EleGirl

Boys vs. girls: What’s behind the college grad genderÂ gap? - Fortune

Boys vs. girls: What's behind the college grad gender gap?

Why do more women than men earn college degrees? The reasons are complex, but new research suggests that money plays a big role.

FORTUNE — The facts are plain, if puzzling: Not only do women enter college at higher rates than men, but they’re less likely to drop out once they get there. Female grads now account for about 60% of U.S. bachelor’s degree holders.

Does that mean men are less studious or committed than women are?

Not necessarily. Instead, it seems the gender gap’s roots are partly financial: Men are less willing to take on the heavy debt loads that are increasingly required to complete a college degree. When they reach the point of owing $12,500 in school loans, men “are more likely to be discouraged” than women — and to decide it makes sense to leave school and start working full-time.

That’s according to a new study, “Gender, Debt, and Dropping Out of College,” published in a recent issue of the journal Gender & Society. The researchers, three professors from Ohio State University and Pacific Lutheran University, analyzed data from a national longitudinal study of youth from 1997 to 2011, funded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that included interviews with about 9,000 men and women in their 20s.

It turns out that persistent wage gaps in the labor market play a big part in motivating women to finish school. In the short term, men who drop out face no financial penalty in their entry-level salaries. Women, on the other hand, pay a steep price right away for dropping out, since female dropouts earn entry-level pay that averages $6,500 a year lower than what their male counterparts earn.

“Female dropouts simply face worse job prospects,” the authors observe. “They are more likely to be employed in lower-paying service work, while men who drop out have more opportunities in higher-paying jobs in manufacturing, construction, and transportation.”

True, but parents of college-age kids may want to emphasize one further finding: Male dropouts’ earnings advantages are short-lived. While men who leave college before graduating “don’t face a wage penalty early on, the penalty accumulates later,” the study notes. “By middle age, men with a college degree earn $20,000 a year more, on average, than men with some college but no degree.”

An unwillingness to pile on debt when they could be making money may explain why more men quit school, but what accounts for the fact that fewer men start college in the first place? In a new book called The Rise of Women: The Growing Gender Gap in Education and What It Means for American Schools, Thomas A. DiPrete and Claudia Buchmann, sociology professors at Columbia and Ohio State, respectively, tackle that thorny question — and come up with answers that challenge conventional wisdom.

Boys get lower grades than girls, and report liking school less, not because girls are naturally more studious or because schools aren’t “boy-friendly” enough, they write. Rather, “our research shows that boys’ underperformance in school has more to do with society’s norms about masculinity … Boys involved in extracurricular cultural activities such as music, art, drama, and foreign languages report higher levels of school engagement and get better grades than other boys. But these activities are often denigrated as un-masculine.”

DiPrete and Buchmann believe schools need to do better in two main areas. First, “the most important predictor of boys’ achievement is the extent to which the school culture expects and rewards academic effort,” they write. “We need schools that set high expectations [and] treat each student as an individual, as opposed to a gender stereotype.”

Second, the authors write, their research shows that “boys have less understanding than girls about how their future success in college and work is directly linked to their academic effort in middle school and high school.” Making that connection clear, they argue, could go a long way toward closing the gender gap in higher education.

Boys vs. girls: What’s behind the college grad genderÂ gap? - Fortune


----------



## GusPolinski

And you know, the only real way to change anything these days is by voting for change. And, since women out-vote men in all age groups younger than age 65...

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf

Well... feel free to let me know if I need to finish that thought.


----------



## ConanHub

Humans that want to harm others find someone weaker than themselves to harm. Basic predator behavior.

Women are physically less capable of inflicting damage but I have observed a level of vitriol and intensity in competition and conflict with females that is rarely seen among males.

Chihuahuas are ten times as vicious as pit bulls but can't inflict nearly the same level of violence. 

You know how against abuse of women I am. I just observe a higher intensity in women than men.

The difference in all out ability to physically inflict damage is definitely noticed.

From a purely physical standpoint, an exceptional woman could strike me as hard as she could multiple times and I could still function. If I struck a woman once as hard as I could it would probably kill her.

I have loads of personal combat experience and have trained with top tier men and women in martial arts.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
Just as a data point, my organization (2000 people) was run by a female CEO for several years. She was every bit as power-grabbing and uncaring as men had been in that role. I saw no indication that her being female had any effect on her willingness to hurt other people to get her way - just as men had done in the same position.

I think that a world ruled by women would be almost indistinguishable from what we have today. The struggle for power would still tend to put the same personalities at the the top.

I have reached the limit of where I can advance in my organization because I am not willing to fire good workers and lie to other parts of the organization in order to increase profits. I turned down a high level job because of that, and that job will be taken by someone (male OR female) who is willing to do those things. 

There may be fewer self-serving women than men (I don't know) but there are enough to fill all the high level jobs.


----------



## Catherine602

larry.gray said:


> I fully support the outreach programs for women into STEM fields.
> 
> I would also support getting more men into med school. Many med schools are over 70 percent female. Any women with me?


I was on the admission committee for a professional school and it is true that the female to male ratio of applicants is about 3:1. But the dearth of male applicants is not due to lack of qualifying but the limited chance for financial reward. 

Elegirl - you are right, an investment of as much as 3/4 million dollars and 6-8 yrs of school after college may not yield a good return. There is more money and chance for increasing wealth in the computer and technical fields. Besides less time in education and cost. Men stopped applying about 10 years ago. They followed the money.


----------



## GusPolinski

larry.gray said:


> I fully support the outreach programs for women into STEM fields.


Agreed. In fact, make that _anyone_.

After all, employers can't hire people to fill jobs if (a) they're not qualified and (b) they don't apply in the first place.


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> My point in all this? I, like you worked my behind off to get to where I am. Unlike you I was not just allowed to do what I wanted to. Working my behind off was not enough. Being competent and excelling was not enough.


Like I said, the biggest benefit of any white male privilege I've enjoyed is that no artificial barriers were put in place to keep me down.

What a difference a decade and location make (you have a little more than 10 years on me). "Mad Men" is a caricature of a very real problem that is thankfully fading. You're the first person of roughly my age I've heard say that they were disallowed from enrolling in any class they chose at the university level. That's criminal. Whereabouts was this, if you don't mind answering?


----------



## Cletus

I asked my 52 year old wife if she had ever felt discriminated against because of her gender. She said only recently. The K-12 educational system is as interested in getting male blood into teaching positions as the STEM fields are for women. She said it is understood today that a man with equivalent qualifications for a job in an elementary school will likely get that job over a woman.


----------



## sisters359

The fact that women need to be encouraged to go into certain fields is evidence of the continuing pervasiveness of patriarchy. Encouraging women in this way is a strategy to move toward equal representation in all endeavors, at which point no one will feel intimidated by the predominance of members of the other sex.

I'm the mom of two boys, and I understand the possibility of "backlash" quite well. My sons might be "penalized," for lack of a better word, for being white males--that is, they will be overlooked b/c they are not female/racial minority, for some opportunities. That hurts on a personal level, but let's not pretend it is anything but essential.

White male privilege is real. Given the same set of skills, who gets picked for the job? The person who appears to be a better "fit." White men are ascribed all sorts of characteristics just by virtue of being white men--"he'll golf; he'll be able to talk about football; he won't be moody or irrational." None of this happens on a conscious level (usually). And of course, it's perfect bunk, b/c so many white men do not fit the stereotype of white men! But it takes time and effort to unroot these hidden assumptions that pre-dispose us toward one person or another. And while legal change is necessary, it takes the very, very slow process of social change--that comes from individual people having opportunities to meet and work with others in a diverse environment--to unroot those assumptions.


----------



## Cletus

sisters359 said:


> Encouraging women in this way is a strategy to move toward equal representation in all endeavors, at which point no one will feel intimidated by the predominance of members of the other sex.


This is the part that always raises an eyebrow for me. It presupposes that men and women want to be equally represented in all endeavors. 

Perhaps it's impossible to untangle nature from nurture on this one to everyone's satisfaction, but I don't _think_ it's true. Trying to get an equal gender mix in all careers and endeavors might be as artificial as working to keep one or the other out.


----------



## Ikaika

sisters359 said:


> White male privilege is real. Given the same set of skills, who gets picked for the job? The person who appears to be a better "fit." White men are ascribed all sorts of characteristics just by virtue of being white men--"he'll golf; he'll be able to talk about football; he won't be moody or irrational." None of this happens on a conscious level (usually). And of course, it's perfect bunk, b/c so many white men do not fit the stereotype of white men! But it takes time and effort to unroot these hidden assumptions that pre-dispose us toward one person or another. And while legal change is necessary, it takes the very, very slow process of social change--that comes from individual people having opportunities to meet and work with others in a diverse environment--to unroot those assumptions.



Interesting argument. So my kupuna (Hawaiian grandmother) many years ago told me to take advantage of my looks and keep my mouth shut. In other words since I looked and could easily pass for white she told me to use it to my advantage. I took her advice: when I entered college, I did not mention or apply for any disadvantage status. The same for every job I applied for and promotion I went after. To this day, 20 years later, almost none of my colleagues even know that I am part Hawaiian. 

I can't say I was provided any advantage for looking white and being male, but it certainly did not work against me.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I asked my 52 year old wife if she had ever felt discriminated against because of her gender. She said only recently. The K-12 educational system is as interested in getting male blood into teaching positions as the STEM fields are for women. She said it is understood today that a man with equivalent qualifications for a job in an elementary school will likely get that job over a woman.


Yes, school teacher is "women's work".


----------



## always_alone

Ikaika said:


> I can't say I was provided any advantage for looking white and being male, but it certainly did not work against me.


A friend of mine is native American, and he was routinely stopped by campus security and asked to provide his student ID, proof he was not loitering, but entitled to be there.

This never, never happened to his white male classmates.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*Many people - maybe most people have faced some serious problems in their lives - and to brand them as "privileged" may be to discredit those problems*.

I really liked this post alot. I just wanted to address this. Privilege is simply the benefit you receive from the amount of power you have in society. That privilege can be based on gender, race, class, sexual identity. The purpose of assessing one's privilege is to find out how to share power with others. As you pointed out we cannot always see our privilege unless someone points it out to us. Some of us have more than others.


----------



## Pooh Bear

tacoma said:


> Women don't have a bias about the topic of male privilege?
> 
> :lol:


I didn't notice this. We definitely all have bias. It is very dangerous when people don't think they do. Nothing has ever really been "objective."


----------



## Pooh Bear

*It matters because the new feminism isn't about equality at all.*

Where do you get that from?

*The OP of this thread isn't pushing for womens rights, she's pushing for male subjugation as is apparent in her hypocrisy (which is what I was pointing out)*

So she represents feminism to you? Feminism is about equality. That does not mean that everyone who claims feminism is perfect. There are many different arguments in feminism. You should read some feminists before you make that kind of an accusation.

*I will not self identify as a feminist because of what her 3rd wave ideology has done to the movement.*

That is not a good reason to not identify as feminist. That is like me saying I will no longer be a Christian because of the extremists in Christianity. You don’t leave a movement because of people you don’t agree with. You stay and be part of the conversation.


----------



## Pooh Bear

always_alone said:


> No doubt that the education system is failing boys, but I'm not so sure yours is the best solution. There is no tradition telling men they are not smart enough to become doctors, or directing them into support (nursing) roles. There is no one suggesting they will be less masculine or less desirable to women if they pursue this avenue. There are no real obstacles standing in their way, and it is really only the last few years that they have been outnumbered by their female counterparts.
> 
> I think something needs to be done, but am not convinced this is the best solution.


In fact women are always looking for a male doctor to marry! :rofl:

I think that right now more women are going into the medical field while more men are going into engineering if women lean towards the sciences. There is working being done to get more women into the engineering fields.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> A friend of mine is native American, and he was routinely stopped by campus security and asked to provide his student ID, proof he was not loitering, but entitled to be there.


--Reminds me of a history book that was standard fare in Arizona schools many moons ago  

The author was Burt M. Fireman, whose bias against Native Americans could be cut with a knife and whose version of events like the Bascom Affair were directly contradicted by eyewitnesses like Jason Betzinez. It was beyond aggravating that grades depended upon agreeing with Fireman.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> It was beyond aggravating that grades depended upon agreeing with Fireman.


Grades be damned!!!!

(says she who was constantly in the principal's office for challenging authority, and who barely scraped through high-school because of it)


----------



## Rowan

I work in a male dominated field. I also hold a degree in a science field, one that's considered even more "guy-centric" than most. I run into a lot of stuff that wouldn't happen if I were male. 

But, I'm also part of a group of people who enjoys a certain degree of privilege. I'm a white woman from a "very good family". For those from other places, that's Southern for the old-money, white, Southern land-owning class. A lot of things happen for me that wouldn't if I were poor, or a minority, or from a different culture. 

Here's the thing. There is privilege that comes with being who I am. There are also problems with not being born as something else. Frankly, a lot of the problems are part and parcel of the privileges I do enjoy. I think it's vital to be aware enough - and honest enough with yourself - to realize where privileges and injustices exist, and where you personally fall into the spectrum of benefit/harm. I try to be aware of both the privilege and the injustice, and to do what I can to balance them for myself without harming anyone else. And to work to help those suffering from injustice, without switching to persecuting anyone else.


----------



## WandaJ

ConanHub said:


> If everything was ruled and controlled by women, there would be no more war because everyone would be dead.


huh?


----------



## toonaive

There are privileges?


----------



## MarriedDude

Pooh Bear said:


> *Many people - maybe most people have faced some serious problems in their lives - and to brand them as "privileged" may be to discredit those problems*.
> 
> I really liked this post alot. I just wanted to address this. Privilege is simply the benefit you receive from the amount of power you have in society. That privilege can be based on gender, race, class, sexual identity. *The purpose of assessing one's privilege is to find out how to share power with others.* As you pointed out we cannot always see our privilege unless someone points it out to us. Some of us have more than others.


Power is never really shared. To think so is pretty naive. For example...you employer grants you the authority to fire some slacker co-workers....Does this mean the employer is "Sharing" power? No. The power was granted to you and can be rescinded at will. I would argue that "shared" power is unattainable, because the one "Sharing" the power- can rescind it at any time. Shared power is always conditional....making it "shared" in word only. 

Same with equality...If the dominant party "grants" or otherwise states that equality now exists between genders (or anything else for that matter) -It isn't really equality because the dominant one -the individual/group/whatever-granted it. Therefore it can be rescinded. 

Don't get me wrong -I'm not arguing for male privilege or any such thing. Just stating the reality of the world I have lived in- as seen -through the lens of my own experiences. 

"What is the Greatest Thing in Life?"

"To crush your enemies, have them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women."

meaning........Power is Taken.


----------



## always_alone

MarriedDude said:


> meaning........Power is Taken.


This is a very limited and narrow view of power, top-down and oppressive only. But power functions in all directions and in many different ways.

The ruling class still has to be wary for power over is rarely absolute: those who they control may indeed decide to lop off their heads. 

Also power can be generative, nurturing, supportive; think of the power to heal, the power to grow, the power to stand up for what you believe in, to invent and create, to solve problems.

There is also power in the indomitable spirit, in the exercise of patience, in passive resistance, in stoicism, in the ability to withstand great hardship.

Power can most certainly be shared. And we'd all be better off for it, IMHO.


----------



## MarriedDude

always_alone said:


> This is a very limited and narrow view of power, top-down and oppressive only. But power functions in all directions and in many different ways.
> 
> The ruling class still has to be wary for power over is rarely absolute: those who they control may indeed decide to lop off their heads.
> 
> *Also power can be generative, nurturing, supportive; think of the power to heal, the power to grow, the power to stand up for what you believe in, to invent and create, to solve problems.*
> 
> There is also power in the indomitable spirit, in the exercise of patience, in passive resistance, in stoicism, in the ability to withstand great hardship.
> 
> Power can most certainly be shared. And we'd all be better off for it, IMHO.


I understood the discussion to be about "Privilege" specifically -male privilege. Power is Top-Down. Power functions only in one direction...the direction those that wield it- want it to go. 

Don't get me wrong....I like the bolded part. I just don't believe it to be realistic. How is passive resistance going to deal with the power dynamic of rape? Will the Power of Stoicism help women to be paid properly and on par with men? Has womens ability (power) to withstand great hardship curbed the damage of Domestic Violence?

These seem like coping mechanisms to deal with a lack of Power. As a human- a brother, a husband, the fact that such coping mechanisms have had to be developed -pisses me off to no end. How many women of honor have not achieved all they could for themselves -in turn -for the mass of humanity as a whole? The loss to all of us is so great as to be not measurable. 

The current state of the world and distribution of power is damaged beyond repair---IME. Something will need to happen to great a global shift- only then -will we be able to harness the potential of ALL OF US. 

This state of inequality has been damaging the world and our ability to move forward as a species since the time before writing. 

I'm just not a smart enough or wise enough man to know what to do about it. Hopefully- for all of us -somewhere out there...there is someone.


----------



## always_alone

MarriedDude said:


> Don't get me wrong....I like the bolded part. I just don't believe it to be realistic. How is passive resistance going to deal with the power dynamic of rape? Will the Power of Stoicism help women to be paid properly and on par with men? Has womens ability (power) to withstand great hardship curbed the damage of Domestic Violence?


Male privilege still exists, but it is nowhere near as potent as it was. This is not because men have graciously handed over power out of some kind of noblesse oblige, but because feminists have fought for the right to vote and to own property, because women have proved themselves time and time again to be capable in the workforce, intelligent and resourceful, because of countless hours (years!) in raising awareness about issues like domestic violence, rape and wage inequality, in protests and marches like "take back the night", in creating stealthy, secret schools to educate their daughters (as they do in Afghanistan), risking life and limb in the process. And on and on.

There is still more to be done, IMHO, especially if you look at it from a global perspective. But an amazing amount has been accomplished nonetheless.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> This is not because men have graciously handed over power out of some kind of noblesse oblige, but because feminists have fought for the right to vote...


The evolution of voting rights during the 19th century is a fascinating subject. 

Winning the right to vote when you can't vote would have been tough indeed..


----------



## vellocet

DanaS said:


> While I can't keep men from posting their thoughts I am only interested in hearing from women *since they aren't biased*


----------



## vellocet

Well things get evened out somehow.

For example, a woman can cheat on her husband, basically take a man's kids from him giving him the pittance of every other weekend visits, and the man has to pay through the nose for that privilege.

That should make yall feel better.


----------



## MarriedDude

vellocet said:


> Well things get evened out somehow.
> 
> For example, a woman can cheat on her husband, basically take a man's kids from him giving him the pittance of every other weekend visits, and the man has to pay through the nose for that privilege.
> 
> That should make yall feel better.


True...Very bad things happen sometimes...While I do hear of the type of situation you describe- I often wonder if that is the norm- or the exception- the loudly expounded upon exception. Hard to know for sure. I do know -from personal experience- that the distinction of "Ass-Hat", "Dead-Beat", etc... does not discriminate based on Gender. 

I had the opposite of the situation you describe- My mother vanished when I was very young. Started a whole new life-marrying several times. I remember seeing her when I was 8 or 9 (she showed up to a birthday party). I saw her again when I graduated from college -for about 5 min -I was pretty shocked she was there- didn't recognize her really -until my dad told me who she was- he told me later that he had asked her to come (begged and pleaded with her). Haven't seen her since -since 2000. She has only met one of my sons (by chance at a science fair). She introduced herself to him...told him that she would "love" to spend time with him....she declined to give him her phone number -but took his....then NEVER called him(This final act ensured that I would never, ever, give a single squirt of piss for her life -I've never needed her -but my boy, he didn't understand -still wonders why we aren't good enough for her- breaks my heart that she would do that to him). 

She has never met my wife -which at this point is probably a good idea as my wife would have some pretty horrible things to say to her (because she labors under the illusion that my mother would actually give a damn). My other two boys have never even seen her. 

She paid no child support of any kind...ever. Even though -she has quite a successful career.


----------



## Jung_admirer

Pooh Bear said:


> I'm not sure how you can say women have as much privilege as men. We have never had a woman President. Although there are more women in Congress than there have ever been, it is not even close to being equal. The Supreme Court has more women than there has ever been, 3. That is only a third. If we do go into politics, the question is generally asked how we will take care of the kids. If we go to a Christian church God is male. There are churches who refuse to ordain women. We always have to fight for reproductive rights. We are rarely believed in the cases of rape. We are generally blamed in the cases of domestic violence. There is pressure on women to be stay at home moms and then stay at home moms are judged. Single moms are judged as lazy good for nothings. Women have to be nice even in job settings and then we are blamed if we are not getting paid equally because we are not agressive enough.
> 
> Little Deer posted a good list. You might want to look at it.
> 
> I know that men and women sustain the power structure in the society but we are not always aware of our privilege or inequality. *And some of us, men and women included, are just more comfortable with the way things are*.


The greatest privilege that can ever be extended is freedom from death or the risk of death. The second greatest privilege is not being forced to kill to protect the privilege (security) of others.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/241522-women-weak-11.html#post11615585


----------



## Catherine602

Rowan said:


> I work in a male dominated field. I also hold a degree in a science field, one that's considered even more "guy-centric" than most. I run into a lot of stuff that wouldn't happen if I were male.
> 
> But, I'm also part of a group of people who enjoys a certain degree of privilege. I'm a white woman from a "very good family". For those from other places, that's Southern for the old-money, white, Southern land-owning class. A lot of things happen for me that wouldn't if I were poor, or a minority, or from a different culture.
> 
> Here's the thing. There is privilege that comes with being who I am. There are also problems with not being born as something else. Frankly, a lot of the problems are part and parcel of the privileges I do enjoy. I think it's vital to be aware enough - and honest enough with yourself - to realize where privileges and injustices exist, and where you personally fall into the spectrum of benefit/harm. I try to be aware of both the privilege and the injustice, and to do what I can to balance them for myself without harming anyone else. And to work to help those suffering from injustice, without switching to persecuting anyone else.


Thank you Rowan. It's humbling to be reminded about how fortunate and privileged we are.


----------



## Deejo

The sexist stuff is nothing new around here.

Misogyny, Misandry, Androgeny ... we got it all.

We recognize that often when people find this site they are very, very, hurt ... and usually a member of the opposite sex is responsible for that pain.

So I certainly give people a lot of leeway when it comes to 'venting' about the other sex.

But then we just start to get into incredibly weird territory.

Weird is ok too.

No idea where this thread is coming from or where it's going.


----------



## ConanHub

WandaJ said:


> huh?


Just having fun. &#55357;&#56842;

Women are viscous!&#55357;&#56841;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Rowan

ConanHub said:


> Women are viscous!&#55357;&#56841;
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm trying to decide if that was intentional - in which case I'm pretty sure I don't understand - or if it's one of those really wonderful damn-you-autocorrect moments........

:rofl:


----------



## VermisciousKnid

These people were viscous, or at least done in by viscosity.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> Power is never really shared. To think so is pretty naive. For example...you employer grants you the authority to fire some slacker co-workers....Does this mean the employer is "Sharing" power? No. The power was granted to you and can be rescinded at will. I would argue that "shared" power is unattainable, because the one "Sharing" the power- can rescind it at any time. Shared power is always conditional....making it "shared" in word only.
> 
> Same with equality...If the dominant party "grants" or otherwise states that equality now exists between genders (or anything else for that matter) -It isn't really equality because the dominant one -the individual/group/whatever-granted it. Therefore it can be rescinded.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -I'm not arguing for male privilege or any such thing. Just stating the reality of the world I have lived in- as seen -through the lens of my own experiences.
> 
> "What is the Greatest Thing in Life?"
> 
> "To crush your enemies, have them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women."
> 
> meaning........Power is Taken.


In your example you are talking about a hierachical power structure where power isn't shared. Could we every learn to share power? I don't know. Maybe not. Marx said if 3 people were left on earth two would work to oppress the third. Maybe it is not possible. But I can attempt to live that way. If you want to continue dominating others, that is your choice. If all of us decided to work towards equality, we could create a different world.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Jung_admirer said:


> The greatest privilege that can ever be extended is freedom from death or the risk of death. The second greatest privilege is not being forced to kill to protect the privilege (security) of others.
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/241522-women-weak-11.html#post11615585


What do you mean by that? Assessing your privilege and learning to live with others equally does not mean that you have to kill anyone.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*I had the opposite of the situation you describe- My mother vanished when I was very young. Started a whole new life-marrying several times. I remember seeing her when I was 8 or 9 (she showed up to a birthday party). I saw her again when I graduated from college -for about 5 min -I was pretty shocked she was there- didn't recognize her really -until my dad told me who she was- he told me later that he had asked her to come (begged and pleaded with her). Haven't seen her since -since 2000. She has only met one of my sons (by chance at a science fair). She introduced herself to him...told him that she would "love" to spend time with him....she declined to give him her phone number -but took his....then NEVER called him(This final act ensured that I would never, ever, give a single squirt of piss for her life -I've never needed her -but my boy, he didn't understand -still wonders why we aren't good enough for her- breaks my heart that she would do that to him). *

I'm so sorry. I cannot even imagine leaving my son. You would have to kill me to keep me away from him.


----------



## MarriedDude

VermisciousKnid said:


> These people were viscous, or at least done in by viscosity.
> 
> View attachment 32266




Yes....Like 2,000 cP


----------



## MarriedDude

Pooh Bear said:


> In your example you are talking about a hierachical power structure where power isn't shared. Could we every learn to share power? I don't know. Maybe not. Marx said if 3 people were left on earth two would work to oppress the third. Maybe it is not possible. But I can attempt to live that way. *If you want to continue dominating others, that is your choice.* If all of us decided to work towards equality, we could create a different world.


That is the really the question. Could we as a species share -or move past the need -for power. I don't know...I hope so...but don't know. 

I wouldn't say I dominate others as a life-choice...I don't believe myself to be pro-privilege. I lead as required. I would hope you don't garner from my arguments that my goal is domination...as that is not at all the case. Merely frustration from not being able to see a clear path away from the over-all lameness that humans (as a group) tend to gravitate towards.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> That is the really the question. Could we as a species share -or move past the need -for power. I don't know...I hope so...but don't know.
> 
> I wouldn't say I dominate others as a life-choice...I don't believe myself to be pro-privilege. I lead as required. I would hope you don't garner from my arguments that my goal is domination...as that is not at all the case. Merely frustration from not being able to see a clear path away from the over-all lameness that humans (as a group) tend to gravitate towards.


Yeah, I don't know either. I know I am pretty idealistic. I think I have it in my mind that someday human beings can live that way. Not in my lifetime. I don't know.


----------



## MarriedDude

Pooh Bear said:


> *I had the opposite of the situation you describe- My mother vanished when I was very young. Started a whole new life-marrying several times. I remember seeing her when I was 8 or 9 (she showed up to a birthday party). I saw her again when I graduated from college -for about 5 min -I was pretty shocked she was there- didn't recognize her really -until my dad told me who she was- he told me later that he had asked her to come (begged and pleaded with her). Haven't seen her since -since 2000. She has only met one of my sons (by chance at a science fair). She introduced herself to him...told him that she would "love" to spend time with him....she declined to give him her phone number -but took his....then NEVER called him(This final act ensured that I would never, ever, give a single squirt of piss for her life -I've never needed her -but my boy, he didn't understand -still wonders why we aren't good enough for her- breaks my heart that she would do that to him). *
> 
> I'm so sorry. I cannot even imagine leaving my son. You would have to kill me to keep me away from him.


As my wife is with our boys. She can't really wrap her head around it either. Nor can I, fathom not being with my family, knowing them, helping them, seeing them grow and find their happiness. I believe some people are just broken -whether their fault or not- all we can do is protect ourselves from them.


----------



## Pooh Bear

MarriedDude said:


> As my wife is with our boys. She can't really wrap her head around it either. Nor can I, fathom not being with my family, knowing them, helping them, seeing them grow and find their happiness. I believe some people are just broken -whether their fault or not- all we can do is protect ourselves from them.


I hope that you have found some healing. I know there are some things you can never get over. But I really hope that you have found some peace.


----------



## Jung_admirer

Pooh Bear said:


> What do you mean by that? Assessing your privilege and learning to live with others equally does not mean that you have to kill anyone.


As it stands today, there is no better balancing than longevity in weighing privilege across groups. It is no accident or coincidence that the group with the highest longevity also has the lowest crime rate and maintains the highest degree of privilege (self-determination). Equally, the group with the lowest longevity also has the highest crime rate and lowest degree of privilege. 

During Vietnam, there were many groups that called for this group with the lowest longevity to boycott the war .. why fight for those who oppress you? What I maintain is that if the gap in privilege as represented by longevity gets much larger, the groups without power will not defend the privilege of the powerful. Eventually, the gap grows to a point where we have some type of revolution. History confirms this time and time again. 

I count myself among the privileged, yet my status does not compare to the most privileged. What happens when the powerless stop defending us, stop performing the jobs with high fatalities, stop defending the longevity of the privileged? Was the price of privilege too high for the Eloi?

I understand that my views are sensational, but that is where we are at. Consider what it must take for groups of young men, all over the world, simultaneously rejecting their most basic biological imperative. (and to the posters jeering about not joining the gene pool, such a sad commentary)

I further suggest that most people would not have a problem with a proper balancing of power with responsibility ... and this is where we will ultimately end up. The question is how much pain will we endure along the way.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> What do you mean by that? Assessing your privilege and learning to live with others equally does not mean that you have to kill anyone.


Where to start?

"Male privilege" is a pretty black and white concept in the field of Gender Studies. 

In other disciplines, like Sociology for example it is considerably fuzzier because sociologists recognize both the advantages and the disadvantages. Privilege (Or the lack thereof) only truly exists when one overshadows the other.

Simple example. Common men did not have the right to vote in Britain until 1884. Women did not have the right to vote until 34 years later, in 1918. Everybody today agrees that this was unfair and a manifestation of male privilege.

However just a few years before 1918, Field Marshal Haig, at the height of his incompetency was marching thousands of young men a day straight into German machine guns. These young men died for no other reason than that they were young men. This is very clearly, not an aspect of privilege.

While it's easy to get someone like the OP to acknowledge the former, it's almost like pulling teeth to get them to acknowledge the latter...


----------



## lifeistooshort

My ex husband once told me that I had all the privileges of a man with none of the responsibility. Not even sure what that means, since pretty much all he did was go to work and drink beer, and since I worked too as well as did everything else including take care of our 2 boys I'm not sure what kind of responsibility he thought he had but he clearly though men should have some kind of privilege. Hard to believe nobody's snapped him up.


----------



## MarriedDude

lifeistooshort said:


> *My ex husband once told me that I had all the privileges of a man with none of the responsibility. * Not even sure what that means, since pretty much all he did was go to work and drink beer, and since I worked too as well as did everything else including take care of our 2 boys I'm not sure what kind of responsibility he thought he had but he clearly though men should have some kind of privilege. Hard to believe nobody's snapped him up.




Well....that's in my top 10 funniest things of Tuesday. HOWEVER...it's killing me that he didn't offer some further definition of that statement that you could share.....cause...it's a good'n and the follow-up must just be an awesome example of speaking without saying ANYTHING.


----------



## jld

A more interesting thread would be The Privilege of Wealth.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

There are so many different types of privilege.
As explained very well on here 

And male privilege is described as follows
https://asusequity.wordpress.com/equity-101/a-brief-discussion-of-privilege/



> One reason for male privilege is that the prevailing force in most, if not all societies, is patriarchy, which gives the male figure power over women and children and positions males as the centre of social organization. This is a highly established system that has manifested throughout history. It’s seen in everything from royal succession, to voting rights, to religious and political power, and the list goes on and on. Due to this patriarchial force, non-male groups are subject to a different set of experiences, although they often may not realize this. Women throughout the world must fight for rights that males receive automatically. These rights vary, from the right to drive to the right to equal pay to the right to walk down the street without being catcalled. The automatic privilege received by males, many of whom are not aware of the treatment they receive, can be known as male privilege. Male privilege also means that males have most of the control over female reproductive rights, whether enforcing this through religion, government policies, or lack of funding.


This is also a great site for explaining male privilege, white privilege etc

http://mediasmarts.ca/diversity-media/privilege-media/forms-privilege

It's obvious privilege exists. I know I'm privileged in many ways. I also know that some people have privilege where I do not. Being aware of it can never be bad thing.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

And this


----------



## Dad&Hubby

I'm a white male in his 40's. I grew up in middle class america and didn't belong to any groups that rally around each other, whether that be cultural, ethnic based or just simply a group they join.

I'm going to make a statement with the intention of it being more of a question.

When I think of privilege...I think of someone having a tangible advantage in any given situation. Now supposedly I have "white privilege" AND "male privilege".

From my PERSONAL experience. Every woman I went to school with was judged on her merits. Our valedictorian and salutatorian were female (even though the valedictorian took a shortcut in that she didn't take advanced placement classes where the salutatorian took a much harder class schedule). I ONLY qualified for sports and academic scholarships because there are no "young white male" groups that offer scholarships. The [insert any number of nationality] American Clubs offered them, but I'm scottish, acadian and english...there were no "clubs" with that decent. There were the "young woman's alliance", plenty of racial based scholarships, but none specifically for "my privileged" group. I had to take out loans and work study grants because my parents made enough money to not qualify for aid, but not enough money to actually help me with school.

I've lost 2 promotions because of affirmative action, and yes this was confirmed by a friend who was in the hiring process. I had better qualifications, better performance reviews, but the person they hired filled 2 quotas within the company's affirmative action plan.

Now are there truths to the perceptions that "privilege" provide (such as when it was discussed that when I have been promoted, people don't say "he got it because of his gender". etc..) Without a doubt....but that's misperceptions, not actual privilege.

I've had a harder time putting myself through college, and in certain jobs I've held BECAUSE I'm a white male with no distinct nationality.

Now does our society hold certain perceptions of me...without a doubt...but I struggle to see how my life has been easier because of my skin and gender....

What am I missing in this discussion. I'm truly TRYING to see the issue, but all I see is it being an issue of SOME people holding onto perceptions, but it not really equating to any tangible advantage.

PS if you want to talk about socio-economic privilege..that's a WHOLE other topic. But that's blind to gender and race...

EDIT: I just want to add this..I'm not saying there is no bias, or prejudice. I'm also not saying that I've had a hard time in life....There are plenty of people who have a much harder time in life. I don't have to worry about racial profiling...(which I STRONGLY disagree with). I know there are components to this issue...but I'm speaking from the standpoint that I've somehow had more handed to me because of my gender and race.


----------



## Jung_admirer

Dad&Hubby said:


> I'm a white male in his 40's. I grew up in middle class america and didn't belong to any groups that rally around each other, whether that be cultural, ethnic based or just simply a group they join.
> 
> I'm going to make a statement with the intention of it being more of a question.
> 
> When I think of privilege...I think of someone having a tangible advantage in any given situation. Now supposedly I have "white privilege" AND "male privilege".
> 
> From my PERSONAL experience. Every woman I went to school with was judged on her merits. Our valedictorian and salutatorian were female (even though the valedictorian took a shortcut in that she didn't take advanced placement classes where the salutatorian took a much harder class schedule). I ONLY qualified for sports and academic scholarships because there are no "young white male" groups that offer scholarships. The [insert any number of nationality] American Clubs offered them, but I'm scottish, acadian and english...there were no "clubs" with that decent. There were the "young woman's alliance", plenty of racial based scholarships, but none specifically for "my privileged" group. I had to take out loans and work study grants because my parents made enough money to not qualify for aid, but not enough money to actually help me with school.
> 
> I've lost 2 promotions because of affirmative action, and yes this was confirmed by a friend who was in the hiring process. I had better qualifications, better performance reviews, but the person they hired filled 2 quotas within the company's affirmative action plan.
> 
> Now are there truths to the perceptions that "privilege" provide (such as when it was discussed that when I have been promoted, people don't say "he got it because of his gender". etc..) Without a doubt....but that's misperceptions, not actual privilege.
> 
> I've had a harder time putting myself through college, and in certain jobs I've held BECAUSE I'm a white male with no distinct nationality.
> 
> Now does our society hold certain perceptions of me...without a doubt...but I struggle to see how my life has been easier because of my skin and gender....
> 
> What am I missing in this discussion. I'm truly TRYING to see the issue, but all I see is it being an issue of SOME people holding onto perceptions, but it not really equating to any tangible advantage.
> 
> PS if you want to talk about socio-economic privilege..that's a WHOLE other topic. But that's blind to gender and race...
> 
> EDIT: I just want to add this..I'm not saying there is no bias, or prejudice. I'm also not saying that I've had a hard time in life....There are plenty of people who have a much harder time in life. I don't have to worry about racial profiling...(which I STRONGLY disagree with). I know there are components to this issue...but I'm speaking from the standpoint that I've somehow had more handed to me because of my gender and race.


Two people commit the same felony. Privilege is manifested in receiving a different consequence for the same crime. Privilege is an unjustified distribution of benefit or power. 

In the USA, women have generally not been called upon use force to defend our Constitution ... this is privilege. Affirmative Action was an attempt to counter-balance perceived racial and gender privilege. The Civil Rights Movement and the Women's Suffrage Movement were designed to reduce Caucasian and male privilege respectively. 

A women's ability to deceive a father into raising another man's offspring is a privilege, an unearned benefit accrued to her exclusively (and supported by the family courts). In France, this privilege is being vigorously defended by criminalizing paternity testing. 

You can read any of the books written by Warren Farrell and you will probably come to two conclusions: 1) Male privilege has been largely replaced by female privilege 2) White privilege is still alive and well.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

I understand the concept of male privilege but I think the advantage is dwindling. More in some areas than others. 

What I really hate though is the statement *"For a woman to get half as much credit as a man, she has to work twice as hard and be twice as smart." * Maybe there was truth to that fifty or sixty years ago. I dunno. 

It's plainly a stupid thing to say these days but I hear it repeated among women and I think "Is this some kind of motivational speech or do you actually have an incredibly inflated opinion of your abilities?" That isn't to say that there aren't pay disparities in certain fields, but that's a different issue than getting recognition for the work you do.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*What am I missing in this discussion. I'm truly TRYING to see the issue, but all I see is it being an issue of SOME people holding onto perceptions, but it not really equating to any tangible advantage.*

Thank you for asking that question, Dad & Hubby. Here is some information about women and employment:

Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women | National Women's Law Center

You saw two girls getting valadictorian and salutorian but you don't know what it took for them to get there. What are they doing now do you know? They may not be making as much money as you are . I don't remember being encouraged in math and I am from your same age range. That is changing now. People are trying to encourage girls in the math and sciences. Actually, I remember being one of two girls in a math class and the teacher asked us to leave so he could tell the boys a dirty joke. 

I don't know if you have heard of the Lily Ledbetter case but she was paid less than male employees for years. She sued and it went all the way to the supreme court. They found against her because she had not made the complaint within a certain period of them paying her less. They passed a law in congress so that doesn't happen again but it doesn't help Lilly Ledbetter. 

If you go to a Christian church, God is male. Some churches won't even ordain women including the biggest Christian church - the Catholic Church. Most of the people making laws in the country are male. The President, most of congress, most of the Supreme Court is male. And they are the ones that make the decisions for the country. When a woman runs, she will inevatibly be attacked because of looks. They don't attack male politician for looks to the extent that they do women. Women are sexualized and harrassed all the time. Just look at some of the posts on this website.

The thing about privilege is that you can't know what you don't know. So you have to find out how someone who doesn't have it experiences it. I have no fear of going into a store as a white woman because I am never followed. I may not feel so comfortable as a black woman. I bet you have never been harrased walking down the street by women yelling at you or making sexual comments. That is humilating and makes you feel less than a person. I think that men think it is a compliment but for many of us it is not. 

I think it looks like women are now equal because women are fighting back and making things very public. So it looks like there are no problems anymore or that women have more power. But that's not the reality. We still are expected to do the majority of the housework and take care of the kids. You get religious traditions that tell you to submit to your husband. And this is not all that uncommon in this country. I have had to navigate the church to find one that strives towards equality.

Pregnancy is even an employment issue:

Supreme Court hears arguments in pregnant UPS workerâ€™s case - The Washington Post

Actually socio-economic privilege is very much about gender and race. Women and minorities do not make as much as white men on average. There may be an individual woman who makes more than many men - think Oprah - but she is unique. Many women are raising children on low paying jobs.

I know I am going to get a lot of backlash for this post but I wanted to respond to your question since you seemed like you wanted to have a discussion. I appreciate that.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Jung_admirer said:


> Two people commit the same felony. Privilege is manifested in receiving a different consequence for the same crime. Privilege is an unjustified distribution of benefit or power.
> 
> In the USA, women have generally not been called upon use force to defend our Constitution ... this is privilege. Affirmative Action was an attempt to counter-balance perceived racial and gender privilege. The Civil Rights Movement and the Women's Suffrage Movement were designed to reduce Caucasian and male privilege respectively.
> 
> A women's ability to deceive a father into raising another man's offspring is a privilege, an unearned benefit accrued to her exclusively (and supported by the family courts). In France, this privilege is being vigorously defended by criminalizing paternity testing.
> 
> You can read any of the books written by Warren Farrell and you will probably come to two conclusions: 1) Male privilege has been largely replaced by female privilege 2) White privilege is still alive and well.


Ahh Farrell and the MRA. When talking of fairness and sound minds people from the MRA and in particular Farrell don't seem to spring to mind. 
I like this article: 

Mad Men: Inside the Men's Rights Movement—and the Army of Misogynists and Trolls It Spawned | Mother Jones


----------



## ConanHub

intheory said:


> I wouldn't call that a privilege, Jungadmirer. It's deceitful through and through.
> 
> I guess the family courts want to spare the government from having to pay welfare. If a man orders paternity tests, and finds out he is not the father, he has the legal right not to pay child support, is that correct?
> 
> So, obviously, the state wants to avoid that as much as possible.
> 
> But that is wrong.
> 
> I didn't know that about France. Once again, the government wants to avoid supporting people financially, if at all possible. That's got to be the motivation. The motivation isn't protecting women.
> 
> But as long as the DNA testing technology is reliable and accurate; I don't know why it isn't used more often.
> 
> How prevalent do you think that paternity deceit is? It might have been on this thread; someone posted a link and provided info. that it's 3-4%. Not acceptable, but obviously most women are not perpetrating paternity fraud.


Not sure but the % seems much higher than 3-4%.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

intheory said:


> I wouldn't call that a privilege, Jungadmirer. It's deceitful through and through.
> 
> I guess the family courts want to spare the government from having to pay welfare. If a man orders paternity tests, and finds out he is not the father, he has the legal right not to pay child support, is that correct?
> 
> So, obviously, the state wants to avoid that as much as possible.
> 
> But that is wrong.
> 
> I didn't know that about France. Once again, the government wants to avoid supporting people financially, if at all possible. That's got to be the motivation. The motivation isn't protecting women.
> 
> But as long as the DNA testing technology is reliable and accurate; I don't know why it isn't used more often.
> 
> How prevalent do you think that paternity deceit is? It might have been on this thread; someone posted a link and provided info. that it's 3-4%. Not acceptable, but obviously most women are not perpetrating paternity fraud.


And how many women are supporting children entirely on their own with no support from the father? In the article that Little Deer provided the men's rights movement talks about women lying about domestic violence. How often does that actually happen, I wonder? An individual experience does not prove a trend. And complaints about women lying about rape. There is some of that but certainly not the majority. And many rape victims never even go to the police because there is a fear about not being believed.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*That doesn't invalidate the cases of injustices against men though.*

No. Of course not.


----------



## Pooh Bear

intheory said:


> This reminds me of the maxim "divide and rule", or "divide and conquer".
> 
> Pit two groups against each other (eg. men and women); _most_ of whom aren't wealthy or powerful.
> 
> Watch them expend all their energy fighting each other; which prevents them from seeing who *really* has all the power and is calling all the shots.


True. And argument could be made for that. The way the working classes are pitted against each other.


----------



## ConanHub

intheory said:


> This reminds me of the maxim "divide and rule", or "divide and conquer".
> 
> Pit two groups against each other (eg. men and women); _most_ of whom aren't wealthy or powerful.
> 
> Watch them expend all their energy fighting each other; which prevents them from seeing who *really* has all the power and is calling all the shots.


Pesky logic! &#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

intheory said:


> This reminds me of the maxim "divide and rule", or "divide and conquer".
> 
> Pit two groups against each other (eg. men and women); _most_ of whom aren't wealthy or powerful.
> 
> Watch them expend all their energy fighting each other; which prevents them from seeing who *really* has all the power and is calling all the shots.


Totally agree. The fight is against concentrated wealth.


----------



## always_alone

Dad&Hubby said:


> When I think of privilege...I think of someone having a tangible advantage in any given situation. Now supposedly I have "white privilege" AND "male privilege".
> 
> From my PERSONAL experience. Every woman I went to school with was judged on her merits. Our valedictorian and salutatorian were female (even though the valedictorian took a shortcut in that she didn't take advanced placement classes where the salutatorian took a much harder class schedule). I ONLY qualified for sports and academic scholarships because there are no "young white male" groups that offer scholarships. The [insert any number of nationality] American Clubs offered them, but I'm scottish, acadian and english...there were no "clubs" with that decent. There were the "young woman's alliance", plenty of racial based scholarships, but none specifically for "my privileged" group. I had to take out loans and work study grants because my parents made enough money to not qualify for aid, but not enough money to actually help me with school.


Let me tell you some more stories:

My Native American friend was the first in his family to go to university. His family could not support him, nor were there people he could rely on to help him through any part of the process from application, to reading over schoolwork, to coaching on how to navigate the system.

In addition, he had a completely different tradition that was not recognized as legitimate or worth talking about in Western academia. His culture, his value systems, his whole way of life was considered less than, and so he had to adopt a whole new worldview and language in order to even begin to succeed in school. Because of this, no scholarships were available to him because he didn't have the grades to qualify. 

He was routinely stopped and questioned by campus and regular police for just going about his business. People treated him wih suspicion, and made all sorts of pre-judgements about his lifestyle, intelligence and worth as a human being, all because of his race. He was constantly subject to rude jokes about his people by racist a$$holes.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture? Will craft another post for women when I get the chance.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I think that wealth is a privilege denied to most in the world. And the majority of wealth being owned by a few does not sit well with me at all. I do believe that the very wealthy usually exploit others to gain that wealth and it should definitely be distributed more evenly. 

Also let's not forget who owns most of the worlds wealth- it is mostly men. So they are not only privileged in regards to their gender but also money. 

I see privilege in male posters all the time, I have many times said something and had male posters up in arms only to have another well meaning male poster explain the same thing and have the other men suddenly understand. (Mansplained) 

I have also been stalked, harassed and threatened on the internet forums. I had one person so enraged he managed to find out who I was and message my family members. And another threaten to rip all of my limbs off. I have been sent threatening message many times and I could go on and on. 

I know a lot of people don't agree with me however I think it's a privilege afforded more to men that they can safely post without being threatened or harassed far more often than women.


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> Let me tell you some more stories:
> 
> My Native American friend was the first in his family to go to university. His family could not support him, nor were there people he could rely on to help him through any part of the process from application, to reading over schoolwork, to coaching on how to navigate the system.
> 
> In addition, he had a completely different tradition that was not recognized as legitimate or worth talking about in Western academia. His culture, his value systems, his whole way of life was considered less than, and so he had to adopt a whole new worldview and language in order to even begin to succeed in school. Because of this, no scholarships were available to him because he didn't have the grades to qualify.
> 
> He was routinely stopped and questioned by campus and regular police for just going about his business. People treated him wih suspicion, and made all sorts of pre-judgements about his lifestyle, intelligence and worth as a human being, all because of his race. He was constantly subject to rude jokes about his people by racist a$$holes.
> 
> I could go on, but I think you get the picture? Will craft another post for women when I get the chance.


What state does your friend live in?


----------



## Pooh Bear

That's pretty terrifying, Little Deer.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Pooh Bear said:


> That's pretty terrifying, Little Deer.


Yes I remember at the time being very upset. A PM from a TAM. Member reminded me of it all- so I thought I'd share.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Personal said:


> Don't ever let them silence you.


Never  thank you.


----------



## lifeistooshort

intheory said:


> This reminds me of the maxim "divide and rule", or "divide and conquer".
> 
> Pit two groups against each other (eg. men and women); _most_ of whom aren't wealthy or powerful.
> 
> Watch them expend all their energy fighting each other; which prevents them from seeing who *really* has all the power and is calling all the shots.


For sure! This is done in politics all the time.....just make sure that conservatives hate liberals (and vice versa) so much that they won't pay any attention to what their representatives are really doing. Works like a charm on the masses of sheep out there.


----------



## lifeistooshort

*LittleDeer* said:


> I think that wealth is a privilege denied to most in the world. And the majority of wealth being owned by a few does not sit well with me at all. I do believe that the very wealthy usually exploit others to gain that wealth and it should definitely be distributed more evenly.
> 
> Also let's not forget who owns most of the worlds wealth- it is mostly men. So they are not only privileged in regards to their gender but also money.
> 
> I see privilege in male posters all the time, I have many times said something and had male posters up in arms only to have another well meaning male poster explain the same thing and have the other men suddenly understand. (Mansplained)
> 
> I have also been stalked, harassed and threatened on the internet forums. I had one person so enraged he managed to find out who I was and message my family members. And another threaten to rip all of my limbs off. I have been sent threatening message many times and I could go on and on.
> 
> I know a lot of people don't agree with me however I think it's a privilege afforded more to men that they can safely post without being threatened or harassed far more often than women.


I think a lot of men are angry that women have any power at all because it demands better behavior from them, when traditionally all they had to do was go to work (and sometimes not even that) and they were entitled to a wife, sex, all she could do for him (and he could cheat if he wanted because as a man that was his right) and if she didn't perform up to his expectations he had all the power and she couldn't go anywhere. Many men think the whole point of women's lib was to keep them down, which is of course ridiculous. It's simply to afford opportunity where there was none.....but rocking the boat almost always costs someone something, even if it was something they never should have had (like all of the power).

So many have their back up right away.....one need only look at the very quick references to feminists when you disagree with what they're doing. Because of course "feminism" is a bad word....why I have no idea because it's about women having opportunity. That's all. Are there a couple of man-haters out there? Sure, but I'd bet there are far fewer then how many knuckle-draggers that think women should shut up and do what they're told are still running around. In fact, many of the women who benefit from it's hard fought victories now rail against it. It's like trashing the military while you enjoy your freedom. I know plenty of feminists and they're all married and love men. Unfortunately the internet provides a place for a lot of these angry guys to vent their anger and I'm so sorry you were the recipient of some of it.

My own father, who was awesome in almost every was, even argued with me once that men couldn't get jobs because women had them. WTF? Really? So all of the blue collar jobs that men used to use to support their families are now occupied by women? Because last time I checked they'd all been outsourced to men in cheaper parts of the world. Many of the jobs women hold are plenty open to men that don't want them because they're lower pay (think teaching, social work.....). In my field, which is very math based, there are jobs for all and there are no men who want a job that can't get one because a woman has it. In fact there aren't enough people to fill everything, so that suggests that every last qualified man in this field that wants a job has a job. We have an opening in my department and I have no idea how long it will take us to fill it because it's so hard to get people in this job. This was one of the few times he admitted he was wrong.

Men and women aren't adversaries with conflicting interests, we're partners with the same interests.

I agree that the wealth distribution is a big problem.


----------



## always_alone

*LittleDeer* said:


> I see privilege in male posters all the time, I have many times said something and had male posters up in arms only to have another well meaning male poster explain the same thing and have the other men suddenly understand. (Mansplained)


Yes, this is a big part of it. As a woman, my voice will often not be heard, as the presumption is that I have nothing to say, and besides, lack the intelligence to say it. He will often automatically assume he must know more about the subject, no matter what it is, and so I've often had the experience of a man who has never worked in my field explaining it to me (incorrectly), or spelling out for me things I already know as though I'm 6 years old.

Or men saying things like "you wouldn't understand", or "shh, dear, men are talking", or discounting what I say as being a product of PMS, or overly emotional. Or of assuming I can't handle "it" and so need to be protected or saved from just about anything.

I also do not have the luxury of being treated like a full autonomous person deserving of respect. I am reduced to an object, the only important thing is my body and how "hot" it is. I have had many men feel quite entitled to grope me, cat-called me, treat me as if I exist only for their pleasure and then getting mad at me should I have the audacity to step out of that role.

Men have the privilege of being thought worth listening to, deserving of respect, and entitled to their autonomy. Women have made gains here, but there's still an imbalance.


----------



## ocotillo

lifeistooshort said:


> ...when traditionally all they had to do was go to work (and sometimes not even that) and they were entitled to a wife, sex, all she could do for him....


I've heard this sentiment expressed a lot, but I would question whether it is sustainable in a real historical context.

The phenomenon of male privilege is certainly real and I wouldn't for a minute argue about that reality. But the concept is reduced to polemic when it's used to paint a picture of near utopian conditions for men vs. abject servitude for women. In what historical period did this exist? 

(Don't fall into the trap of shooting from the hip here..)


----------



## Pooh Bear

always_alone said:


> Yes, this is a big part of it. As a woman, my voice will often not be heard, as the presumption is that I have nothing to say, and besides, lack the intelligence to say it. He will often automatically assume he must know more about the subject, no matter what it is, and so I've often had the experience of a man who has never worked in my field explaining it to me (incorrectly), or spelling out for me things I already know as though I'm 6 years old.
> 
> Or men saying things like "you wouldn't understand", or "shh, dear, men are talking", or discounting what I say as being a product of PMS, or overly emotional. Or of assuming I can't handle "it" and so need to be protected or saved from just about anything.
> 
> I also do not have the luxury of being treated like a full autonomous person deserving of respect. I am reduced to an object, the only important thing is my body and how "hot" it is. I have had many men feel quite entitled to grope me, cat-called me, treat me as if I exist only for their pleasure and then getting mad at me should I have the audacity to step out of that role.
> 
> Men have the privilege of being thought worth listening to, deserving of respect, and entitled to their autonomy. Women have made gains here, but there's still an imbalance.


I've had the experience of being talked down to my men also, always_alone. Just recently, I made a statement and a man responded by saying he was "answering my question." As if I had been looking to him for the correct answer. I wasn't. If he disagrees that's one thing but to talk as if I had not fully figured it out and needed his direction is something different.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> I've heard this sentiment expressed a lot, but I would question whether it is sustainable in a real historical context.
> 
> The phenomenon of male privilege is certainly real and I wouldn't for a minute argue about that reality. But the concept is reduced to polemic when it's used to paint a picture of near utopian conditions for men vs. abject servitude for women. In what historical period did this exist?
> 
> (Don't fall into the trap of shooting from the hip here..)


Centuries in Western culture. Laws were made to give men the power, not women. Changes started happening in the 20th century.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> Centuries in Western culture. Laws were made to give men the power, not women. Changes started happening in the 20th century.


With respect, Pooh Bear, this is not a question that can be answered with generalities. 

To give a simple example of what I'm driving at, you don't have to go back too far before the inception of OSHA in 1971 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to find absolutely horrible conditions in the work place. Long hours; meager pay and nonexistent safety and health precautions. 

Working in any industrial environment, for example, meant long term exposure (via aspiration) to mild abrasives, asbestos, etc. Degenerative lung conditions and weird forms of cancer that nobody at the time understood were common starting around late 40's / early 50's. Our entire Social Security system, in fact, was predicated and structured on the notion that working men didn't make it much past 60. (Which is why better working conditions in the post war era eventually destabilized it.)

So yes. Men held economic power. Women were often at their mercy. But the *cost* of this economic power cannot casually be written off as a triviality.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> With respect, Pooh Bear, this is not a question that can be answered with generalities.
> 
> To give a simple example of what I'm driving at, you don't have to go back too far before the inception of OSHA in 1971 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to find absolutely horrible conditions in the work place. Long hours; meager pay and nonexistent safety and health precautions.
> 
> Working in any industrial environment, for example, meant long term exposure (via aspiration) to mild abrasives, asbestos, etc. Degenerative lung conditions and weird forms of cancer that nobody at the time understood were common starting around late 40's / early 50's. Our entire Social Security system, in fact, was predicated and structured on the notion that working men didn't make it much past 60. (Which is why better working conditions in the post war era eventually destabilized it.)
> 
> So yes. Men held economic power. Women were often at their mercy. But the *cost* of this economic power cannot casually be written off as a triviality.


If you want a detailed description of men's and women's status throughout history and in different cultures that would take several books and years of analysis. I know the most about Western culture. I know that women have not been allowed direct power for much of history but that does not mean that women did not attempt to have power within a male dominated society. And women could be allowed more power in certain types of settings. If women stepped too far over the line there were consequences for that, however. Joan of Arc. 

And there were laws that allowed men to hit their wives in some European countries. Women were divided into feme sole and feme covert beginning in the middle ages in England. Feme Covert meant that you were "covered" by your husband. You had no legal rights because it was assumed the husband would make the decisions for the family. That transfered over into the United States. That started to change in the 19th century. 

Many, many women were killed in European Witch Trials. It has never been completely equal. Although the argument has been made that in pre-history there was a culture that was more equal an peaceful in Europe. I think that that is possible, you can see Goddesses being married to Greek Gods and the Goddesses are made inferior. 

Ancient Egyptian women had much more freedom but the Romans hated women and we still have the vestiges of that in the Bible. The Romans, the Greeks, and the Hebrews were all male dominated cultures. It was still possible for women to have a certain degree of power within those cultures but there was a line a woman couldn't cross over. One of my arguments for the fact that they ceased allowing priests to marry in Catholicism is because it gives women a certain amount of power within the church. Women do have a great deal of power in their marriages, depending on the marriage. There is also an argument that the Catholic Churches did not want priests passing on property. Maybe it was both. Women have absolutely no voice in the Catholic Church although they do a great deal of work. And they have Mary which I wish the Protestant church had kept. 

Men may be influenced by women in the Catholic Church but they ultimately make the decisions. It is the same for some Christian churches. If there are no women leaders in an organization or a government, then women do not have a voice. They do not have the right to make laws or decisions for an organization then you have to rely on someone else to do that. That is powerlessness.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ocotillo said:


> I've heard this sentiment expressed a lot, but I would question whether it is sustainable in a real historical context.
> 
> The phenomenon of male privilege is certainly real and I wouldn't for a minute argue about that reality. But the concept is reduced to polemic when it's used to paint a picture of near utopian conditions for men vs. abject servitude for women. In what historical period did this exist?
> 
> (Don't fall into the trap of shooting from the hip here..)



No, men didn't have anywhere near utopian conditions. Men went to war, worked hard jobs, had to endure all kinds of crap. And the less money had the more you endured. But women weren't spared..... just as men went to war women were the targets of war, women worked hard too (running a home was a lot of work in the day), often died in childbirth and without birth control had no way to limit her exposure. I'm just saying that whatever power there was to be had belonged to men. Women were considered rights and property. And traditionally, the more power men had less was expected of them. One need only look at very patriarchal cultures to see that was true. In some of these societies men can't even be expected to control themselves around 8 year old girls. 

Now that doesn't mean every guy was an arse and nobody loved and treated their wives well. Not every white in the south hated and abused blacks but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and wasn't rampant.

If men as a general group didn't mind women having equality the raging feminists so many can't stand wouldn't have existed.

And I seldom shoot from the hip, I'm just outspoken and sometimes lack a filter. Blame my new York Jewish family for this. But I also welcome thoughtful responses and am always considering things I might not have thought of. I appreciate your thoughtful posts.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> If you want a detailed description of men's and women's status throughout history and in different cultures that would take several books..


I would say more on the order of hundreds than several.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*No, men didn't have anywhere near utopian conditions. Men went to war, worked hard jobs, had to endure all kinds of crap.
I’m not talking about utopian.* 

Why is that when we start talking about power differential it becomes that we are making the assumption that people in power have a utopia? We are talking about power. No one had utopia. If I had a time machine and I could choose another time to live in, the time I choose would be now.  

You bring up some good examples yourself of less power. And women did not live as long as men due to child birth until modern medicine. Thank God for modern medicine. I don’t know if I would have survived my labor due to a complication.

*If men as a general group didn't mind women having equality the raging feminists so many can't stand wouldn't have existed.*

No. We had to convince men to accept equality. You should see some of literature degrading the suffragists in the 19th century. It took a long time to change attitudes. And both men and women had those attitudes. It took some radical women to work towards change. And there is always a backlash to change.

*And I seldom shoot from the hip, I'm just outspoken and sometimes lack a filter. Blame my new York Jewish family for this. *

 No problem. I love that about northeasterners. I lived in Rhode Island for a while. You always knew where you stood with people.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> I would say more on the order of hundreds than several.


Exactly.


----------



## ocotillo

lifeistooshort said:


> No, men didn't have anywhere near utopian conditions. Men went to war, worked hard jobs, had to endure all kinds of crap. And the less money had the more you endured. But women weren't spared..... just as men went to war women were the targets of war, women worked hard too (running a home was a lot of work in the day), often died in childbirth and without birth control had no way to limit her exposure.


Thank you 

Life was not a picnic for anyone and only the terminally stupid today would want to roll the clock back. (Not that there aren't people like that running around.) 

I do think this speaks directly to the question of whether men are actually "Angry" though. Early on in this thread, I recommended a book entitled _Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man _by Norah Vincent. The author actually saw the word through a man's eyes (As close as it is possible to do.) and did not see much in the way of anger. It was actually one of the more surprising things about the experience.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> Exactly.


Good. That means we can discuss a _specific_ time period?


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> Thank you
> 
> Life was not a picnic for anyone and only the terminally stupid today would want to roll the clock back. (Not that there aren't people like that running around.)
> 
> I do think this speaks directly to the question of whether men are actually "Angry" though. Early on in this thread, I recommended a book entitled _Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man _by Norah Vincent. The author actually saw the word through a man's eyes (As close as it is possible to do.) and did not see much in the way of anger. It was actually one of the more surprising things about the experience.


I think that would be really interesting. I have trans friends and I have always wondered how their world has changed due to their transition. I don't feel comfortable asking them though because I don't want to offend them. Ultimately, men and women don't know each others experience. We can just talka bout our own. The only thing is if she is a woman she goes in with a different perspective to start. To be raised male, to be raised female is different still.

I think what bothers me is that men don't know women's experiences and proceed to tell us how we should feel or experience things. I mean men making laws about birth control and abortion when they have never had the experience of being pregnant is really wrong IMO.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> Good. That means we can discuss a _specific_ time period?


Go for it. What time period do you want to discuss?


----------



## lifeistooshort

ocotillo said:


> Thank you
> 
> Life was not a picnic for anyone and only the terminally stupid today would want to roll the clock back. (Not that there aren't people like that running around.)
> 
> I do think this speaks directly to the question of whether men are actually "Angry" though. Early on in this thread, I recommended a book entitled _Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man _by Norah Vincent. The author actually saw the word through a man's eyes (As close as it is possible to do.) and did not see much in the way of anger. It was actually one of the more surprising things about the experience.


The ones who are angry are the ones who feel powerless, especially when they're unsuccessful in getting things they feel entitled to. Anger is usually a result of this. You know how many people I've had make snide comments about Jews owning everything and keeping them down? WTF? I've known more Jews is my day then I can count and very few were wealthy or had any kind of power, but when people feel helpless and frustrated by their lot in life they often look for someone to blame. Some blame us Jews (humanity's scapegoat for 5000 years and counting), some blame women and some blame many others. I think men who are secure and feel control in their own lives are not angry, and many men even welcome women's equality. Fortunately my husband is like this.....he benefits from my achievements in life and while he's currently looking for a job he doesn't have the weight of the whole family on his shoulders. It's a lot to bear.....why should men have to bear this alone? I don't want to be a burden, I want to be a partner.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Pooh Bear said:


> *No, men didn't have anywhere near utopian conditions. Men went to war, worked hard jobs, had to endure all kinds of crap.
> I’m not talking about utopian.*
> 
> Why is that when we start talking about power differential it becomes that we are making the assumption that people in power have a utopia? We are talking about power. No one had utopia. If I had a time machine and I could choose another time to live in, the time I choose would be now.
> 
> You bring up some good examples yourself of less power. And women did not live as long as men due to child birth until modern medicine. Thank God for modern medicine.* I don’t know if I would have survived my labor due to a complication.*
> 
> *If men as a general group didn't mind women having equality the raging feminists so many can't stand wouldn't have existed.*
> 
> No. We had to convince men to accept equality. You should see some of literature degrading the suffragists in the 19th century. It took a long time to change attitudes. And both men and women had those attitudes. It took some radical women to work towards change. And there is always a backlash to change.
> 
> *And I seldom shoot from the hip, I'm just outspoken and sometimes lack a filter. Blame my new York Jewish family for this. *
> 
> No problem. I love that about northeasterners. I lived in Rhode Island for a while. You always knew where you stood with people.


I know for a fact I wouldn't have survived either of my pregnancies and likely neither would my sons. I'm forever grateful for that. And guess what? The doctor that delivered my first was a man and the second was a woman, and they both did a bang up job :smthumbup:

As for the lacking a filter, my dad used to look at me when I was 8 years old and say "who do you think your're bullshi!tting young lady"? That was our life. Makes my dad sound like a jerk but he was the furthest thing from it.....he was a great guy who also ran his mouth as did everyone in his family. But he worked hard for us, was always there, and would've taken a bullet for any of us.


----------



## Pooh Bear

*It's a lot to bear.....why should men have to bear this alone? I don't want to be a burden, I want to be a partner.*

I agree. Actually when we were dating my husband sent me an article that said that men who were married to feminists were happier.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Pooh Bear said:


> *It's a lot to bear.....why should men have to bear this alone? I don't want to be a burden, I want to be a partner.*
> 
> I agree. Actually when we were dating my husband sent me an article that said that men who were married to feminists were happier.


They probably get more sex too 

Feminists tend to be less conservative and more able to enjoy sex. Not that conservative women can't be sexual but we know many conservative cultures frown on women embracing their sexuality.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Pooh Bear said:


> I think that would be really interesting. I have trans friends and I have always wondered how their world has changed due to their transition. I don't feel comfortable asking them though because I don't want to offend them. Ultimately, men and women don't know each others experience. We can just talka bout our own. The only thing is if she is a woman she goes in with a different perspective to start. To be raised male, to be raised female is different still.
> 
> I think what bothers me is that men don't know women's experiences and proceed to tell us how we should feel or experience things. *I mean men making laws about birth control and abortion when they have never had the experience of being pregnant is really wrong IMO.*


I would argue that they have done very little to demonstrate they're that concerned with life. They wage unnecessary wars that kill thousands and routinely cut funding for services that serve children. Once the kid's here they're on their own because hey, don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em. And the same ones who cry about the sanctity of life will take their girlfriend for one when they knock her up so their wife doesn't find out. This suggest it's not about life but about controlling women and sexuality.


----------



## ConanHub

lifeistooshort said:


> I would argue that they have done very little to demonstrate they're that concerned with life. They wage unnecessary wars that kill thousands and routinely cut funding for services that serve children. Once the kid's here they're on their own because hey, don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em. And the same ones who cry about the sanctity of life will take their girlfriend for one when they knock her up so their wife doesn't find out. This suggest it's not about life but about controlling women and sexuality.


Last time I checked, I was part of the human race. To paint all those woes as being the sole responsibility of a gender is not entirely accurate or helpful.

I know women that use abortion as birth control. A far as men who are involved in law making concerning reproduction, I would agree with you that only women should have anything to do with law making concerning reproduction and abortion as long as they are reproducing without men.

Some of us, GASP, men understand that we are all human and care a great deal for women and children. I have been involved for decades with helping girls and women in harsh or abusive environments and have sent, GASP, other men to jail because I found them abusing children and women.

Some of us men actually use our powers for good. Some women use their powers for evil.

I am all for discussions but division by gender, done by men or women, doesn't help.

There are plenty of racist, sexist, bigoted women in the world who are as responsible for the woes in our world as their male counterparts.

I have been appalled at women politicians and lawmakers when it comes to sexual violence against women and children.

Take care sisters. I am a good man and not all your fellow women care about what is right.

Male privilege is certainly one thing. Blaming the male gender for all major evil under the sun is another.

I am going to exercise my male privilege with my wife for Valentines day. I will let her out of her chains for a time because I'm such a good guy! Happy Valentines day!


----------



## Pooh Bear

*Last time I checked, I was part of the human race. To paint all those woes as being the sole responsibility of a gender is not entirely accurate or helpful.*

That is not what she was saying Conan. She was speaking specifically to anti-choice supporters who do not support programs to help people to support those children. Joan Chittister was on Bill Moyers once and she was talking about the war in Iraq. This was when the war had first started. She was talking about the hypocrisy of being pro-life when you are over there killing pregnant women.

*Take care sisters. I am a good man and not all your fellow women care about what is right.*

I know that. 

*Male privilege is certainly one thing. Blaming the male gender for all major evil under the sun is another.
*

I don’t think that is what anyone is doing. My problem is that men don’t listen to women. And that is what my point is. How can a man possibly understand what a pregnancy is like and the fear of pregnancy and ending up with an unwanted pregnancy is like unless you actually experience it. How can you make decisions about something that you know nothing about without asking what that experience is like and how one can be supportive. I saw a very anti-choice politician talking with a reporter and she asked him why he thought a woman would get an abortion. He couldn’t answer. Why does he have a right to make decisions about something he has no experience with and cannot possibly understand. And hasn't even bothered to understand?

I didn’t really want to go down this road though. I get sick of abortion talk. I think my point was more that I think that if you are making decisions for another person you should either have that experience yourself and talk to the people who do.


----------



## BradWesley

In honor of Valentine's Day and the release of Fifty shades of Grey, I'm going to beat the hell out of my wife with a barbers strap.

And damn she better enjoy it, if she knows what's good for her


----------



## lifeistooshort

ConanHub said:


> Last time I checked, I was part of the human race. To paint all those woes as being the sole responsibility of a gender is not entirely accurate or helpful.
> 
> I know women that use abortion as birth control. A far as men who are involved in law making concerning reproduction, I would agree with you that only women should have anything to do with law making concerning reproduction and abortion as long as they are reproducing without men.
> 
> Some of us, GASP, men understand that we are all human and care a great deal for women and children. I have been involved for decades with helping girls and women in harsh or abusive environments and have sent, GASP, other men to jail because I found them abusing children and women.
> 
> Some of us men actually use our powers for good. Some women use their powers for evil.
> 
> I am all for discussions but division by gender, done by men or women, doesn't help.
> 
> There are plenty of racist, sexist, bigoted women in the world who are as responsible for the woes in our world as their male counterparts.
> 
> I have been appalled at women politicians and lawmakers when it comes to sexual violence against women and children.
> 
> Take care sisters. I am a good man and not all your fellow women care about what is right.
> 
> Male privilege is certainly one thing. Blaming the male gender for all major evil under the sun is another.
> 
> I am going to exercise my male privilege with my wife for Valentines day. I will let her out of her chains for a time because I'm such a good guy! Happy Valentines day!


Nowhere in my post did I paint men with one brush. As pooh bear said I was specifically referring to rabid anti choicers. 

Women can be much nastier to each other then any guy, but traditionally they didn't have the power to do anything about it besides gossip.


Women politicians are as full of sh!t as their male counterparts. 

How you got that I painted every man on earth as evil is absolutely beyond me, but since it's valentine's day and I like you I'll let this one slide 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

lifeistooshort said:


> Nowhere in my post did I paint men with one brush. As pooh bear said I was specifically referring to rabid anti choicers.
> 
> Women can be much nastier to each other then any guy, but traditionally they didn't have the power to do anything about it besides gossip.
> 
> 
> Women politicians are as full of sh!t as their male counterparts.
> 
> How you got that I painted every man on earth as evil is absolutely beyond me, but since it's valentine's day and I like you I'll let this one slide
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My bad then. I misread what you were saying. It seemed like the conversation had gone towards "men bad".

I am going to take a nap to clear my caveman skull. &#55357;&#56841;&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

ConanHub said:


> My bad then. I misread what you were saying. It seemed like the conversation had gone towards "men bad".
> 
> I am going to take a nap to clear my caveman skull. ����
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Nope, men are awesome! At least once you remove the knuckledraggers. The world would be dull indeed without them. I say this as someone with a husband and two sons..... men are my whole house the light of my life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

*Women can be much nastier to each other then any guy, but traditionally they didn't have the power to do anything about it besides gossip.*

Yes.

*I am going to take a nap to clear my caveman skull.*

Ha,ha. You’re silly, Conan.


----------



## Pooh Bear

lifeistooshort said:


> Nope, men are awesome! At least once you remove the knuckledraggers. The world would be dull indeed without them. I say this as someone with a husband and two sons..... men are my whole house the light of my life.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Totally. I love men, too. I just don't like inequality. But there is not across the board inequality. There are different levels of power. Not all men have the same amount of power. A working class white man versus Bill Gates. There is a power differencial there. Yet that working class man has more power than a working class woman. Society is complex.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> Go for it. What time period do you want to discuss?


Okay...

To reiterate my position first though, I'm not questioning the concept of male privilege. I've already acknowledged that it's real.

I'm questioning what appears to be the _a priori_ assumption that male privilege was distributed among men (i.e That all men benefited from it) and the resultant inference that men, *as a class*, "..had it made" as the saying goes. 

Since you've graciously allowed me to chose the time period, I'm going to turn to ancient history. One of the revelations of the Human Genome project is that we have nearly twice as many female ancestors as we do male. In the grand scheme of things (i.e. The whole of history of the human species) a fair amount of men never fathered children at all.

This was especially apparent in ancient cultures where plural marriage was tolerated. There is nothing more useless, unnecessary and superfluous in that environment than a young man. (Which is a phenomenon we still see vestiges of even today among the "Lost boys" of splinter LDS groups who are simply ousted from the community at puberty.) 

To illustrate this, I'm going to quote from a 1926 work by D. D. Luckenbill. It was a collection of translations of Akkadian cuniform (Tablets and Steles) from the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries (B.C.) One of them is the record of Assyrian ruler, Ashurnasirpal II gloating over how he dealt with a rebellious city:

“I built a pillar over against the city gate, and I flayed all the chief men and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and I cut off the limbs of the officers. 

From some I cut off their hands and their fingers, and from others I cut off their noses and their ears. Many of them, I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living, and another of heads, and I bound their heads to posts round about the city. Twenty men I captured alive and I immured them in the wall of the palace. The rest of them [their warriors] I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates."​
I'm not quoting this either to be deliberately gruesome or to minimize how horrible it would have been to be a woman at that same time period. I'm pointing out that killing or horribly crippling every single male among any group that pissed off an ancient ruler has a long and rich tradition that can be documented today. This is one of many examples of it.

So while it's true that the vast majority of monarchs in that time period were male, the extent to which this benefited men as a group is more than questionable.


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear said:


> I think what bothers me is that men don't know women's experiences and proceed to tell us how we should feel or experience things.


Yes! This is quite understandable. There are few things as frustrating as having someone who knows nothing about you tell you what your life has been like and how you think and feel.

It irritates me on TAM to see men telling women what women are "Really" like. But it also irritates me to be told what men are "Really" like.


----------



## Youngster

Just thought I'd throw some statistics out concerning male privilege;

US Department of Justice report on homicide(2011) where male homicide rates are 3.6 times higher than those for women;
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf

US Department of Labor report on workplace fatalities(2012) where fatalities for men are 12 times higher than those for women;
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf

Congressional Research Service report of casualty statistics for Middle East Operations(2014) where male fatalities are 41 times higher than those for females;
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf

CDC report on life expectancy(2013), male life expectancy is at 76.4 years whereas female life expectancy is at 81.2 years;
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

National Institute for Health(years 2011-2013) where more money is spent on Breast cancer research than research on the next 2 cancers combined;
Cancer Research Funding - National Cancer Institute

Even though according to the CDC(2011) the death rate from Prostate cancer is higher than the death rate from Breast cancer;
Cancer - United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) Data - 2011 Top Ten Cancers


Doesn't really sound like privilege to me......


----------



## EleGirl

Youngster said:


> Just thought I'd throw some statistics out concerning male privilege;
> 
> US Department of Justice report on homicide(2011) where male homicide rates are 3.6 times higher than those for women;
> http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf
> 
> US Department of Labor report on workplace fatalities(2012) where fatalities for men are 12 times higher than those for women;
> http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf
> 
> Congressional Research Service report of casualty statistics for Middle East Operations(2014) where male fatalities are 41 times higher than those for females;
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf
> 
> CDC report on life expectancy(2013), male life expectancy is at 76.4 years whereas female life expectancy is at 81.2 years;
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> National Institute for Health(years 2011-2013) where more money is spent on Breast cancer research than research on the next 2 cancers combined;
> Cancer Research Funding - National Cancer Institute
> 
> Even though according to the CDC(2011) the death rate from Prostate cancer is higher than the death rate from Breast cancer;
> Cancer - United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) Data - 2011 Top Ten Cancers
> 
> 
> Doesn't really sound like privilege to me......


When we look at prostate vs breast cancers... 
More men get prostate cancer than women (and men) get breast cancer. But more women die from breast cancer than men who die from prostate cancer.


http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/?_r=0

Cancer (Deaths).....N.C.I. Funding per Death
Lung (162,460)..........$1,630
Colon (55,170)...........$4,566
Breast (41,430)..........$13,452
Pancreas (32,300 )......$2,297
Prostate (27,350)........$11,298

Cancer (New cases)......N.C.I. Funding per New Case
Prostate (234,460).......$1,318
Breast (214,640).........$2,596
Lung (174,470)...........$1,518
Colon (106,680)..........$2,361
Pancreas (33,730).......$2,200


----------



## Pooh Bear

*To reiterate my position first though, I'm not questioning the concept of male privilege. I've already acknowledged that it's real.*

Yes. 

*I'm questioning what appears to be the a priori assumption that male privilege was distributed among men (i.e That all men benefited from it) and the resultant inference that men, as a class, "..had it made" as the saying goes. *

I don’t think that I’ve said men “have it made.” That is not how feminists see privilege as I understand it with either. Try reading Stiffed by Susan Faludi.

*I built a pillar over against the city gate, and I flayed all the chief men and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and I cut off the limbs of the officers. 

From some I cut off their hands and their fingers, and from others I cut off their noses and their ears. Many of them, I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living, and another of heads, and I bound their heads to posts round about the city. Twenty men I captured alive and I immured them in the wall of the palace. The rest of them [their warriors] I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates.*

Lovely.

*So while it's true that the vast majority of monarchs in that time period were male, the extent to which this benefited men as a group is more than questionable.*

Right. That’s very complicated. Men feeling most threatened by other men. Meaning the king attributed power to those men and had to take them out. What happened to the women? Rape as an act of aggression? Slavery? Or maybe we don't know because at that time women didn't matter all that much. They were basically property. To be a piece of property means you have no privilege whatsoever. So is it better to be seen and feared by a king so much so that he has to torture and kill you or is it better to live your life as property? I don't know. 

ISIS just recently killed the men of a certain area and took the women as sex slaves. Being a sex slave would not be a good fate either. Who has it better in that situation? I suppose you could say the women because if they can escape and get safe then they could still potentially have a good life. But what if they don't? 

And I have noticed the only people ISIS is killing publicly are men. I think that's significant. Why are they only killing men publicly? To make other men afraid? Because they assume the public deaths of women don't matter? Or are they afraid that there will be a public outcry if they kill women publicly? Do they care about that? I don't know.


----------



## Youngster

EleGirl said:


> When we look at prostate vs breast cancers...
> More men get prostate cancer than women (and men) get breast cancer. But more women die from breast cancer than men who die from prostate cancer.
> 
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/?_r=0
> 
> Cancer (Deaths).....N.C.I. Funding per Death
> Lung (162,460)..........$1,630
> Colon (55,170)...........$4,566
> Breast (41,430)..........$13,452
> Pancreas (32,300 )......$2,297
> Prostate (27,350)........$11,298
> 
> Cancer (New cases)......N.C.I. Funding per New Case
> Prostate (234,460).......$1,318
> Breast (214,640).........$2,596
> Lung (174,470)...........$1,518
> Colon (106,680)..........$2,361
> Pancreas (33,730).......$2,200


I was incorrect in my previous post, I should have said cases. You are correct in that the death rate is higher for breast cancer. Also in general breast cancer is more prevalent in younger women whereas prostate cancer is more prevalent in older men.


----------



## Pooh Bear

ocotillo said:


> Yes! This is quite understandable. There are few things as frustrating as having someone who knows nothing about you tell you what your life has been like and how you think and feel.
> 
> It irritates me on TAM to see men telling women what women are "Really" like. But it also irritates me to be told what men are "Really" like.


Defintely. It can go both ways.


----------



## EleGirl

Pooh Bear said:


> *To reiterate my position first though, I'm not questioning the concept of male privilege. I've already acknowledged that it's real.*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *I'm questioning what appears to be the a priori assumption that male privilege was distributed among men (i.e That all men benefited from it) and the resultant inference that men, as a class, "..had it made" as the saying goes. *
> 
> I don’t think that I’ve said men “have it made.” That is not how feminists see privilege as I understand it with either. Try reading Stiffed by Susan Faludi.
> 
> *I built a pillar over against the city gate, and I flayed all the chief men and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and I cut off the limbs of the officers.
> 
> From some I cut off their hands and their fingers, and from others I cut off their noses and their ears. Many of them, I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living, and another of heads, and I bound their heads to posts round about the city. Twenty men I captured alive and I immured them in the wall of the palace. The rest of them [their warriors] I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates.*
> 
> Lovely.
> 
> *So while it's true that the vast majority of monarchs in that time period were male, the extent to which this benefited men as a group is more than questionable.*
> 
> Right. That’s very complicated. Men feeling most threatened by other men. Meaning the king attributed power to those men and had to take them out. What happened to the women? Rape as an act of aggression? Slavery? Or maybe we don't know because at that time women didn't matter all that much. They were basically property. To be a piece of property means you have no privilege whatsoever. So is it better to be seen and feared by a king so much so that he has to torture and kill you or is it better to live your life as property? I don't know.
> 
> ISIS just recently killed the men of a certain area and took the women as sex slaves. Being a sex slave would not be a good fate either. Who has it better in that situation? I suppose you could say the women because if they can escape and get safe then they could still potentially have a good life. But what if they don't?
> 
> And I have noticed the only people ISIS is killing publicly are men. I think that's significant. Why are they only killing men publicly? To make other men afraid? Because they assume the public deaths of women don't matter? Or are they afraid that there will be a public outcry if they kill women publicly? Do they care about that? I don't know.


You are right.

Men were killed in war. The women of the side that lost usually suffered a very bad fate as well... those who were not raped, tortured and killed were usually taken as slaves.. which meant that sex slavery was the major part of what they were forced to endure.


There is something else that is often ignored when all this talk starts about how men have these unique things that they endure, such as dying as soldiers in war....

Before modern medicine, about 25% of all women died from pregnancy complications, in child birth or as a result of problems from child birth. That number is much higher than the number of men who have died in fighting war, ever.


----------



## Jung_admirer

EleGirl said:


> You are right.
> 
> Men were killed in war. The women of the side that lost usually suffered a very bad fate as well... those who were not raped, tortured and killed were usually taken as slaves.. which meant that sex slavery was the major part of what they were forced to endure.
> 
> 
> There is something else that is often ignored when all this talk starts about how men have these unique things that they endure, such as dying as soldiers in war....
> 
> Before modern medicine, about 25% of all women died in child birth or as a result of problems from child birth. That number much higher than the number of men who have died in fighting war, ever.


According to CDC records, the death rate associated with pregnancy was a little under 1% in the early 1900's (6-9 deaths per 1000 births). How far back are you going?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pooh Bear

Jung_admirer said:


> According to CDC records, the death rate associated with pregnancy was a little under 1% in the early 1900's (6-9 deaths per 1000 births). How far back are you going?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh come on. You are going to argue whether childbirth was dangerous for women? It was. It is. We just don't expect a death in childbirth anymore. Although the US is worse when it comes to other industrialized nations for mortality in childbirth.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Youngster said:


> I was incorrect in my previous post, I should have said cases. You are correct in that the death rate is higher for breast cancer. Also in general breast cancer is more prevalent in younger women whereas prostate cancer is more prevalent in older men.


Part of the reason for these statistics is that older men who have prostate cancer don't usually die from it. It's slow growing and they usually die from something else before the cancer gets them. 

When my dad was tested for it (he didn't have it, passed away from lung cancer) he was told that if he was over 70 (I think he was about 60 at the time) they wouldn't do anything anyway because a large percentage of men over 70 have prostate cancer and it's seldom what actually kills them. Breast cancer often kills by itself. 

Though I think it's a little ridiculous to argue over whose cancer is worse when discussing privilege.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

Pooh Bear,



Pooh Bear said:


> I don’t think that I’ve said men “have it made.” That is not how feminists see privilege as I understand it with either. Try reading Stiffed by Susan Faludi.


No, you haven't said that and I've not attributed that thought to you. 

It is implicit in the idea that men are angry at having lost their power and privilege and in the book, _Stiffed_, Susan Faludi is pretty open and honest that this perception is typical in feminism and that prior to her research, she herself was engaging in the same circular reasoning. 




Pooh Bear said:


> Right. That’s very complicated. Men feeling most threatened by other men. Meaning the king attributed power to those men and had to take them out.


It's difficult today to know exactly what the motivations of Ashurnasirpal II were and you could look at it that way, I suppose. It's also possible that the value of these men as examples, (To discourage other cities in the Akkadian empire from rebelling) was greater than their potential worth as slaves. Either way, it is a clear statement of the value that these men had in that society. 





Pooh Bear said:


> What happened to the women? Rape as an act of aggression? Slavery? Or maybe we don't know because at that time women didn't matter all that much. They were basically property. To be a piece of property means you have no privilege whatsoever. So is it better to be seen and feared by a king so much so that he has to torture and kill you or is it better to live your life as property? I don't know.


I think that's a good question and speaks directly to the point I've tried to make on this thread. Male privilege is certainly real, but it's tough to find a non-trivial example that did not come at a cost. 





Pooh Bear said:


> And I have noticed the only people ISIS is killing publicly are men. I think that's significant. Why are they only killing men publicly? To make other men afraid? Because they assume the public deaths of women don't matter? Or are they afraid that there will be a public outcry if they kill women publicly? Do they care about that? I don't know.


Male dominated Abrahamic faiths generally view men as more responsible in the sight of God than women. Whether this is truly a privilege or not again depends entirely on how you look at it. 

One example that is a little closer to home is Protestant denominations with a lay ministry. (e.g. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) Men in those denominations are expected to be the primary breadwinner and work 40 - 60 hours a week at their secular jobs. In addition to that, they are expected to devote another 15 - 25 hours a week to church work.

Women in those churches are not allowed to hold positions of responsibility, which is a clear example of patriarchy. But on the flip side of the coin, the neverending treadmill and the steady stream of guilt and pressure to do more, more more wears the men in these faiths down and burns them out.

Ex-members from both of the two religions I mentioned are pretty vocal in the opinion that this privilege was not worth the cost and that it actually detracted from overall quality of life.


----------



## Youngster

lifeistooshort said:


> Part of the reason for these statistics is that older men who have prostate cancer don't usually die from it. It's slow growing and they usually die from something else before the cancer gets them.
> 
> When my dad was tested for it (he didn't have it, passed away from lung cancer) he was told that if he was over 70 (I think he was about 60 at the time) they wouldn't do anything anyway because a large percentage of men over 70 have prostate cancer and it's seldom what actually kills them. Breast cancer often kills by itself.
> 
> Though I think it's a little ridiculous to argue over whose cancer is worse when discussing privilege.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I wasn't arguing whose cancer is worse, that is ridiculous. I'm not sure how you could even ascertain that from my post.

I was arguing about the amount of funding for each cancer type. The amount of money spent on breast cancer is much higher than on any other cancer type. For a number of reasons(age, number of deaths, etc) it logically makes sense that breast cancer receive more funds. 

Having said that, it seems that breast cancer funding and awareness dominate the cancer and general health discussion. Heart disease still kills more people each year than all cancer types but research funding per death is much higher for breast cancer. Look at EleGirl's post above at the funding discrepancy for different cancer types.


----------



## Jung_admirer

Pooh Bear said:


> Oh come on. You are going to argue whether childbirth was dangerous for women? It was. It is. We just don't expect a death in childbirth anymore. Although the US is worse when it comes to other industrialized nations for mortality in childbirth.


The basic problem that I have with the Woman's Movement is not that they want more power ... It's the fact that its promoters resist any debate. Witness Warren Farrell, who for 40 years has attempted to open a dialogue, only to be shouted down. It has to be this way though, ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of those without a well-constructed argument. Perhaps you notice some of those in this thread.

Anytime privilege includes the ability to reduce the self-determination (power) of others, it must always be earned, or it simply will not be accepted. Pregnancy does not reduce the self-determination of others ... forced military service does, forced paternity does etc.

One poster made a comment concerning men making the laws regulating abortion. Seems perfectly reasonable until you consider that women are 51% voting population and cast 56% of the ballots in the last election. Female voters have the numbers to insitigate tyranny in the Millian sense (J.S. Mill, "On Liberty").

Think for a minute about the hate & vile that was delivered without restraint to the US Vietnam Veterans. Why was that? Jung would tell you that we eventually hate that which we depend upon. I have never looked into this, but I would wager that the Women's Movement were on the front lines of this. Why? Because you cannot assert power over those you are dependent on for protection. Can anyone comment?

A simple fact: All geopolitical borders are maintained by force or threat of force. If you doubt this for a moment, witness Crimea.

A very simple statement: Unearned privilege will not be defended at the cost of life & limb. 

You see young men withdrawing today.. much to the chagrin of young women who call them "afraid of commitment". 
(Elegirl: Bowlby/Ainsworth would argue this does not apply to the 20% of men/women that are securely attached .. as you mention with your children). There we are with Pareto again.

As I stated before, ultimately it does not matter. If any group asserts too much power over another, it will eventually be overthrown. There are laws which liberate and laws which enslave. To the extent that laws seek to institutionalize privilege at the expense of justice, they will ultimately fail. I do wonder how much pain we will have to endure.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Youngster said:


> I wasn't arguing whose cancer is worse, that is ridiculous. I'm not sure how you could even ascertain that from my post.
> 
> I was arguing about the amount of funding for each cancer type. The amount of money spent on breast cancer is much higher than on any other cancer type. For a number of reasons(age, number of deaths, etc) it logically makes sense that breast cancer receive more funds.
> 
> Having said that, it seems that breast cancer funding and awareness dominate the cancer and general health discussion. Heart disease still kills more people each year than all cancer types but research funding per death is much higher for breast cancer. Look at EleGirl's post above at the funding discrepancy for different cancer types.


That is definitely true. Mainly because Susan Komen's sister did a bang up job of starting a huge political machine, where nobody else has taken the initiative to start such a machine. I know plenty of women who are unhappy with the percentage of funding breast cancer eats up; for sure breast cancer is horrible but there are many illnesses that kill people and need funding. Breast cancer eats up way more than it's share and I'm not sure how much money they pull in even makes it to research. I hear the people who run the organization get paid quite handsomely.

But this is a separate issue from what we call privilege. I don't think men have necessarily had life easier throughout history, we all have our burdens. But there was historically a power imbalance, and that's where this argument stems from. It's really not about who had it worse but about peoples' ability to have a say in the issues that affect them.


----------



## Ikaika

Youngster said:


> I wasn't arguing whose cancer is worse, that is ridiculous. I'm not sure how you could even ascertain that from my post.
> 
> 
> 
> I was arguing about the amount of funding for each cancer type. The amount of money spent on breast cancer is much higher than on any other cancer type. For a number of reasons(age, number of deaths, etc) it logically makes sense that breast cancer receive more funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, it seems that breast cancer funding and awareness dominate the cancer and general health discussion. Heart disease still kills more people each year than all cancer types but research funding per death is much higher for breast cancer. Look at EleGirl's post above at the funding discrepancy for different cancer types.



It is true that most RFPs are built around funding for specific cancers, however most cancer research are primarily molecular based and thus cross over many forms of "named" cancers. Researchers and those reviewing grants understand this even though most politicians don't. It is true that cancer research funds have gained more traction in recent decades over heart disease even though it is second to heart disease and just above CVAs (strokes) for mortality. The morbidity rate is slightly higher across a wider age demographic for cancer than is heart disease and since the 1980s heart disease fatalities have stabilized while cancer rates have steadily climbed. 

Thus gender warfare (privilege) based on research money only happens in Washington, D.C. not in most research labs... Personal experience.


----------



## Catherine602

This is a link to a piece on CNN today. I hope it starts a ground swell of action. Hearing about innocent souls suffering and nothing being done is debilitating. I just hope God puts abused women in his hands and finally answers their prayers. 

"Women cannot wait for change," said Bolanle Makanju, the founder of a faith-based organization in Nigeria. "We've waited for centuries and centuries. We've got to push for it." 

This is a quote from the CNN article and so true. As much as some men rail against "The movement" If there were and is no action to stop and prevent abuse of women and children then noting will change. If we don't work as a team then women will, of necessity, work alone. But no man or woman with eyes to see and ears to hear can say that feminism is driving the fight against abuse. We must act in faith and not gender, like angels coming to the rescue. I think that is the answer to the prayers of these women. 

Jimmy Carter: Women's rights the fight of my life - CNN.com


----------



## Youngster

Ikaika said:


> It is true that most RFPs are built around funding for specific cancers, however most cancer research are primarily molecular based and thus cross over many forms of "named" cancers. Researchers and those reviewing grants understand this even though most politicians don't. It is true that cancer research funds have gained more traction in recent decades over heart disease even though it is second to heart disease and just above CVAs (strokes) for mortality. The morbidity rate is slightly higher across a wider age demographic for cancer than is heart disease and since the 1980s heart disease fatalities have stabilized while cancer rates have steadily climbed.
> 
> Thus gender warfare (privilege) based on research money only happens in Washington, D.C. not in most research labs... Personal experience.


So why the pink ribbons? Why the walks for breast cancer? Why do we have "pink week" in the NFL? Why are research dollars tracked for different types of cancers if it's all the same anyways? Why not spread funding evenly across all cancer research if it's the same. Why not just say "hey we are doing this for all cancers, it's all for the same thing"?

Because it's not the same.

Although molecular research dollars often apply to all cancers treatment research dollars seldom do. To say most cancer research applies to all cancer types is disingenuous at best. So when breast cancer is beaten that means all other cancer types will magically disappear as well? You might as well say you can cure pancreatic cancer with a mastectomy.


----------



## Cletus

Youngster said:


> You might as well say you can cure pancreatic cancer with a mastectomy.


Then I really hope I don't get pancreatic cancer.


----------



## Ikaika

Youngster said:


> So why the pink ribbons? Why the walks for breast cancer? Why do we have "pink week" in the NFL? Why are research dollars tracked for different types of cancers if it's all the same anyways? Why not spread funding evenly across all cancer research if it's the same. Why not just say "hey we are doing this for all cancers, it's all for the same thing"?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Although molecular research dollars often apply to all cancers treatment research dollars seldom do. To say most cancer research applies to all cancer types is disingenuous at best. So when breast cancer is beaten that means all other cancer types will magically disappear as well? You might as well say you can cure pancreatic cancer with a mastectomy.



Treatment is a separate pool of money from research. And sure there are all awareness campaigns, however most are not around research as they are around public awareness. For instance, colorectal cancer is the third leading cancer (and gaining momentum) in the the U.S. until the campaign the message of early detection through colonoscopy became more widespread. Thus, I see the pink campaign being more about awareness in early detection and correlations of prevention. Should there also be one for Prostate cancer? Sure, I think there should be one, but I also don't think just because there is not currently we should abandon the pink campaign. 

I actually receive research money for developmental biology research, but have published in some cancer research journals. Many of the same molecular markers we see in neurulation are present in developing forms of brain tumors like, astrocytomas. So, sure there are research dollars specifically targeted toward Breast cancer or Prostate cancer, but a wet laboratory research lab understands the molecular overlap in many different cancers. A better way to see it, while many think of cancers of specific organs or tissues, cancer is more about molecular markers than it is about pancreatic, Prostate, Breast, etc cancer. And, the molecular markers are far more widespread than the individual tissue classifications themselves.

Btw, some of the same coktail of chemotherapeutic drugs are used by more than one tissue classification of cancers. Thus there is no panacea, or cure for cancer (singular). We struggle to find ways to control cancer at the many molecular fronts typically presented.


----------



## Ikaika

Cletus said:


> Then I really hope I don't get pancreatic cancer.



Because of its inoperability in most cases, you are correct.


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> According to CDC records, the death rate associated with pregnancy was a little under 1% in the early 1900's (6-9 deaths per 1000 births). How far back are you going?


All the way back. From the dawn of humanity until there was any kind of real medical care for pregnancy and child birth. I also went back and corrected my post. It was 25% mortality rate for woman from pregnancy complications, child birth and complications that arose post child birth.

The CDC number is the number of death per birth. That's different from the number of women who died from pregnancy and child birth. In the 1800's and early 1900's, the average woman gave birth 7 times and 30% gave birth 10 times. The number of pregnancies were even greater than child births. That gives each woman a much greater chance of death. For a woman who has 10 childbirths, in the early 1900’s she had about a 7% to 10% chance of dying during child birth. She also had further changes of dying during the pregnancy from complications or after the pregnancy from complications of child birth. And keep in mind that by the early 1900’s, people understood the needs for washing their hands and instruments before delivering a baby. Prior to that, infection from dirty instruments and dirty hands were one of the major killers of women in complications after child birth.

That brings each woman's chance for death from child birth in her lifetime up to between (about) 7%-10% in the early 1900's. 

By the early 1900's things like the need for cleanliness was understood. Prior to that many of the deaths from child birth were caused by infections caused by the filthy conditions that existed during child birth. For example the person who delivered a baby would use the same instruments going from woman to woman without even washing them. They would not even wash their hands.


----------



## EleGirl

Jung_admirer said:


> As I stated before, ultimately it does not matter. If any group asserts too much power over another, it will eventually be overthrown. There are laws which liberate and laws which enslave. To the extent that laws seek to institutionalize privilege at the expense of justice, they will ultimately fail. I do wonder how much pain we will have to endure.


Yes if a group asserts too much poser over another it will eventually be overthrown. But it can take years, hundreds of years for that to happen. The misery that a lot of people have endured during history is really unthinkable. They endured it without fighting back, with just accepting their own mistreatment.

And even worse is how many people in the past and today see the horrible way so many are mistreated but just look the other way.

When I look back through history, it seems that those in power take from and control those they have power over until the less powerful revolt. Then those who lead the less powerful in revolt become those in power and over time take more and more from those that they have power over.

It's a vicious cycle that seems to repeat itself through human history. It's always been the most violent, the most narcissistic, the most money hungry who have taken control, held it, and reproduced the most.

What we see happening with ISIS today it pretty much want the world was like before 20th thought tried to change things. But ISIS and other like minded mega maniacs are trying to bring the world back to some time before modern thoughts about equality, etc.

This is why we need violence. If we want to preserve our society and move forward as humans, we are going to have to fight (physically) those who seek to keep society in the state it was thousands of years ago.


----------



## Youngster

Ikaika said:


> *Treatment is a separate pool of money from research. *
> 
> And sure there are all awareness campaigns, however most are not around research as they are around public awareness. For instance, colorectal cancer is the third leading cancer (and gaining momentum) in the the U.S. until the campaign the message of early detection through colonoscopy became more widespread. Thus, I see the pink campaign being more about awareness in early detection and correlations of prevention. Should there also be one for Prostate cancer? Sure, I think there should be one, but I also don't think just because there is not currently we should abandon the pink campaign.
> 
> I actually receive research money for developmental biology research, but have published in some cancer research journals. Many of the same molecular markers we see in neurulation are present in developing forms of brain tumors like, astrocytomas. So, sure there are research dollars specifically targeted toward Breast cancer or Prostate cancer, but a wet laboratory research lab understands the molecular overlap in many different cancers. A better way to see it, while many think of cancers of specific organs or tissues, cancer is more about molecular markers than it is about pancreatic, Prostate, Breast, etc cancer. And, the molecular markers are far more widespread than the individual tissue classifications themselves.
> 
> Btw, some of the same coktail of chemotherapeutic drugs are used by more than one tissue classification of cancers.


TREATMENT is a different pool of money TREATMENT RESEARCH is not. 

There are vast areas of research for cancer treatments that have nothing to do with molecular research. Chemotherapeutic drugs are far from the only game in town.

Surgical techniques vary dependent upon the type of cancer and where in the body the surgery can or must be performed. Are the dollars spent for the research for robotic surgery of prostate cancer directly applicable or even somewhat applicable to any other cancers? No they are not. 

In the same vein early detection techniques vary between cancer types. You aren't going to screen for colorectal cancer with a mammogram. NRE spent on the development of mammography equipment certainly didn't transition to prostate PSA research/screening.

The money spent in the above examples are dedicated to treating a specific type of cancer. That's why it matters where the money goes in cancer treatment. That's why you can't tell everyone that the research dollars are interchangeable because they are not. That's also why it's not fair for men and women with other types of cancer to get short-changed because of the pink campaign.

I clearly see your point and how it applies to molecular research but there is a whole lot of research out there that has nothing to do with molecular research.


----------



## Ikaika

Youngster said:


> TREATMENT is a different pool of money TREATMENT RESEARCH is not.
> 
> 
> 
> There are vast areas of research for cancer treatments that have nothing to do with molecular research. Chemotherapeutic drugs are far from the only game in town.
> 
> 
> 
> Surgical techniques vary dependent upon the type of cancer and where in the body the surgery can or must be performed. Are the dollars spent for the research for robotic surgery of prostate cancer directly applicable or even somewhat applicable to any other cancers? No they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same vein early detection techniques vary between cancer types. You aren't going to screen for colorectal cancer with a mammogram. NRE spent on the development of mammography equipment certainly didn't transition to prostate PSA research/screening.
> 
> 
> 
> The money spent in the above examples are dedicated to treating a specific type of cancer. That's why it matters where the money goes in cancer treatment. That's why you can't tell everyone that the research dollars are interchangeable because they are not. That's also why it's not fair for men and women with other types of cancer to get short-changed because of the pink campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly see your point and how it applies to molecular research but there is a whole lot of research out there that has nothing to do with molecular research.



Treatment research has more to do with pharmaceutical companies and they set their own agenda for how best to increase their own revenue (profit margins). So, if we look across the board on this count we would assume gender neutrality since the larger percentage of drug research is focused on psychobiology research. 

In terms of screening, colorectal research screening trumps both mammogram (which is far less accurate - which is why there is debate on when screening should start. Too many false positives in women prior to 45 years of age, typical age of peri menopause) and antibody screening (PSA numbers - which are far more definitive at the high end numbers) in money to increase both techniques and campaigns. This is also gender neutral.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> You are right.
> There is something else that is often ignored when all this talk starts about how men have these unique things that they endure, such as dying as soldiers in war....
> 
> Before modern medicine, about 25% of all women died from pregnancy complications, in child birth or as a result of problems from child birth. That number is much higher than the number of men who have died in fighting war, ever.


Societies probably bear some measure of responsibility for mortality related to pregnancy and childbirth, but even in the most egalitarian society or even in a matriarchy, that risk is still going to exist because it is primarily biological in nature and not directly related to the society itself.

The example I gave with the Assyrian king was to illustrate male redundancy. If you've ever kept livestock of any kind, it's doubtful that you kept equal numbers of males and females, because when creatures are reduced to only their biological value, excess males are the most useless of all.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Youngster said:


> So why the pink ribbons? Why the walks for breast cancer? Why do we have "pink week" in the NFL? Why are research dollars tracked for different types of cancers if it's all the same anyways? Why not spread funding evenly across all cancer research if it's the same. Why not just say "hey we are doing this for all cancers, it's all for the same thing"?
> 
> Because it's not the same.
> 
> Although molecular research dollars often apply to all cancers treatment research dollars seldom do. To say most cancer research applies to all cancer types is disingenuous at best. So when breast cancer is beaten that means all other cancer types will magically disappear as well? You might as well say you can cure pancreatic cancer with a mastectomy.


What do you know about cancer research? And why so resentful that people have created a movement to fight a particular type of cancer? That movement was started by people and you could start another movement for another type of cancer. And frankly, you could read Barbara Ehrenreich on this issue. I have not read her book but I saw her talking about it on Jon Stewart. She believes that the pink teddy bears and pink everything does not do justice to a deadly disease and infantalizes the sufferers of that disease. Plus corporations are making a lot of money supporting breast cancer research. Buy our yogart and send us the tops and we will donate a small amount to breast cancer research. It is a money maker for big business and makes people feel like they are doing something.

I don't really understand what you're so upset about. Individuals start these movements. Start your own.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Ikaika said:


> Because of its inoperability in most cases, you are correct.


Why is pancreatic cancer incurable, Ikaika? What makes it 
different? My grandfather died of it and he was an alcoholic. 

What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist?


----------



## Ikaika

Pooh Bear said:


> Why is pancreatic cancer incurable, Ikaika? What makes it
> 
> different? My grandfather died of it and he was an alcoholic.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you do for a living? Are you a scientist?



I wish I could give you a definitive cause, but we do know is that lifestyle can change your risk assessment. Alcoholism may have increased his risk indirectly because alcohol abuse does tend to reduce our immunology responses. And, our immune system has the capacity to rid the body of cancer in the practical sense. 

In terms of pancreatic cancer it is:
placement of the organ for surgical access.

The importance the organ plays with no overlap from any other organ system.

And unlike the liver, the pancreas has a much lower regenerative quality. So removal of 30% of the pancreas reduces its capacity by 30%. Also true of brain and other tissues.

Melanoma is also particularly deadly only because a set of its gene components in the melanocytes leaves them vulnerable to higher rates of histone acetylation and thus activation for metastasis. 

So, youngster is correct in that some cancers have some level of unique molecular signature in particular tissues, but some of the key SNPS (mutations) can be seen across many cancer types.

I'm a developmental biologist. A non-gender driven research.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Ikaika said:


> I wish I could give you a definitive cause, but we do know is that lifestyle can change your risk assessment. Alcoholism may have increased his risk indirectly because alcohol abuse does tend to reduce our immunology responses. And, our immune system has the capacity to rid the body of cancer in the practical sense.
> 
> In terms of pancreatic cancer it is:
> placement of the organ for surgical access.
> 
> The importance the organ plays with no overlap from any other organ system.
> 
> And unlike the liver, the pancreas has a much lower regenerative quality. So removal of 30% of the pancreas reduces its capacity by 30%. Also true of brain and other tissues.
> 
> Melanoma is also particularly deadly only because a set of its gene components in the melanocytes leaves them vulnerable to higher rates of histone acetylation and thus activation for metastasis.
> 
> So, youngster is correct in that some cancers have some level of unique molecular signature in particular tissues, but some of the key SNPS (mutations) can be seen across many cancer types.
> 
> I'm a developmental biologist. A non-gender driven research.


That's so interesting. Thank you.


----------



## Youngster

Ikaika said:


> Treatment research has more to do with pharmaceutical companies and they set their own agenda for how best to increase their own revenue (profit margins). So, if we look across the board on this count we would assume gender neutrality since the larger percentage of drug research is focused on psychobiology research.
> 
> In terms of screening, colorectal research screening trumps both mammogram (which is far less accurate - which is why there is debate on when screening should start. Too many false positives in women prior to 45 years of age, typical age of peri menopause) and antibody screening (PSA numbers - which are far more definitive at the high end numbers) in money to increase both techniques and campaigns. This is also gender neutral.


No, pharmaceutical treatment research is not gender neutral. Much of the research is government driven and comes from the NSF(through grants). If the government is putting more money into breast cancer research, then the pharmaceutical companies are going to receive more money to develop drugs to treat breast cancer. They don't get to choose where that money goes (although they can put their own money wherever they want).

Treatment research also has to do with medical equipment manufacturers, a multi - multi - billion dollar industry. I know I've worked in the field. 

I'll try to simplify this......from my experience in this industry.

Do you think the NRE(non recurring engineering) funding for the first mammogram was free? Where do you think the money came from? When the government paid for that funding it had to take money away from other research projects. So was the money spent on the R&D for mammography equipment gender neutral?

How about robotic surgeries? Ultrasounds? MRI's?

Much of this funding comes from the government. So when we spend a disproportionate amount of dollars on say R&D to develop robotic surgery for breast cancer that money has to come from other projects. 

Also when non-government agencies(some of the breast cancer fundraising organizations come to mind) contribute money for R&D you can bet that they require that the money spent benefits their cause. 

Using rough numbers, the government is spending 1.5 billion dollars on cancer research, one third of which is for breast cancer. Lets say ALL the money going to molecular research used is gender neutral. Medical device manufacturers make things(like mammograms and surgical equipment), very little of which is applicable to both genders. As such, if there is a bias in funding there will be a bias in how research/engineering/development money is spent. Only devices that are funded are going to be built. 

Hypothetically(using NIH research numbers for proportions) if the government gives Boston Scientific $2 mill for prostate device R&D, $2 mill for lung device R&D and $5 mill breast device R&D how is this gender neutral?


----------



## Ikaika

Youngster said:


> No, pharmaceutical treatment research is not gender neutral. Much of the research is government driven and comes from the NSF(through grants). If the government is putting more money into breast cancer research, then the pharmaceutical companies are going to receive more money to develop drugs to treat breast cancer. They don't get to choose where that money goes (although they can put their own money wherever they want).
> 
> 
> 
> Treatment research also has to do with medical equipment manufacturers, a multi - multi - billion dollar industry. I know I've worked in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to simplify this......from my experience in this industry.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the NRE(non recurring engineering) funding for the first mammogram was free? Where do you think the money came from? When the government paid for that funding it had to take money away from other research projects. So was the money spent on the R&D for mammography equipment gender neutral?
> 
> 
> 
> How about robotic surgeries? Ultrasounds? MRI's?
> 
> 
> 
> Much of this funding comes from the government. So when we spend a disproportionate amount of dollars on say R&D to develop robotic surgery for breast cancer that money has to come from other projects.
> 
> 
> 
> Also when non-government agencies(some of the breast cancer fundraising organizations come to mind) contribute money for R&D you can bet that they require that the money spent benefits their cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Using rough numbers, the government is spending 1.5 billion dollars on cancer research, one third of which is for breast cancer. Lets say ALL the money going to molecular research used is gender neutral. Medical device manufacturers make things(like mammograms and surgical equipment), very little of which is applicable to both genders. As such, if there is a bias in funding there will be a bias in how research/engineering/development money is spent. Only devices that are funded are going to be built.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetically(using NIH research numbers for proportions) if the government gives Boston Scientific $2 mill for prostate device R&D, $2 mill for lung device R&D and $5 mill breast device R&D how is this gender neutral?



NSF doesn't fund cancer research directly, NIH does. I know, I've been doing this line of work for over 20 years. So while a number of RFPs may state a Breast cancer research slant, there is a commonly accepted nod and wink that this molecular information is applicable across many cancer types. The PI (principle investigators) for the labs are not obligated to only publish about Breast cancer if that was the title of the grant. The optics you see and what is discovered are two different animals. 

I just don't see the gender driven research in the way of the exclusion implied.

Non-government agencies have every right to drive their own research RFPs and acceptable publication slants. It is after all private and not public funds. 

There are just as many technological advances in Prostate cancer and why not, half the paying population are males. In medicine, it is more about the money than gender.


----------



## Ikaika

Not Hypothetical, real numbers budgeted for 2016:

In the millions
Cardiovascular $2,004

Autoimmune Disease $845

Basic Behavioral and Social Science $1,272

Brain Cancer $299

Alzheimer's Disease $638

Aging. $2,585

Diabetes 2. $1,039

Human Genome $2,785

Mental Health $2,299

Breast Cancer $704

HIV/AIDS $3,100

Prostate Cancer $262


----------



## Ikaika

And while more money is used in Breast cancer research over Prostate cancer; for obvious reasons, Prostate cancer is typically diagnosed much sooner than breast cancer. So we do know a lot about prostate cancer and many of the treatments have come a long way in the last five years, however a bit slower for breast cancer. So, we often get a better payback on investment for prostate cancer.

I just don't see it as gender driven since I don't want to see anyone have to go through either one of these cancers.


----------



## Ikaika

If my wife gets breast cancer, it affects me as well. In the same way if I get prostate cancer it will have an affect on her. These can be individual cancers that can have devastating affects on families not just on one gender or the other.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Ikaika said:


> Not Hypothetical, real numbers budgeted for 2016:
> 
> In the millions
> Cardiovascular $2,004
> 
> Autoimmune Disease $845
> 
> Basic Behavioral and Social Science $1,272
> 
> Brain Cancer $299
> 
> Alzheimer's Disease $638
> 
> Aging. $2,585
> 
> Diabetes 2. $1,039
> 
> Human Genome $2,785
> 
> Mental Health $2,299
> 
> Breast Cancer $704
> 
> HIV/AIDS $3,100
> 
> Prostate Cancer $262


These are research numbers for funding in the United States? Mental Health gets a lot of funding. That is fantastic.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Ikaika said:


> If my wife gets breast cancer, it affects me as well. In the same way if I get prostate cancer it will have an affect on her. These can be individual cancers that can have devastating affects on families not just on one gender or the other.


Definitely. Prostate cancer runs in my husbands family. His grandfather died of it, his father survived it, and so we are very aware that we need to do all we can to prevent it and check for it.


----------



## Pooh Bear

Ikaika said:


> If my wife gets breast cancer, it affects me as well. In the same way if I get prostate cancer it will have an affect on her. These can be individual cancers that can have devastating affects on families not just on one gender or the other.


What does your wife do, Ikaika? Is she a scientist also?


----------



## Ikaika

Pooh Bear said:


> What does your wife do, Ikaika? Is she a scientist also?



Speech and language pathologist.


----------



## Ikaika

Pooh Bear said:


> These are research numbers for funding in the United States? Mental Health gets a lot of funding. That is fantastic.



These are only NIH funding numbers, there are other agencies. Most of the robotic medicine is funded by DoD. A colleague of mine used to do a lot of work on this projects.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Pooh Bear said:


> *What am I missing in this discussion. I'm truly TRYING to see the issue, but all I see is it being an issue of SOME people holding onto perceptions, but it not really equating to any tangible advantage.*
> 
> Thank you for asking that question, Dad & Hubby. Here is some information about women and employment:
> 
> Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women | National Women's Law Center
> 
> You saw two girls getting valadictorian and salutorian but you don't know what it took for them to get there. What are they doing now do you know? They may not be making as much money as you are . I don't remember being encouraged in math and I am from your same age range. That is changing now. People are trying to encourage girls in the math and sciences. Actually, I remember being one of two girls in a math class and the teacher asked us to leave so he could tell the boys a dirty joke.


Actually I do know what it took for them to get where they were/are...I dated the salutatorian. She worked very hard and was also just one of those people who only had to learn something once and she mastered it. She now owns an actuarial company, has 6 cars, drag races and races a porsche at the SCCA level for fun....She's a truly interesting woman...

The Valedictorian took lower level classes, worked hard, but also had issues of supposed cheating etc. She's on her 4th husband, and apparently lost a good job due to embezzling...but not having charges pressed, just restitution.

You and I have a very different experience in school. There was no gender discrimination when it came to classes etc. at the high school I went to. Many of our science and math teachers were women actually. All of the AP classes I took were more than 50% female including in the sciences and maths.



> I don't know if you have heard of the Lily Ledbetter case but she was paid less than male employees for years. She sued and it went all the way to the supreme court. They found against her because she had not made the complaint within a certain period of them paying her less. They passed a law in congress so that doesn't happen again but it doesn't help Lilly Ledbetter.


I had not heard this....but I have heard of the Mrs. Dad&Hubby case where Mrs. Dad&Hubby works for a fortune 500 company which has pay scales...regardless of gender..your pay is fixed based on your position. There are plenty of female 2VPs and VPs and the president of her division is also female.

Again...personal experience....now I'm not saying bias etc doesn't exist. But the issue of pay disparity is much more complex than just saying "women are paid 77% of men".



> If you go to a Christian church, God is male. Some churches won't even ordain women including the biggest Christian church - the Catholic Church. Most of the people making laws in the country are male. The President, most of congress, most of the Supreme Court is male. And they are the ones that make the decisions for the country. When a woman runs, she will inevatibly be attacked because of looks. They don't attack male politician for looks to the extent that they do women. Women are sexualized and harrassed all the time. Just look at some of the posts on this website.


No argument. I'm not a fan of politics OR religion....both are established forms of control.



> The thing about privilege is that you can't know what you don't know. So you have to find out how someone who doesn't have it experiences it. I have no fear of going into a store as a white woman because I am never followed. I may not feel so comfortable as a black woman. I bet you have never been harrased walking down the street by women yelling at you or making sexual comments. That is humilating and makes you feel less than a person. I think that men think it is a compliment but for many of us it is not.


I completely agree with this...but is "privilege" really the right word to use here? This idea of privilege is the new banner it seems to me. PLEASE do not take the following question in ANY WAY as me saying the behavior is okay...it's NOT...that said...how do I have more "privilege" in society by not getting catcalled than a woman who does...what tangible advantage have I gained? 

Again...sexual harassment is a disgusting and disturbing behavior. I've never taken part in it. I've gotten into a fight because my GF at the time had it done and the guy didn't see me. But I don't see the actual advantage I have in society because I don't have it done.



> I think it looks like women are now equal because women are fighting back and making things very public. So it looks like there are no problems anymore or that women have more power. But that's not the reality. We still are expected to do the majority of the housework and take care of the kids. You get religious traditions that tell you to submit to your husband. And this is not all that uncommon in this country. I have had to navigate the church to find one that strives towards equality.


Again, I'm not disagreeing...many times you're right. I can only speak for myself and my circle of friends...and maybe this is "birds of a feather" type of thing....but in my household...we strive for full 50%. If anything..domestic duties and child care falls more on me than my wife (like 60/40). (she'd argue of course saying it's true 50%....but we'll leave that one alone LOL).



> Pregnancy is even an employment issue:
> 
> Supreme Court hears arguments in pregnant UPS worker’s case - The Washington Post
> 
> Actually socio-economic privilege is very much about gender and race. Women and minorities do not make as much as white men on average. There may be an individual woman who makes more than many men - think Oprah - but she is unique. Many women are raising children on low paying jobs.
> 
> I know I am going to get a lot of backlash for this post but I wanted to respond to your question since you seemed like you wanted to have a discussion. I appreciate that.


I see more privilege with socio-economic status than gender and race. YES, the majority of old money is white and male...but when that old white man has a daughter..who he enrolls in Miss Porters, then gives a multi million dollar donation to yale (the year before she applies)...and so she goes to yale....and then that old white man BUYS a minor league hockey team and makes his daughter the president of the team....(even though she has no experience in professional sports OR hockey)....THAT is privilege. (PS the situation I just described is a REAL one of a family that I know). That daughter had millions  of more percent of privilege than I had.



intheory said:


> This reminds me of the maxim "divide and rule", or "divide and conquer".
> 
> Pit two groups against each other (eg. men and women); _most_ of whom aren't wealthy or powerful.
> 
> Watch them expend all their energy fighting each other; which prevents them from seeing who *really* has all the power and is calling all the shots.


Please don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing the issues that gender and race have in society....I may not see eye to eye on the severity...but that's a different discussion. My point is I don't see PRIVILEGE being a gender and race issue anywhere near as much as a money issue.

Here's the definition "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."

You mention the court system. Again...if a black woman can afford a better attorney than I can...she'll have a better result in the court system...so again..it's money that brings privilege.


----------



## Youngster

NSF doesn't fund cancer research directly, NIH does.

I know, I've been doing this line of work for over 20 years. So while a number of RFPs may state a Breast cancer research slant, there is a commonly accepted nod and wink that this molecular information is applicable across many cancer types. The PI (principle investigators) for the labs are not obligated to only publish about Breast cancer if that was the title of the grant. The optics you see and what is discovered are two different animals. 

I just don't see the gender driven research in the way of the exclusion implied.

*Non-government agencies have every right to drive their own research RFPs and acceptable publication slants. It is after all private and not public funds. * 

Agreed, but don't say all of the breast cancer research money is going to help lung cancer. For the molecular research that might be true but it isn't the case everywhere. It is completely not the case for device manufacturers.

*There are just as many technological advances in Prostate cancer and why not, half the paying population are males. In medicine, it is more about the money than gender.*

There can't possibly be just as many advancements if more money is being spent one cancer than another. There might be better treatment options for one cancer over another but that doesn't mean that advancement is progressing the same for both cancer types. Come on this is just common sense. Do you think the money spent bringing mammography equipment to market is the same as the amount of money bringing cystoscopy equipment to market? How much do you think mammography equipment costs as compared to a cystoscope?

Hint hint wink wink? In the real world there is no hint hint wink wink. In the DoD world you get fired for charging hours worked to the wrong project, I've seen it happen. 

So how do the clinical trials work if the money goes everywhere? Even though the medicine is for breast cancer we'll give it to men too? Hey we have a new prostate cancer drug. During clinical trials it was 100% effective in preventing prostate cancer in women.


----------



## Youngster

Ikaika said:


> Not Hypothetical, real numbers budgeted for 2016:
> 
> In the millions
> Cardiovascular $2,004
> 
> Autoimmune Disease $845
> 
> Basic Behavioral and Social Science $1,272
> 
> Brain Cancer $299
> 
> Alzheimer's Disease $638
> 
> Aging. $2,585
> 
> Diabetes 2. $1,039
> 
> Human Genome $2,785
> 
> Mental Health $2,299
> 
> Breast Cancer $704
> 
> HIV/AIDS $3,100
> 
> Prostate Cancer $262


Again these numbers show that more money is spent breast cancer research then on prostate cancer and brain cancer research combined. Thanks, you've made my case for me.

Here are the numbers EleGirl provided earlier in the thread....

Cancer (Deaths).....N.C.I. Funding per Death
Lung (162,460)..........$1,630
Colon (55,170)...........$4,566
Breast (41,430)..........$13,452
Pancreas (32,300 )......$2,297
Prostate (27,350)........$11,298

Cancer (New cases)......N.C.I. Funding per New Case
Prostate (234,460).......$1,318
Breast (214,640).........$2,596
Lung (174,470)...........$1,518
Colon (106,680)..........$2,361
Pancreas (33,730).......$2,200 

Clearly some cancer research receives more money then other cancer research. Please don't be disingenuous and say all this money is being spread evenly throughout all cancer research. 
Again, the money might be the same in your world but it certainly is not the case everywhere.

How much does mammography equipment cost? Over $100K per unit.
How much does cystoscopy equipment cost? Less than $10K per device.
Set these devices side by side and tell me which device cost less to develop?


----------



## Ikaika

Youngster said:


> There can't possibly be just as many advancements if more money is being spent one cancer than another. There might be better treatment options for one cancer over another but that doesn't mean that advancement is progressing the same for both cancer types. Come on this is just common sense. *Do you think the money spent bringing mammography equipment to market is the same as the amount of money bringing cystoscopy equipment to market? How much do you think mammography equipment costs as compared to a cystoscope?*


It is not about cost it is about efficacy. Mammograms are not as effective at diagnosis as some of the less expensive techniques to diagnose early stages of prostate cancer. There is testing and then there is over testing. 

In so far as the surgical treatment? Well, prostate cancer if diagnosed early, less and less requires prostatectomy. On the other hand nearly half of all breast cancer cases requires major surgical removal. 



Youngster said:


> Hint hint wink wink? *In the real world there is no hint hint wink wink. In the DoD world you get fired for charging hours worked to the wrong project, I've seen it happen.
> *
> *So how do the clinical trials work if the money goes everywhere? Even though the medicine is for breast cancer we'll give it to men too? * Hey we have a new prostate cancer drug. During clinical trials it was 100% effective in preventing prostate cancer in women.


First of all I have no idea what you are referring to in the DoD grants. I have received both NIH and DoD grants. The only difference in the latter is that I have to submit my potential published transcripts to be vetted by a DoD representative ahead of publication and after peer-review. All publishers understand this and require a letter of verification. In so far as publishing information beyond the scope of the DoD grant that was discovered in the process? It happens all the time. I published information that was in line with the scope of the project along with other information. I did not get fired, since I don't work for the DoD. 

You are confusing drug trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies with public monies dealing with preliminary research. As I have mentioned many times before, cancer is a molecular disease more over than it is just purely a tissue disease. And, while there may be some difference how tissues respond to pharmaceuticals (based on membrane receptors), most basic levels of research just don't have this gender driven assumption. I don't know any researcher that has a some agenda driven ideology for looking at cancer from this gender driven point of view. 

So I really don't know what your point is getting at. Even if we provided more research funding for breast cancer, there are things one needs to consider:

The numbers of cases have not declined

*Breast Cancer*

approximately 280K cases a year in the US. However survival rates have gotten better. And, that appears to be good thing. Thus we are getting some return on our money. These are our sisters, mothers, nieces, aunts, wives and girlfriends, etc. and that is great for all of society. I just don't see this in terms as a war between the genders. 

*Prostate cancer*

approximately 240K cases a year and survival rates are better than they are for breast cancer and getting better. Our return on investment is pretty damn good in this area. Again these are us, our brothers, fathers, etc... 

Both of these cancers affect families as much as they affect individuals. I have no heartache about more money going to breast cancer research for the time being given what we can do for families. I just don't see the gender war issue you and others are driving toward in this particular argument.


----------



## Yeswecan

DanaS said:


> It was suggested this topic be made from the virgin/***** thread so I thought I'd make it.
> 
> For the women here, what are your thoughts on it? While I can't keep men from posting their thoughts I am only interested in hearing from women since they aren't biased and men will just defend it saying the same thing they always say in other forums where it's brought up "Oh, but women really rule, men have to do what they say" or "Male privilege doesn't exist, we are equal and deal with the same stuff" etc. etc. ad nauseam.


It is a male dominated society. For this we can thank those before us who created the idyllic lifestyle as they perceived it should be. 

Watch "Leave it to Beaver" as a perfect example.


----------



## Ikaika

Youngster said:


> Again these numbers show that more money is spent breast cancer research then on prostate cancer and brain cancer research combined. *Thanks, you've made my case for me.*
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the numbers EleGirl provided earlier in the thread....
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer (Deaths).....N.C.I. Funding per Death
> 
> Lung (162,460)..........$1,630
> 
> Colon (55,170)...........$4,566
> 
> Breast (41,430)..........$13,452
> 
> Pancreas (32,300 )......$2,297
> 
> Prostate (27,350)........$11,298
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer (New cases)......N.C.I. Funding per New Case
> 
> Prostate (234,460).......$1,318
> 
> Breast (214,640).........$2,596
> 
> Lung (174,470)...........$1,518
> 
> Colon (106,680)..........$2,361
> 
> Pancreas (33,730).......$2,200
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly some cancer research receives more money then other cancer research. Please don't be disingenuous and say all this money is being spread evenly throughout all cancer research.
> 
> Again, the money might be the same in your world but it certainly is not the case everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> How much does mammography equipment cost? Over $100K per unit.
> 
> How much does cystoscopy equipment cost? Less than $10K per device.
> 
> Set these devices side by side and tell me which device cost less to develop?




What case am I making for you... you are throwing out numbers. Give me some return on investment numbers to determine the real case and then we can see if this is something to be truly concerned over. 



The amount of money we spend on mental health research trumps both of these gender based cancers. So, I wonder if you could trump up a war on that front.


----------



## ocotillo

Yeswecan said:


> Watch "Leave it to Beaver" as a perfect example.


It was idyllic for sure, but the level of white collar affluence depicted in that series was something most at the time could only dream about.


----------



## lifeistooshort

You know, as I think about my own school experiences I realize that most of my elementary school teachers were women, and the middle school women teachers I had taught traditionally female preferred subjects like English and history. Every single one of my math and science teachers were men, but I don't remember that being any kind of issue. I don't remember being overly encouraged but I don't remember being discouraged. I liked math and science, was good at them, and it just never occurred to me that I couldn't do these things. The male teachers seemed to like me and my grades were really good. At the same time I recognize that this is so because of the hard fought victories that came before me (I was born in 1974).

Probably my best teacher was my AP physics teacher and I now have a degree in physics. I don't remember being given a hard time because I was a nerd, for the most part, but I've always said that's because I was a jock too (track/cross country). I've found that playing sports negates any nerd issues.....I've told my boys the same thing and my older one told me he's found that to be true, and he runs cross country and plays soccer. I also have a black belt, so make fun of me at your own risk 

There was only a brief time in my life where I really experienced feeling different as a woman and it was just out of high school in the jazz band I played in at community college. I remember getting a lot of "cute little girl" comments there, but whatever. Beyond that I'm not sure I've ever experienced gender discrimination...well except my ex hb but he was an arse and it never occurred to me that he represented other men. Do I get paid less then the men at my job with comparable experience? I honestly don't know but I do know that my pay is fair when all factors are considered. And I'm in a department with all men and one other woman and I have no issues with them.

So my observations regarding the gender power imbalance throughout history is not projecting; I've had very little but great experiences with most men I've dealt with. I am keenly aware though that this was not always the case and many women fought hard battles so that I could have these opportunities. It's no different then remembering what our soldiers before us sacrificed so we could live as we do. I have opportunities that my own mother didn't have and I am grateful for that.


----------



## Ikaika

ROI for gender based cancers

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/statistics/


----------



## Dad&Hubby

lifeistooshort said:


> You know, as I think about my own school experiences I realize that most of my elementary school teachers were women, and the middle school women teachers I had taught traditionally female preferred subjects like English and history. Every single one of my math and science teachers were men, but I don't remember that being any kind of issue. I don't remember being overly encouraged but I don't remember being discouraged. I liked math and science, was good at them, and it just never occurred to me that I couldn't do these things. The male teachers seemed to like me and my grades were really good. At the same time I recognize that this is so because of the hard fought victories that came before me (I was born in 1974).
> 
> Probably my best teacher was my AP physics teacher and I now have a degree in physics. I don't remember being given a hard time because I was a nerd, for the most part, but I've always said that's because I was a jock too (track/cross country). I've found that playing sports negates any nerd issues.....I've told my boys the same thing and my older one told me he's found that to be true, and he runs cross country and plays soccer. I also have a black belt, so make fun of me at your own risk
> 
> There was only a brief time in my life where I really experienced feeling different as a woman and it was just out of high school in the jazz band I played in at community college. I remember getting a lot of "cute little girl" comments there, but whatever. Beyond that I'm not sure I've ever experienced gender discrimination...well except my ex hb but he was an arse and it never occurred to me that he represented other men. Do I get paid less then the men at my job with comparable experience? I honestly don't know but I do know that my pay is fair when all factors are considered. And I'm in a department with all men and one other woman and I have no issues with them.
> 
> So my observations regarding the gender power imbalance throughout history is not projecting; I've had very little but great experiences with most men I've dealt with. I am keenly aware though that this was not always the case and many women fought hard battles so that I could have these opportunities. It's no different then remembering what our soldiers before us sacrificed so we could live as we do. I have opportunities that my own mother didn't have and I am grateful for that.


I do think gender problems/issues will take a very long time to correct in that the only true way to enact change is by changing people's actual life experiences. I was lucky in that I was raised by a strong woman who was a successful business woman and who's grandmother was very much a trailblazer being in management roles since the 50's, when it was almost unheard of. The women in my life, since the day I was born, went out and earned their successes and raised me in an environment that said...if you want success you need to work hard and attain it. You'll have obstacles, but you need to work around them. My family had multi-racial couples and homosexual couples that were accepted and not chastised. I wasn't taught prejudice.

I feel blessed in how I was raised. I don't see the world in that way. I know many people don't as time and generations go forward.

If you grow up with open minded people, you'll generally be more open minded. If you grow up with racists/misogynists/misandrists/****-phobes...there's a good chance you'll pick up some of those traits.

So as our society continues to evolve....we need to keep preaching and practicing those behaviors. These are issues that are fixed generationally. As "blind" as I felt I was growing up, I look at my kids and see them even more so.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Dad&Hubby said:


> I do think gender problems/issues will take a very long time to correct in that the only true way to enact change is by changing people's actual life experiences. I was lucky in that I was raised by a strong woman who was a successful business woman and who's grandmother was very much a trailblazer being in management roles since the 50's, when it was almost unheard of. The women in my life, since the day I was born, went out and earned their successes and raised me in an environment that said...if you want success you need to work hard and attain it. You'll have obstacles, but you need to work around them. My family had multi-racial couples and homosexual couples that were accepted and not chastised. I wasn't taught prejudice.
> 
> I feel blessed in how I was raised. I don't see the world in that way. I know many people don't as time and generations go forward.
> 
> If you grow up with open minded people, you'll generally be more open minded. If you grow up with racists/misogynists/misandrists/****-phobes...there's a good chance you'll pick up some of those traits.
> 
> So as our society continues to evolve....we need to keep preaching and practicing those behaviors. These are issues that are fixed generationally. As "blind" as I felt I was growing up, I look at my kids and see them even more so.



Yes, it is important to remember that social change often takes a few generations. This is because it's very difficult to change someone's mind, especially when they've had a certain belief system for their entire life. If you're raised to believe that it's better for the family for a woman to be in the home it's unlike you will shift this position at age 45.

At the same time I'm aware of women's issues I also have two sons, so I think a lot about the world they're growing up in. One of the reasons I divorced their father was because I did not want them to think that's how you treat your woman, and if they treated their women how their father treated me I'd be embarrassed. Fortunately at this point I doubt that will happen.

Are my sons discouraged in school because girls are encouraged? I doubt it and I don't need the schools to spend all kinds of time encouraging my sons anyway, I'm here for that. You're right that it's on each of us to seek out opportunities and pursue them. That's what I tell my sons.

Bigotry itself is often the result of anger at one's own situation. People feel helpless or hopeless and they look for someone to blame: families are falling apart so it must be because gays want to get married. People are having a tough time economically so it must be because us Jews own everything. When you look at it like that it makes no sense but when people are angry and frustrated logic often goes out the window.


----------



## Anonymous07

Technically, breast cancer is not a solely female issue. *Men can and do get breast cancer*, even though it's seen as a "female cancer". Women can't get prostate cancer. 

Just wanted to throw that out there.


----------



## Youngster

Ikaika said:


> *It is not about cost it is about efficacy. Mammograms are not as effective at diagnosis as some of the less expensive techniques to diagnose early stages of prostate cancer. There is testing and then there is over testing.
> *
> It is about the cost. Mammography was very expensive to deploy(lets not get into it's effectiveness). Where did that money come from? The government. When you fund mammography you are taking money away from other things....there is not an unlimited supply of money.
> 
> In so far as the surgical treatment? Well, prostate cancer if diagnosed early, less and less requires prostatectomy. On the other hand nearly half of all breast cancer cases requires major surgical removal.
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all I have no idea what you are referring to in the DoD grants. I have received both NIH and DoD grants. The only difference in the latter is that I have to submit my potential published transcripts to be vetted by a DoD representative ahead of publication and after peer-review. All publishers understand this and require a letter of verification. In so far as publishing information beyond the scope of the DoD grant that was discovered in the process? It happens all the time. I published information that was in line with the scope of the project along with other information. I did not get fired, since I don't work for the DoD. *
> 
> My guess is that you are only working on 1 DoD grant at any given time. Engineers typically work on multiple projects simultaneously and are accountable for where their time is spent.
> When you are awarded a grant or contract from the DoD the money MUST be used as defined in the grant or contract. There are huge penalties for not allocating money where it is supposed to be spent. If you work for a defense contractor you are required to account for time spent on projects down to 1 hour intervals. That's why hint hint wink wink is not true for DoD work.
> 
> *You are confusing drug trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies with public monies dealing with preliminary research. As I have mentioned many times before, cancer is a molecular disease more over than it is just purely a tissue disease. And, while there may be some difference how tissues respond to pharmaceuticals (based on membrane receptors), most basic levels of research just don't have this gender driven assumption. I don't know any researcher that has a some agenda driven ideology for looking at cancer from this gender driven point of view. *
> 
> But cancer is not always treated with drugs. Is surgery the same for all cancer types? Is the equipment used the same? Is the prescreening equipment the same? When more money is spent on breast cancer R&D other cancer research gets short-changed. You seem to think there is no R&D involved in medical devices. The R&D for the medical device industry is huge. A lot of their funding comes from cancer research dollars.
> 
> 
> So I really don't know what your point is getting at. Even if we provided more research funding for breast cancer, there are things one needs to consider:
> 
> The numbers of cases have not declined
> 
> *Breast Cancer*
> 
> approximately 280K cases a year in the US. However survival rates have gotten better. And, that appears to be good thing. Thus we are getting some return on our money. These are our sisters, mothers, nieces, aunts, wives and girlfriends, etc. and that is great for all of society. I just don't see this in terms as a war between the genders.
> 
> *Prostate cancer*
> 
> approximately 240K cases a year and survival rates are better than they are for breast cancer and getting better. Our return on investment is pretty damn good in this area. Again these are us, our brothers, fathers, etc...
> 
> Both of these cancers affect families as much as they affect individuals. I have no heartache about more money going to breast cancer research for the time being given what we can do for families. I just don't see the gender war issue you and others are driving toward in this particular argument.


All cancers affect families. That's why cancer research should be funded as evenly and fairly as possible. When the pink campaign tries to dominate the conversation(as well as the public and private funding) it is a disservice to all of us.


----------



## Ikaika

Youngster said:


> *All cancers affect families. That's why cancer research should be funded as evenly and fairly as possible*. When the pink campaign tries to dominate the conversation(as well as the public and private funding) it is a disservice to all of us.


So rather than go through you previous response and trying to find all the errors and misconceptions, I guess I just wanted to know bottom line to your rant (bold). I really don't have time to go point by point on things you seem to think you know from an engineering perspective which does not exactly apply to medical research (basic and clinical). 

I take you assume that we should spend the same amount of money for both prostate cancer as we do for breast cancer. The assumption that all should be equal on the optics. Since you prefer *not* to look at efficacy, I will make a suggestion based on outcomes. 

If we are to assume the best outcomes possible, that is reduced mortality or morbidity, then I would say we get a better return on investment for our research dollars for prostate cancer. Thus spending more money may or may not have an increase in outcomes. However, the ROI we get on those grants and campaigns (prostate) are far better than that for breast cancer.

I guess I don't visualize this as some war on the sexes over research grant money in this area.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
It isn't simple to compare death rates from different causes. EVERYONE DIES - so it is more like looking at years of lost life. Illnesses that kill younger people results in more lost years of life than those that affect mostly the elderly. 

I'm not saying that R&D money is being spent correctly, just that you need to look at more than just the total number of deaths.


----------



## Ikaika

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> 
> It isn't simple to compare death rates from different causes. EVERYONE DIES - so it is more like looking at years of lost life. Illnesses that kill younger people results in more lost years of life than those that affect mostly the elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that R&D money is being spent correctly, just that you need to look at more than just the total number of deaths.



Any medical school graduate will tell you everyone dies of heart failure. Every department of health state administrator will tell you that he/she could sign every legal death certificate with "cause of death, heart failure". But, physicians don't make such a calloused statement and DOH administrators don't sign off on death certificates as such. 

So what are you saying? Total deaths = 100% heart failure. So treatments and R&D should best focused 100% in this area?


----------



## JCD

Sigh. Another topic which might send me to banned camp. Particularly considering how close minded the initial post was.

WOMEN are unbiased but men are not. Hmm.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

> Bigotry itself is often the result of anger at one's own situation. People feel helpless or hopeless and they look for someone to blame: families are falling apart so it must be because gays want to get married. People are having a tough time economically so it must be because us Jews own everything. When you look at it like that it makes no sense but when people are angry and frustrated logic often goes out the window.


You said it beautifully.


----------



## tacoma

JCD said:


> Sigh. Another topic which might send me to banned camp. Particularly considering how close minded the initial post was.
> 
> WOMEN are unbiased but men are not. Hmm.


Don't fret JCD the OP abandoned this one about 12 pages ago


----------



## DanaS

So I have been pretty busy and really don't feel like responding to all the posts but I would like to respond to this one:



Maricha75 said:


> It's ok, Cletus. I'm reading through and I have noticed just how irrational she is. The other women in the thread have been much more rational, from what I have seen. EleGirl, for one. I am very appreciative of her assertion regarding her son. My two sons don't have any of that machismo BS either. My daughter, however... I love that little girl, but she has that diva BS trying to rear its ugly head. She thinks she's 8 going on 14. Yet my 14 year old son is the sweetest boy. I know he has interest in girls because of subtle actions (wearing cologne just to go outside and play... ONLY when a certain girl is around). Yet, this same boy will not even say the word "sex". His younger siblings have no such reservations.
> 
> Anyway, for DanaS to imply that women have no bias on this subject is utterly ridiculous. Of course women, in general, have JUST AS MUCH bias as men IN GENERAL do. But, yes, Cletus, I noticed from the very first post that rational thought was out the window. It was further confirmed when I read how thankful she was that she has a daughter, rather than a son, because her daughter doesn't come with the "machismo BS".*shudder* I am more concerned that her daughter will pick up her mother's ideas about men! I certainly know now what NOT to teach my daughter... not that I didn't before. Fortunately, my children have their father and me, rather than parents who hate the opposite sex.
> 
> And spare me the "I don't hate men" rhetoric. Your posts say otherwise, Dana. You even dismissed men's opinions as insignificant when they clearly composed rational thoughts on the subject. Why? Because they proved the fallacy of your arguments. You belittled them and minimized their arguments, which makes you just as bad as those men you seem to think are so horrible.
> 
> *Ftr, this woman right here wouldn't want a world run completely by women. It wouldn't be ANY better than the current world we live it.*


Why would you not want to? Wouldn't you like to live in a world where:

As a woman you aren't oppressed or expected to do certain things just because you're female? 

A world where we don't have leaders starting wars/conflicts over some of the pettiest reasons imaginable?

A world where things like peace, love, understanding and tolerance are at the fore front of society?

A world where men that rape/sexually abuse women actually get hard sentences and actually punished for their crime?

A world with no genocidal maniacs like Hitler?

A world where we don't use nuclear bombs to threaten others much less use one. 

A world where we don't have conflicts like the cold war? 

A world without conquerors like Alexander the great, Genghis khan etc.?

Do you really think it's a coincidence it's always been women that advocate for things like animal rights, disability rights, pacifism, etc. whereas men have certainly never cared about those things much at all.


----------



## EleGirl

DanaS said:


> So I have been pretty busy and really don't feel like responding to all the posts but I would like to respond to this one:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you not want to? Wouldn't you like to live in a world where:
> 
> As a woman you aren't oppressed or expected to do certain things just because you're female?
> 
> A world where we don't have leaders starting wars/conflicts over some of the pettiest reasons imaginable?
> 
> A world where things like peace, love, understanding and tolerance are at the fore front of society?
> 
> A world where men that rape/sexually abuse women actually get hard sentences and actually punished for their crime?
> 
> A world with no genocidal maniacs like Hitler?
> 
> A world where we don't use nuclear bombs to threaten others much less use one.
> 
> A world where we don't have conflicts like the cold war?
> 
> A world without conquerors like Alexander the great, Genghis khan etc.?
> 
> Do you really think it's a coincidence it's always been women that advocate for things like animal rights, disability rights, pacifism, etc. whereas men have certainly never cared about those things much at all.


Yes.. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan... 

And then there were Queen Elizabeth, Marry Queen Scotts, Katherine the Great Czarest of Russia... both women were famous for the blood that flowed under their rule

While men and women are very different in some ways, we are very much the same in others.

You are so wrong that men have never cared much for animal rights, disability rights, pacifism, etc. There are a LOT of men involved in those causes.


----------



## DanaS

EleGirl said:


> Yes.. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan...
> 
> And then there were Queen Elizabeth, Marry Queen Scotts, Katherine the Great Czarest of Russia... both women were famous for the blood that flowed under their rule
> 
> While men and women are very different in some ways, we are very much the same in others.
> 
> You are so wrong that men have never cared much for animal rights, disability rights, pacifism, etc. There are a LOT of men involved in those causes.


But those examples shouldn't count. For one thing even those women didn't have TOTAL power. They had others they had to answer for. They also were pretty much strong-armed into fighting. Do you honestly think those women would still have had their positions had they told all the other men in power "War and fighting is wrong! I refuse to ever fight or go to war and kill others and I want to equality for all"? Of course not, they would've been deposed faster than the speed of light.

They lived and ruled in a world dominated by men all about death/destruction/oppression etc. It's not exactly a fair comparison. 

Now if we are talking about some hypothetical where women have always been in control since earliest times it would be much different. Today women make up most of the world's population yet women don't commit anywhere NEAR the crimes men do, whether they be violent crime like rape or murder or even white collar crimes for that matter. 

Also, about rights look how up until the mid 20th century child labor was common place. Despite all the men in charge apparently didn't think forcing children to work in various very dangerous jobs where getting injured and killed was common. Like all the other things it was women that actually made it a point about how bad it was. We're talking about children for god's sake! Yet since the beginning men never saw it as a bad thing. 

Yet I don't care how far back in time you went, you wouldn't see women thinking putting children to work and seeing them die left and right is an okay thing to do. Yet men routinely sent children to work knowing how horrible it was without a second thought! 

In Sparta men thought it was a-okay to throw new born infants off a cliff to their deaths just because they were "deformed" in some way, how sick is that? I'm pretty sure had women been in charge that wouldn't have happened. I very much doubt women would be interested in giving birth only to look at it and say "Wow, my child is disabled/looks odd" and just throw them off a cliff. 

There's a reason we are so different, because we are the embodiment of everything men aren't; Nurturing, loving, compassionate, and empathetic. Men sure as hell weren't any of those things back then. And even now those traits are very rare to find in a man. 

I read a thing awhile back that estimated that for all of human history, 3.5 BILLION have been killed in war/combat. Yeah because even giving the same time frame women would be anywhere near those numbers. 

I really am amazed at how many women here defend men. I haven't been on here long but in so many of the threads I read it's always women complaining their men doesn't get it, or listen or is able to express their emotions and when women bring up an issue guys get all neanderthal and try to force their point no matter what facts women present. 

Here's another good one: Why do you think the VAST majority of school shootings are by men? Oh I do know about Brenda Spencer, but that was way back in '79! Sure the guys response here will be "but they're just mentally ill" so what? There are many mentally ill women yet you don't see them thinking shooting up a school (or other places for that matter) is the right thing to do. Hmmm....I wonder why? Probably because, being male they're used to privilege and have all that testosterone, could that be it?

I am also SO SICK of men complaining about how "emotional" we are yet while we may cry more, men get downright ANGRY and thus violent and destructive ALL THE DAMN TIME!! I can't tell you how many guys I have known over the years that are always picking fights just because of a slight offense. 

Instead of sitting in the back and making excuses for men, as women always have, why don't men step up, acknowledge their inherent male issues and actively try to do something?


----------



## DanaS

Personal said:


> Of all the Greek city-states Spartan women enjoyed more autonomy and authority while retaining wealth even after divorce than all other Greek women.
> 
> “Why are you Spartan women the only ones who rule your men?” _Eukoline_
> 
> "Because we are the only women who give birth to men." _Gorgo_


That's not saying much though. That's like saying "well, women it have it better in America than Saudi Arabia". Amazes me what kind of excuses for their abhorrent behavior men make. It's similar to how when women complain about how rampant rape is men respond with "Well, they were in a bad place, they were stupid for going there". Or "You wouldn't walk into a bad neighborhood waving hundred dollar bills" as if women are in any way comparable to that. 

This is exactly why I didn't want men posting here because no matter how bad men act they always have their excuses and as on other forums, it just goes around and around in circles where women try to get men to see things from their pov but men never listen and keep up with the excuses.


----------



## DanaS

intheory said:


> The president of the Humane Society of The U.S. is a man. (Wayne Pacelle)


I was talking about in the past. Up until the early to mid 20th century men never gave a damn about animal rights or rights for others at all.


----------



## DanaS

Personal said:


> Adolf Hitler seemed to accord considerable care for animal rights.
> 
> Lewis Gompertz (1784–1865), Colonel Richard Martin (1754–1834), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), John Locke (1632–1704) and on and on these men go.


I'm talking in generalities. As in enough to where things actually get done. I bet you could find a few men in the middle ages that would be for women's rights too, but it's all moot when the vast, VAST majority of men couldn't care less.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Correct me if I'm wrong Dana but what I think what you are saying is that things improved historically for many groups once women had the vote and more rights? This included children minorities the disabled, mentally ill etc. and you are correct. 

That doesn't mean that no men cared, however social justice has certainly come a long way since then and I have read historically that much of that has been attributed to women being passionate about those issues and ensuring the voices of the underprivileged and marginalised are heard more often and considered.


----------



## DanaS

*LittleDeer* said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong Dana but what I think what you are saying is that things improved historically for many groups once women had the vote and more rights? This included children minorities the disabled, mentally ill etc. and you are correct.
> 
> That doesn't mean that no men cared, however social justice has certainly come a long way since then and I have read historically that much of that has been attributed to women being passionate about those issues and ensuring the voices of the underprivileged and marginalised are heard more often and considered.


That is PRECISELY what I am saying! It has never been until women started speaking up about things such as child labor, racism, mentally ill, etc. that any kind of talk was even done. 

Can anyone here point out ANY time pre-20th century where large groups of men started organizations or brought up things speaking out against the aforementioned, or women's rights at all? I very much doubt it. 

Even today, I have very little doubt most men would love nothing more than to see women "put back in their place"; being able to beat/rape their wives with impunity (which even today with the sentences men get for doing it being such a joke means they practically do), force them to stay home so all the men have the jobs, etc.

What really gets me though is when women bring up an issue that greatly affects them, rather than take an honest discussion about it, about what causes it, and what best way to stop it may be, men would rather just tell women "it's not that bad" "grow thicker skin" "you're just being crazy" ad nauseum. I'm sure some here have seen the video posted last year of a woman walking down NYC streets showing her getting harassed and when women would talk about it guys would defend it saying they're just compliments...PLEASE!!

Yet a man made a similar video trying to show that men get called out too when it's not anywhere NEAR the same! It just angers me that men would rather bury their heads in the sand rather than do what is right and tell other men to knock it off. Men don't have to worry about some stranger grabbing them from behind, fondling their genitals, or holding them down while their clothes are ripped off and get raped like women do. And before men come in saying "but...but...men get raped too!" as if the amount of men raped is even a tiny fraction of the women that are. 

If you talk about rape on college campuses, military, etc. instead of, y'know, offering some ideas on how to get men to stop it inevitably ends with men going on and on about "oh but what about the false rape claims!!!11!!" again, as if the women that makes false rape claims is anywhere near the actual amount of women raped/sexually assaulted.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

DanaS said:


> Even today, I have very little doubt most men would love nothing more than to see women "put back in their place"; being able to beat/rape their wives with impunity (which even today with the sentences men get for doing it being such a joke means they practically do), force them to stay home so all the men have the jobs, etc.


Outrageous. 

I have very little doubt that you don't understand the way most men think.


----------



## vellocet

tacoma said:


> Don't fret JCD the OP abandoned this one about 12 pages ago


And that would have been the smart move after that humdinger of a comment.


----------



## vellocet

DanaS said:


> So I have been pretty busy and really don't feel like responding to all the posts but I would like to respond to this one:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you not want to? Wouldn't you like to live in a world where:
> 
> As a woman you aren't oppressed or expected to do certain things just because you're female?
> 
> A world where we don't have leaders starting wars/conflicts over some of the pettiest reasons imaginable?
> 
> A world where things like peace, love, understanding and tolerance are at the fore front of society?
> 
> A world where men that rape/sexually abuse women actually get hard sentences and actually punished for their crime?
> 
> A world with no genocidal maniacs like Hitler?
> 
> A world where we don't use nuclear bombs to threaten others much less use one.
> 
> A world where we don't have conflicts like the cold war?
> 
> A world without conquerors like Alexander the great, Genghis khan etc.?
> 
> Do you really think it's a coincidence it's always been women that advocate for things like animal rights, disability rights, pacifism, etc. whereas men have certainly never cared about those things much at all.


----------



## vellocet

intheory said:


> The president of the Humane Society of The U.S. is a man. (Wayne Pacelle)


Here it comes. "That doesn't count"


----------



## Jung_admirer

DanaS said:


> Well, there is one way but men sure won't like it: Hold other men accountable! What that means is, if you're around a bunch of guys and they start going off about how they'd like to "screw" or "****" other women, or talking about them as if they're meat, tell them to KNOCK IT OFF! Petition to have rape be one of, if not the top priority of law enforcement and make the sentences harsh such as 20 years minimum.
> 
> When a sexist pig headed judge gives a rapist only a few months in jail, make an outcry about that. There are many things men can do, but won't.


Your points echo the logic behind the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as championed by Hillary Clinton. If we increase punishment and enforcement, the problem will go away. 

This logic worked well for the "War on Drugs", didn't it?


----------



## Cletus

DanaS said:


> But those examples shouldn't count.


And that is how you demonstrate a complete lack of intellectual integrity - male or female.

The problem here is that you actually have a kernel of truth in your argument. Men have done plenty of horrible things in the past, and continue to do so. It's not honest to argue otherwise. But it is also complete conjecture to project some utopia on a female dominated world that has never existed. Then you layer actual demonstrable ignorance of history with a heavy dollop of hyperbole, et voila - an indictment of an entire group, the likes of which we haven't heard since Kristallnacht. 

Your thinking is every bit as poisonous and detrimental to the overall advancement of the species as the crimes you rail against.


----------



## ocotillo

Is there any point in responding to a theory that has been deliberately constructed to be unfalsifiable? (Other than pointing out the intellectual dishonesty?)

If the actions of Erna Petri, who took six Jewish boys out in the woods and shot them in the neck one by one, or Josefine Block, who responded to a little Jewish girl's plea for help by stomping her to death or Johanna Altvater, who was in the habit of throwing Jewish babies out of a second story window onto the pavement below, or Lisel Willhaus, who amused herself by sitting on her patio and shooting at Jewish prisoners with a rifle can be laid at the feet of men, then are women capable of moral culpability at all? 

Before anyone says that these women were the exceptions and that the Holocaust was a crime almost exclusively perpetrated by men, I would urge them to read _Hitlers Furies_ by historian, Wendy Lower. She points out that women in the Nazi Party were not simply complicit. More than half a million of them were involved in crimes against the most helpless members of society.


----------



## GTdad

DanaS said:


> This is exactly why I didn't want men posting here because no matter how bad men act they always have their excuses and as on other forums, it just goes around and around in circles where women try to get men to see things from their pov but men never listen and keep up with the excuses.





DanaS said:


> Even today, I have very little doubt most men would love nothing more than to see women "put back in their place"; being able to beat/rape their wives with impunity (which even today with the sentences men get for doing it being such a joke means they practically do), force them to stay home so all the men have the jobs, etc.


It sure beats the hell out of me how you you expect men to have a more constructive discourse on the points you're trying to make, when these are the points you're trying to make.


----------



## Cletus

ocotillo said:


> It their any point in responding to a theory that has been deliberately constructed to be unfalsifiable? (Other than pointing out the intellectual dishonesty?)


No. You're simply arguing with mental illness at this point.


----------



## tulsy

DanaS said:


> I'm talking in generalities. As in enough to where things actually get done. I bet you could find a few men in the middle ages that would be for women's rights too, but it's all moot when the vast, VAST majority of men couldn't care less.


DanaS, what's your story? I get that you THINK you have a total understanding of men and how we are, but what exactly are you looking for? 

If you just came here to vent how terrible us men are and how much better women are in every way, message received, loud and clear. I don't agree with your opinions about men, but I'm sure you don't really care, because hey, I have a penis.

Other than that, how's life treating you?

- How's the marriage? 
- What's it like being 15 yrs older than your husband?
- Does your husband know you feel this way about men in general?
- Does it affect his opinion of you in any way, good or bad?
- What's it like having a baby at 44? Is it much harder this time around, or is it easier because of life experience?
- How is your 23 yr old daughter doing? Is she getting her life in order? Is she aware of your feelings towards men, and do you think it has influenced her in a negative or positive way?
- Any personal goals you'd like to share?

In previous posts, you seemed happy with the "love of your life", but I'm wondering if that's still the case. I'm curious about YOU as a person, and what led to you becoming so bitter towards men in general. Care to enlighten us?


----------



## jb02157

Pooh Bear said:


> Yes. Changes such as this. What would be even better is to teach children about boundries and appropriate touch and both girls and boys that is ok to be sexual beings and no means no. People are starting to do that too.


So we should teach our kids about appropriate touch?? Now I think I've heard of just about everything. I don't recall having to do or even worry about this back in the 50's and rape was less common than it is now. You don't stop rape by trying to teach children about it. That only makes the problem worse.


----------



## tacoma

DanaS said:


> Even today, I have very little doubt most men would love nothing more than to see women "put back in their place"; being able to beat/rape their wives with impunity (which even today with the sentences men get for doing it being such a joke means they practically do), force them to stay home so all the men have the jobs, etc.


Dear god.

You have been so brainwashed or harmed somehow.
I can't fathom a reason for such complete delusion and separation from reality.

I was angry with you, now I just feel sorry for you.

Please get some counselling.


----------



## tacoma

vellocet said:


> And that would have been the smart move after that humdinger of a comment.


Just....damn


----------



## tacoma

jb02157 said:


> So we should teach our kids about appropriate touch?? Now I think I've heard of just about everything. I don't recall having to do or even worry about this back in the 50's and rape was less common than it is now.* You don't stop rape by trying to teach children about it. * That only makes the problem worse.


Actually that's exactly how you change things in any culture.
This has been evidenced over and over again concerning things such as safe sex and teen pregnancy.

Information is power, to withhold it from your children is to deny them strength and agency.

Also, I'll need some evidence that rape was less prevelant in the 50's.
In fact the situation was far far worse in the 50's due to the fact that no one in the 40's-30's taught their children anything about it.

It just isn't so.


----------



## jb02157

tacoma said:


> Dear god.
> 
> You have been so brainwashed or harmed somehow.
> I can't fathom a reason for such complete delusion and separation from reality.
> 
> I was angry with you, now I just feel sorry for you.
> 
> Please get some counselling.


Here here, that's how dumb ideas like that get started to begin with.


----------



## vellocet

tacoma said:


> Just....damn


I know, right?


----------



## jb02157

tacoma said:


> In fact the situation was far far worse in the 50's due to the fact that no one in the 40's-30's taught their children anything about it.
> 
> It just isn't so.


That's just plain BS. How can you make a statement like that?


----------



## norajane

jb02157 said:


> So we should teach our kids about appropriate touch?? Now I think I've heard of just about everything. I don't recall having to do or even worry about this back in the 50's and rape was less common than it is now. You don't stop rape by trying to teach children about it. That only makes the problem worse.


Yes, people teach children about being inappropriately touched (so as to make sure they speak up if their day care provider or teacher or stranger is abusing them). It's not difficult to tack on the lesson, "touching people like that when they don't want to be touched is wrong, which is why you shouldn't do it either."


----------



## tacoma

jb02157 said:


> That's just plain BS. How can you make a statement like that?


I think it's self evident.

In the fifties a womans value was based upon what she could do for a man.This is evident throughout any mainstream media from the period.

In the fifties a womans value was greatly based upon her "purity".

In the fifties sex education and awareness was non-existent.

In the fifties rape was something women rarely ever reported because of the social stigma attached to it.
Many women didn't dare even tell their husbands about it.
This is why the stats often promoted on right wing media outlets are ridiculous.
They show a higher rape percentage than in the fifties but only because women rarely dared to report rape for fear of being ostracized.
There is far less self shame for a rape victim today.

Violent crime in nearly all areas has reduced significantly since the fifties, enough to imply they have reduced for rape as well.

People tend to believe crime is rampant today because we have a 24 hour news cycle that is aware of anything happening thousands of miles away in an instant.
We're constantly bombarded with it.

In the fifties you got your news once or twice a day and it was generally days if not weeks behind.


----------



## norajane

tacoma said:


> I think it's self evident.
> 
> In the fifties a womans value was based upon what she could do for a man.This is evident throughout any mainstream media from the period.
> 
> In the fifties a womans value was greatly based upon her "purity".
> 
> In the fifties sex education and awareness was non-existent.
> 
> In the fifties rape was something women rarely ever reported because of the social stigma attached to it.
> Many women didn't dare even tell their husbands about it.
> This is why the stats often promoted on right wing media outlets are ridiculous.
> They show a higher rape percentage than in the fifties but only because women rarely dared to report rape for fear of being ostracized.
> There is far less self shame for a rape victim today.
> 
> Violent crime in nearly all areas has reduced significantly since the fifties, enough to imply they have reduced for rape as well.
> 
> People tend to believe crime is rampant today because we have a 24 hour news cycle that is aware of anything happening thousands of miles away in an instant.
> We're constantly bombarded with it.
> 
> In the fifties you got your news once or twice a day and it was generally days if not weeks behind.


In many cases, most cases, rape is committed by someone the victim knows, like her H or her boyfriend. Spousal rape wasn't even a crime until recently, so obviously it wasn't counted in any 'stats' back then.


----------



## Amplexor

DanaS said:


> There's a reason we are so different, because we are the embodiment of everything men aren't; Nurturing, loving, compassionate, and empathetic. Men sure as hell weren't any of those things back then. And even now those traits are very rare to find in a man.


Just in case anyone is wondering why.....


----------



## GTdad

Amplexor said:


> Just in case anyone is wondering why.....


I figured that this and several other statements were probably reportable, but no one look at me. I'm no snitch.


----------



## jb02157

norajane said:


> Yes, people teach children about being inappropriately touched (so as to make sure they speak up if their day care provider or teacher or stranger is abusing them). It's not difficult to tack on the lesson, "touching people like that when they don't want to be touched is wrong, which is why you shouldn't do it either."


Sure we can teach kids these things but it almost always has negative effects. We can't expect them to know what "unappropriately touching" someone is. If we have boys growing up trying to make sense out of goofy concepts like this you get teen-age boys that shoot there classmates in high school and college or even at the movie theater.


----------



## GTdad

jb02157 said:


> Sure we can teach kids these things but it almost always has negative effects. We can't expect them to know what "unappropriately touching" someone is.


Sure we can, if we explain what it is and why it's inappropriate. 




jb02157 said:


> If we have boys growing up trying to make sense out of goofy concepts like this you get teen-age boys that shoot there classmates in high school and college or even at the movie theater.


That seems like a heck of a leap. "Dang it, I just don't get this 'inappropriate touching' thing". Blam!


----------



## tacoma

jb02157 said:


> Sure we can teach kids these things but it almost always has negative effects. W*e can't expect them to know what "unappropriately touching" someone is.* If we have boys growing up trying to make sense out of goofy concepts like this you get teen-age boys that shoot there classmates in high school and college or even at the movie theater.


Why not?

My daughter had no trouble understanding it at a very early age (4-5)

You simply explain exactly what it is to them.


----------



## John Lee

jb02157 said:


> Sure we can teach kids these things but it almost always has negative effects. We can't expect them to know what "unappropriately touching" someone is. If we have boys growing up trying to make sense out of goofy concepts like this you get teen-age boys that shoot there classmates in high school and college or even at the movie theater.


Nope.


----------



## Maricha75

DanaS said:


> Even today, I have very little doubt most men would love nothing more than to see women "put back in their place"; being able to beat/rape their wives with impunity (which even today with the sentences men get for doing it being such a joke means they practically do), force them to stay home so all the men have the jobs, etc.


Dana, this part right here makes it very difficult to take ANYTHING you say seriously. I agree with Tacoma. Get help. You need it.

As for your questions regarding a world run by women... no way in hell can you be serious. LMAO! A world run by women? I would guess you mean women who are like you? No thank you. If this world were run by women who feel the way you do about men, it would be no different (or if it was different, it would be WORSE) than the way things currently are. But others have posted examples of women leaders through the years. Those leaders weren't good enough for you. Why is that? You think they shouldn't count because you feel men were the ones truly in charge. Sorry, sweetheart, but their times as rulers count. And, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not (obviously not), women can be JUST as bad as men, even worse at times.

Seriously, get help. Stop projecting your hate onto the entire male population. You don't know all, or even most men, well enough to make the above ridiculous claim. Just stop.


----------



## Jung_admirer

Amplexor said:


> Just in case anyone is wondering why.....


Why do I get this image of bunnies boiling in a large stock pot?


----------



## Cletus

Amplexor said:


> Just in case anyone is wondering why.....


Looks like the patriarchy is alive and well.


----------



## Maricha75

Cletus said:


> Looks like the patriarchy is alive and well.


I'm OK with that.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DanaS said:


> That is PRECISELY what I am saying! It has never been until women started speaking up about things such as child labor, racism, mentally ill, etc. that any kind of talk was even done.
> 
> Can anyone here point out ANY time pre-20th century where large groups of men started organizations or brought up things speaking out against the aforementioned, or women's rights at all? I very much doubt it.
> 
> Even today, I have very little doubt most men would love nothing more than to see women "put back in their place"; being able to beat/rape their wives with impunity (which even today with the sentences men get for doing it being such a joke means they practically do), force them to stay home so all the men have the jobs, etc.
> 
> What really gets me though is when women bring up an issue that greatly affects them, rather than take an honest discussion about it, about what causes it, and what best way to stop it may be, men would rather just tell women "it's not that bad" "grow thicker skin" "you're just being crazy" ad nauseum. I'm sure some here have seen the video posted last year of a woman walking down NYC streets showing her getting harassed and when women would talk about it guys would defend it saying they're just compliments...PLEASE!!
> 
> Yet a man made a similar video trying to show that men get called out too when it's not anywhere NEAR the same! It just angers me that men would rather bury their heads in the sand rather than do what is right and tell other men to knock it off. Men don't have to worry about some stranger grabbing them from behind, fondling their genitals, or holding them down while their clothes are ripped off and get raped like women do. And before men come in saying "but...but...men get raped too!" as if the amount of men raped is even a tiny fraction of the women that are.
> 
> If you talk about rape on college campuses, military, etc. instead of, y'know, offering some ideas on how to get men to stop it inevitably ends with men going on and on about "oh but what about the false rape claims!!!11!!" again, as if the women that makes false rape claims is anywhere near the actual amount of women raped/sexually assaulted.


I think there is a subset of men that feel like this, but I don't think the majority of men do. Most of them not only do not wish to rape their wives but feel bad when they get duty sex, and many have daughters they don't wish to see treated poorly. 

Let's put aside the knuckedraggers for now and talk about your average guy. I think there are many guys struggling with shifting gender roles and power balances, much of which is different in their own marriage compared to what they saw with their parents. But women struggle with this too.....it's the nature of social change to take a few generations. So while it's plausible that an average guy might be upset at what he PERCEIVES to be a power imbalance he certainly doesn't want to see women raped and beat up. My own father struggled with this, he was chauvinistic in many ways regarding what he saw as a man's vs a woman's role but he had three daughters that he wanted everything for and he certainly had no desire to see women get beat up. In fact he told me that when he grew up that was so unacceptable that when his gang (think streets of 1950's NY) would get wind of a guy hitting his girl they'd go looking for him and kick his arse.

I do think there are a lot of double standard attitudes, heck just look at TAM, but I certainly don't think your average guy wants women to be raped. 

As far as causes go it's true a lot of women historically did this but that's partly because women couldn't do much else, so they took up what causes they could. Men support causes too but they've always had more professional opportunity and also had full responsibility for supporting the 10 kids they'd knock out before reliable birth control. This is part of the reason I don't get why so many men are anti-feminist.....I'd think this is a burden they'd be happy to share. I know my husband is.


----------



## Catherine602

Dana Forgive whoever hurt you because they are controlling your ability to be happy. Forgiveness is for you. What a joyful life you should have now. Instead you are feeling the events of the past. Don't let an evil person win. You had a problem with one person, not half of the population that God created. . 

You need to be calm for the child growing in you. When you are upset, she is effected biologically. When she is born, she needs a calm loving Mom who can teach her how to make her way in the would. 

The anger and venting can be a path to healing. Listen to the best of the people posting here. Resolve the feelings of hurt. It may help to post what happened Dana. That's a start. Most of us have had very bad experiences in our lives. We will understand your rage and try to help you reach a resolution. 

Can you trust a bunch of strangers who want to help? Reveal your story. If you have already please forgive me for asking again.


----------



## Maricha75

She won't be able to respond. She has been banned.


----------



## DanaS

intheory said:


> Dana,
> 
> You are 7 months pregnant now, correct?
> 
> How is your health? In your 40's and pregnant, you've got to take extra special care of yourself. I know you know this. But, you are pregnant, working (full-time?), and dealing with a very broken relationship with your adult daughter.
> 
> How is your blood pressure? It might be a good idea to take it a bit easier these last couple of months of your pregnancy. Maybe just avoid this forum; and others that rile you up.
> 
> You can use your passion and energy to make this a better world for both you and your daughter(s). And for men too. You always claim that your current husband is very kind and compassionate. You wouldn't want him being treated unfairly just because he is a man.
> 
> But take a break from TAM for a while. And focus on being a calm and healthy new mom.
> 
> Wishing you a safe delivery of your child.
> 
> Just my 2¢


Well I am back. Hopefully I won't get another ban. I'll be more diplomatic. 

As far as my health, it's great. This pregnancy has actually been a lot easier than when I had my daughter when I was younger. I had all kinds of horrid morning sickness and was even on bed rest after giving birth. 

I am 8 months pregnant, due date is March 21st.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Dana I wholeheartedly disagree. I think there are certainly a small group of misogynists who would love that. But most men don't want ALL of the burden of providing for a family. And most men don't have any desire to be abusive, much less do so scott free.

I'm sorry you haven't experienced such tenderness in your life. Even with an abusive ex, he was the ONLY one out of many men I dated and several I had long term relationships with. In fact I was stunned when he first pushed me because I'd never witnessed such behavior!

That doesn't mean that most men don't prefer traditional roles. I have found men tend to prefer to earn more, prefer taking care of the yard and the vehicles and prefer having a wife who cooks dinner and handles the household. But preferring traditional roles does NOT make a man abusive or patriarchal.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Very well said Enjoli


----------

