# Feminism does not and has never bothered me.



## Ikaika

Feel free to express.


----------



## Ikaika

I realize this may build into my exit thread from TAM other than occasional updates on my two journal threads. I just don't fit here.


----------



## Anon Pink

Ikaika said:


> I realize this may build into my exit thread from TAM other than occasional updates on my two journal threads. I just don't fit here.


Yes you do!

So you think men who are angry about feminism are men who have been burned by women? I can totally see that. Same goes for women who have been burned by men.

Red Piller's vs feminists?

Totally feminists win hands down!


----------



## Cletus

I have no problem with feminism that advocates for women, their equality in all aspects of society, or their sexuality. 

The only feminism I take issue with is the kind that attempts to paint men (not a specific man) as evil, barbaric, or piggish simply by virtue of being male. 

Not all feminism is created equal.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
as we've seen from other threads, people define "feminism" as everything from "want women to be treated equally". to "hate all men", then decide that their definition is the "correct" one.


----------



## SpinDaddy

Agree, in principle it is very difficult not to embrace the fundamental notions.

Unfortunately, as with any concept that ends in “ism”, it is the expansion on the fundamental precepts where we begin to run into the weeds.

So much in life is that way however.


----------



## that.girl

Feminism is kind of like religion -

You have a large group of normal, reasonable people trying to make a rational point. 
But they get overshadowed by a small group of crazy radicals, because those radicals make more noise and are more interesting to put on the news. 

I am a feminist. I love men, and think we deserve equality. I don't like being associated with the man-hater types, they undermine the point of feminism with their antics.


----------



## Nucking Futs

Cletus said:


> I have no problem with feminism that advocates for women, their equality in all aspects of society, or their sexuality.
> 
> The only feminism I take issue with is the kind that attempts to paint men (not a specific man) as evil, barbaric, or piggish simply by virtue of being male.
> 
> Not all feminism is created equal.


I agree. I have no problem with feminism when it's about equality. Radical feminism, on the other hand, is not about equality, it's about supremacy. It's the radical feminists that have co-opted the label to the point that now a lot of people refer to radical feminists as simply feminists. 

If the equality minded feminists don't like being lumped in with the supremacists they need to stand up and make their voices heard, because right now the only ones getting air time are the radicals.

ETA: The post immediately preceding mine was not there when I started typing.


----------



## GusPolinski

Ikaika said:


> I want to emphasize this is simply my opinion. No scientific evidence or any extensive social science studies were necessary for me to consider this stance. However, I get why some men are fired up on the issue. I have not been severely burned by a woman, never experience devastating heartbreak (not that I have not been turned down, but nothing in the severe category), and or a youth filled with women turning me away so as to build up anger. While, my story may not align with others, I have come to understand why my views may not always be widely shared here on TAM.
> 
> On the other hand I would never classify myself as some metro guy who is fashioned into some modern age man ready to just go along with whatever "she" says.
> 
> I guess my attitude has always been about "next". I don't know maybe I'm just a different kind of cat. I'm sure there are many who will disagree with my attitude and point to the errors of my ways. I'm ok with taking criticism. I guess I just am too laid back to worry about this as an issue in my life.
> 
> Feel free to express.
> 
> Caveat: I'm married and will be celebrating our 20th anniversary this month on the 24th. My wife and I are still friends, partners in raising our two sons. And, most important, we are still intimate even as we approach our mid 50s. We are married but also have a healthy view of our own individuality. We both have a professional career (make roughly the same amount of money). We are not the perfect couple, but willing to work together through small and big issues that arise.
> 
> I give anyone a chance to vent, I simply ask we not judge anyone for their attitude on the topic.


Sooo... in your mind, the only people that could possibly take issue w/ any of the tenets of modern feminism are essentially emotionally-stunted misogynists that have been repeatedly beaten into the dirt by women...?

Wow. Thanks for that.


----------



## richardsharpe

Generally radical-X is bad for all values of "X".

For the record, I am in favor of equal rights for men and women. I believe that the definition of "equal" can be complicated in some situations, but I still think it is the goal.


Just for fun though if you are thinking of equality: Consider the end of the movie Titanic. Reverse the genders and see how it looks. Could people really tolerate the woman slowly sinking into the icy water while the man watches helplessly from the raft that SHE built?

For all that I believe in equality, I would sacrifice myself for my wife, but could not live with her doing the same for me.


----------



## Holland

I am a feminist in the true sense of the word, not the distorted version.

From wiki 


> Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies which share a common stated aim: to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist generally self-defines as advocating for or supporting the rights and equality of women.[3] Feminist theory, which emerged from feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of sex and gender.


I believe in equity and equality not just of genders but of all people.

I have no time for people of either gender that hate the other simply because they have been burned and/or they are not evolved enough to take responsibility for their own part in their sad lives.

I adore men, I am surrounded by amazing, high EQ, intelligent, full of life men. Being a feminist has nothing to do with not liking men as sadly some seem to think. It is about equality which to some men generates fear because in order for women to have equality men think they have to give up some of what they have. This is not the case IME as a woman that is free, equal and able to live her life with the same opportunities as men can then walk around without resentment due to being held back. I am free, a feminist and that makes me a better, more able to give partner.

I was raised to believe that all people should have equal rights and that the feminist movement has allowed women to participate at a much more equal level than generations ago. It has allowed us the right to have more autonomy over our lives, whether that be to stay at home and raise a family or to forge a career.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Generally radical-X is bad for all values of "X".
> 
> For the record, I am in favor of equal rights for men and women. I believe that the definition of "equal" can be complicated in some situations, but I still think it is the goal.
> 
> 
> Just for fun though if you are thinking of equality: Consider the end of the movie Titanic. Reverse the genders and see how it looks. Could people really tolerate the woman slowly sinking into the icy water while the man watches helplessly from the raft that SHE built?
> 
> For all that I believe in equality, I would sacrifice myself for my wife, but could not live with her doing the same for me.


Do you think that your wife could live with your sacrificing yourself for you? Probably not. I could not live with it if my husband (or anyone) sacrificed themself for me.

Would your wife sacrifice herself for you? I'll bet she would. I know I would do it for my husband or anyone I loved.

I don't think this is a gender issue on the personal level.

I know that on the Titanic the rule was women and children first. But as it turned out it was 1st class women and children, and only a few 2nd & 3rd class women & children. 

1st class men got in the life boats before saving 2nd and 3rd class male, felmale and children.

Shoot they locked the gates to keep the people in sterage off the decks to make sure they could not be saved.


----------



## jld

Good point, Ele. Class discrimination would be a great topic of discussion.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> *1st class men got in the life boats before saving 2nd and 3rd class male, felmale and children.
> 
> Shoot they locked the gates to keep the people in sterage off the decks to make sure they could not be saved*.


I never heard that part of the story !


> *Jdl said:* *Good point, Ele. Class discrimination would be a great topic of discussion.*


Our family would have been locked behind the gates !


----------



## ocotillo

Something I pointed out in the other thread is that broad minded, fair people tend to be complacent whereas myopic zealots tend to be driven. 

In a human organization (--Doesn't matter if it's political, social or religious...) the myopic zealots edge out those who are less driven and eventually run the show. It's a very old pattern and there's lots of examples.

Nobody, but nobody should have a problem with feminism. Some of us have a problem when a writer in a prestigious academic journal laments the fact that men can't be killed off though.


----------



## ThirtyYearsIn

Modern feminists seek advantage instead of equality. They want to emulate the behavior of the worst kind of men and have it be deemed acceptable.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

What is wrong with being a metro? i am a myriad of different things. I love to be stylish, and take care of my skin and hair. I play sports, and I love science and books. Metro is one of many labels that I use, and it does not define me in total. I believe it is the same for most. Labels only partially describe aspects of a person. I am a geek, athlete, and a wonderful conversationalist. 

I simply don't follow what women say either. Being metro, I hang out with other metros, and we are not the pushovers people think we are. I would not be friends with a female who does not show me respect and I will show her respect in return.

As far as feminism is concern, the only thing I care about is equality in education, social, political, and career opportunities. I also fight for men's right when it comes to inequality at the family court system. I also fight for gay rights, and racial equality.

i have a metro friend in Texas, and he loves his guns. How about this, labels are only a partial descriptor of who we are, or choose to present our self as such.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

ThirtyYearsIn said:


> Modern feminists seek advantage instead of equality. They want to emulate the behavior of the worst kind of men and have it be deemed acceptable.


 Your generalizing. It is like saying all Christians want more relligious rights than any other group. Example of this is when a Christian group fought for the ten commandment tablets to stay at a certain courthouse. Later some of those Christians had some issues with Islamic people putting their symbols on public property. Does those Christians, who want more of a theocracy define all Christians. Or saying that caucasians want only rights for themselves, because of what some white supremisist says.

There are some feminist cousins I have, and they are not like what you are describing.


----------



## NotLikeYou

GusPolinski said:


> Sooo... in your mind, the only people that could possibly take issue w/ any of the tenets of modern feminism are essentially emotionally-stunted misogynists that have been repeatedly beaten into the dirt by women...?
> 
> Wow. Thanks for that.


Yeah, I picked up on the "loathing and contempt for anyone not as open-minded as me" too.

OP, I hope you find a board somewhere with people who are worthy of talking to you. Don't get your hopes up- not many people are as awesome as you!


----------



## Faithful Wife

NotLikeYou said:


> Yeah, I picked up on the "loathing and contempt for anyone not as open-minded as me" too.
> 
> OP, I hope you find a board somewhere with people who are worthy of talking to you. Don't get your hopes up- not many people are as awesome as you!


I agree, he may be too awesome to be here. Except I really mean it and am not being sarcastic like you were.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ThirtyYearsIn said:


> Modern feminists seek advantage instead of equality. They want to emulate the behavior of the worst kind of men and have it be deemed acceptable.


Hate to break it to you, but women don't need to "emulate" men in order to determine how they want to behave, whether they behave good or bad, they actually DO have the same rights to behave however they want as men do. Strange, huh?

As for seeking advantage...gee, does that mean that men have been seeking (and taking by force) advantage all these centuries, maybe?


----------



## WandaJ

I think these guys are still trying to find themselves in new reality. Up to now they just had to go to work and put food on the table. If they were cheating, there were not consequences, wife wouldn't leave them anyway or she would go barefoot wtih bunch of dirty nose kids. They didn't have to worry about emotional needs of their spouses. 

And now all that has changed. Going to work is not engough to be a good husband. Wife goes to work too often, and expects help in the house. She has emotional needs, who knew?. Even worse, she has her own paycheck. She doesn't have to stick around just out of fear of poverty, the laws ensure that daddy still takes care of his kids. Even though divorce still puts many more women into poverty then men. But we have men complaining all about it, because they aer surprised that they are on the hook for their kids for life, and they have to split their paycheck to raise them.

So now some of these men feel cheated, frustrated. Some show sense of entitlement, "it was so good before, why to change?" Guess what? It wasn't that good for everybody.

I can not really take seriously any man who makes generalizations like this. Blaming feminism on his lack of success with women. I would say your attitude towards women is your problem, not feminism. More insight is recommended. You know what they say, if you think everybody around you is crazy or bad, it really is you.... If you believe 50% of world population is there to get you, think again.


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> Some of us have a problem when a writer in a prestigious academic journal laments the fact that men can't be killed off though.


Fear not Octillo! The world would be a sad and sorry place without men. I promise to act as a human shield should such idiocy come to pass!


----------



## Shoto1984

richardsharpe said:


> Generally radical-X is bad for all values of "X".
> 
> For the record, I am in favor of equal rights for men and women. I believe that the definition of "equal" can be complicated in some situations, but I still think it is the goal.
> 
> 
> Just for fun though if you are thinking of equality: Consider the end of the movie Titanic. Reverse the genders and see how it looks. Could people really tolerate the woman slowly sinking into the icy water while the man watches helplessly from the raft that SHE built?
> 
> For all that I believe in equality, I would sacrifice myself for my wife, but could not live with her doing the same for me.


When the movie Titanic came out I remember listening to a radio discussion that included information about women's rights leaders of the time writing that there should have been no such order mandadating any different treatment of the women from the men. They claimed that any different treatment only continued the subjegation of women. I think the modern day equivlants would be the people advocating combat roles for women in the military.


----------



## EleGirl

ThirtyYearsIn said:


> Modern feminists seek advantage instead of equality. They want to emulate the behavior of the worst kind of men and have it be deemed acceptable.


Really? I'm a feminist. I guess I'm modern since I live in modern times and I am still breathing. Clearly I am a modern feminist.

Yet I'm not seeking advantage instead of equity. I don't emulate the behavior of the worst kind of men.

What you describe is a subset of women.. a small subset. Can we please stop painting huge groups of people with this kind of nonsense?


----------



## EleGirl

Ikaika said:


> I realize this may build into my exit thread from TAM other than occasional updates on my two journal threads. I just don't fit here.


I hope that this is not your exist. I've enjoyed your posts. We need people with your point of view around here.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Yet I'm not seeking advantage instead of equity. *I don't emulate the behavior of the worst kind of men.*


Good point, Ele.


----------



## Personal

Shoto1984 said:


> I think the modern day equivlants would be the people advocating combat roles for women in the military.


Here's a great discussion from the Pritzker Military Museum & Library that is well worth watching or listening to (I listened to it as a Podcast from iTunes yesterday) that is called Changes and Challenges: Women in Today's Military, which is also available on YouTube as well.

Edited to Add: They also discuss rape in the Military as well.


----------



## EleGirl

We need equivalent words for the men's movement.....

*Masculism* (or *masculinism*) is political, cultural, and economic movements which aim to establish and defend political, economic, and social rights and participation in society for men and boys. More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet.

*Masculinists* strives to achieve these aims by advocating for the rights or needs of men; by the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, and attitudes, regarded as typical of men; or, alternatively, through an androcentric approach, including the exclusion of women.

Masculism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## EleGirl

Masculism (or masculinism) is political, cultural, and economic movements which aim to establish and defend political, economic, and social rights and participation in society for men and boys. More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet.




Cletus said:


> I have no problem with feminism that advocates for women, their equality in all aspects of society, or their sexuality.


:iagree:



Cletus said:


> The only feminism I take issue with is the kind that attempts to paint men (not a specific man) as evil, barbaric, or piggish simply by virtue of being male.


:iagree: And keep in mind that it's a small percentage of feminists who are stupid enough to think this of all, or even most, men.

Likewise, I have an issue with Masculinists who think that women and feminists are evil, manipulative, seeking to take advantage, [add the list mean spirited things said about women (not a specific woman) on TAM threads and men’s movements sites] .



Cletus said:


> Not all feminism is created equal.


Nor are all Masculinists.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sadly, the MRA groups coined the masculinist term and therefore it is forever tainted and sh*t stained. I vote for the word egalitarian, for both genders.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Sadly, the MRA groups coined the masculinist term and therefore it is forever tainted and sh*t stained. I vote for the word egalitarian, for both genders.


That's the word I usually use (but that doesn't mean I have a automatic negative response to anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist, or don't appreciate what the feminism movement has done).


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Sadly, the MRA groups coined the masculinist term and therefore it is forever tainted and sh*t stained. I vote for the word egalitarian, for both genders.


adj Egalitarian: of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.


noun Egalitarian: a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs. 


Ok, I'm now officially an egalitarian.


----------



## EleGirl

TiggyBlue said:


> That's the word I usually use (but that doesn't mean I have a automatic negative response to anyone who identifies themselves as a feminist, or don't appreciate how what the feminism movement has done).


ETA: Ignore this post.... apparently I cannot read....


I am sure that you do appreciate a large part of what the feminist movement as done. 

What part of what it has done don't you appreciate? And which people who call themselves feminists are doing these things?


----------



## Faithful Wife

My mother clued me in to that word and lived her own example of it, mostly in the 70's. She was and is very hip.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think Tiggy means that some feminists feel that if you call yourself some other word, you are saying feminists suck. So she's clearing it up, it doesn't mean that.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> I think Tiggy means that some feminists feel that if you call yourself some other word, you are saying feminists suck. So she's clearing it up, it doesn't mean that.


I need to learn to read :scratchhead:


----------



## Ikaika

I failed, I was inarticulate in expressing my views. I will snip out most of my original post. I did not intend to come off self righteous or smug. Oh well, only intended as an opinion, I don't quite know how else to express it any differently. Probably not the right send off thread.


----------



## EleGirl

Ikaika said:


> I failed, I was inarticulate in expressing my views. I will snip out most of my original post. I did not intend to come off self righteous or smug. Oh well, only intended as an opinion, I don't quite know how else to express it any differently. Probably not the right send off thread.


Your OP is not self righteous or smug. You told us how some things are making your feel.


----------



## happy as a clam

These "feminist" threads make me cRaZy... No further comment.

*ugh*


----------



## happy as a clam

Ikaika said:


> Probably not the right send off thread.


Why do you need a "send-off" thread, presumably just to rile people up and start a debate of sorts?

If you want to leave TAM because you don't "fit here" (your words), just leave. :scratchhead:


----------



## EleGirl

happy as a clam said:


> Why do you need a "send-off" thread, presumably just to rile people up and start a debate of sorts?
> 
> If you want to leave TAM because you don't "fit here" (your words), just leave. :scratchhead:


Perhaps the OP is expressing a frustration that many of us have. I have no problem with that.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> I think Tiggy means that some feminists feel that if you call yourself some other word, you are saying feminists suck. So she's clearing it up, it doesn't mean that.


That and a few people see it as a green light to start ripping into feminists to me and ranting about how evil they are.


----------



## EleGirl

TiggyBlue said:


> That and a few people see it as a green light to start ripping into feminists to me and ranting about how evil they are.


:iagree: No kidding..


----------



## happy as a clam

EleGirl said:


> Perhaps the OP is expressing a frustration that many of us have.


If you're frustrated, I don't understand why you would remain here .

If a website or forum made me frustrated, I simply wouldn't visit it any longer. Way too many things in life to be frustrated over besides "strangers" on an internet forum.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Mr.Fisty

I have been on here a little over a month, and I've seen some male posters attacking or using harsh language for a wife leaving her husband. Even though she stated that she was abuse, they somehow ignored that fact. Whether it is a trigger, or they just don't like a wife leaving a marriage, they are pretty upset. It is like they see their wife in the female op. They become insense, and blind to all other factors. He is a deadbeat, he is an alcoholic, he is lazy, and he avoids conflict. Some posters get upset if the wife wants to leave for some of these reasons, but is it not a boundary for them. We talk about boundaries and consequences for them, but what about habitual offenders, and sometimes the behavior does not change until the wife leaves. I believe that some of these women are marrying for a partner, not to be someone's mother. 

I am okay with a husband leaving a wife for those same reasons. It is a boundary. Some of these male posters were being a parent figure to their wives. It is just men don't get attack as nearly as much as a wife. Most posters are men who have had their wives leave them, so their prospective is skewed. On smorgasboard thread, some male posters had issue with her dating or seeing a guy once a month, after she filed divorced from her deadbeat, abusive husband.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

This article sums up why I have little desire to call myself a Feminist *and it's written by a feminist*! ....if more feminists felt like THIS feminist .... I wouldn't have such a problem with the term.. but I don't see it happening any time soon. 

Why Modern Day Feminists Are Making Me A Misogynist -



> Let me preface this article by stating that I am, in fact, female (and a liberated one at that). I am NOT slamming feminists or feminism as a whole, but rather noting some strange trends by some women these days who claim to be feminists. The women in question are, often young, idealists who, in many ways, are doing more harm than good to the feminist movement.
> 
> If you peruse any self-identified feminist space on the internet, you will find words and phrases such as “triggering”, “****-shaming”, “girl-on-girl hate” etc. One word these women are constantly spewing is “empowerment”. What’s especially funny about this is that never have I ever encountered such a group of people who cling to “victim” status.
> 
> Many of these modern day feminists are quick to cry out “misogyny” the moment anyone has an issue with a person who happens to be female. They frequently blast other women for “girl-on-girl hate” just because a woman has the gall to criticize one of their “sisters”. I find this way of thinking utterly ridiculous. Since when does feminism mean that women are infallible creatures worthy of nothing but praise? I have always thought being a feminist meant lobbying for equality. Equality does NOT mean that you can say or do anything without being held accountable. Equality means you will be held to the same standards and outcome as everyone else. Now you are telling me that you should be treated differently because you are female?
> 
> “Trigger” or “triggering”. This is the cry of outrage in response to, well, pretty much anything. A “trigger” refers to a picture or words that “trigger” a negative memory/experience in the reader. Common themes are sexual assault, eating disorders, domestic abuse etc. Instead of scrolling past, closing the website or dealing with it like an adult, they will screech indignantly about it being “triggering” and demand that the offending sentence/picture be removed. I don’t understand how these women can function in the real world, where nobody really gives a **** about their feelings. Because nothing says empowerment like being a thin-skinned perpetual victim.
> 
> Were you aware that taking off your clothes for the sexual pleasure of men was empowering? Neither did I. That’s what many of these feminists will have you believe. While I don’t think it should be a stigma for a woman to keep food on the table, I fail to see how stripping is an “empowering” career move. This includes “burlesque”, which is mistakenly thought of as “empowering” because many of the women are overweight and not terribly attractive. Instead of trying to make it some ridiculous political statement, why can’t you just admit that you (a) need the cash (b) are an exhibitionist, or (c) you mistakenly rely on male attention to validate your attractiveness? You’ll just have to trust me on the fact that the men in the audience are not picking up on the feminism. Oh well, what can you expect from women who on one hand claim to be against the sexual objectification of women while simultaneously engaging in “rape fantasies”. (I was pretty surprised to discover the amount of feminists who confess to having rape-fantasies.)
> 
> “****-shaming” is a feminist jab at people who look down upon women for expressing their sexuality. While I do think there is certainly a valid point about the double-standards society has towards women’s sexuality, this is another overused term. Some ladies seem to think that guzzling back liters of sperm and taking as much **** as they can until they are verging on prolapse is pretty feminist. They call it being a “pro-sex” feminist. If you do anything but high-five them, they will accuse you of “****-shaming”. Rampant promiscuity is pretty nasty regardless of gender. I am not making a moral judgement here, I just think both genders (and genders in between or what have you) should be concerned about sexually transmitted infections and diseases.
> 
> The problem with a lot of these “modern feminists” is the lack of logic and the constant knee-jerk reactions. The issues they bring up are definitely valid and the terms that they use they DO actually have a place, yet the constant overuse of them constitutes a “boy who cried wolf” situation where they eventually lose their meaning. These women eventually become a shrill caricature of themselves and it becomes very hard to take them seriously.
> 
> Or, am I just “blaming the victim”?


I really don't care to identify with a movement who enjoys telling me *how ignorant I am* for having different views over them or throwing jabs that people like ME are holding back society....I have been told I feed the Misogynist men here.. lovely.. .it comes to the point where you feel you are backed into the corner.. they have alienated you to such a degree...and you find more understanding with those outside the movement..

And here I thought I was a decent human being....who rallies for good in society, honesty, integrity, for social justice, who has empathy for those treated unfairly.. whether male or female.....go figure.


----------



## Pluto2

Ikaika said:


> I failed, I was inarticulate in expressing my views. I will snip out most of my original post. I did not intend to come off self righteous or smug. Oh well, only intended as an opinion, I don't quite know how else to express it any differently. Probably not the right send off thread.


OP, I agree with Elegirl on this. No smugness or self-righteousness came through in your initial post. And please, don't leave. Its good and helpful to have your input.


----------



## I'll make tea

SimplyAmorous said:


> “Trigger” or “triggering”. This is the cry of outrage in response to, well, pretty much anything. A “trigger” refers to a picture or words that “trigger” a negative memory/experience in the reader. Common themes are sexual assault, eating disorders, domestic abuse etc. Instead of scrolling past, closing the website or dealing with it like an adult, they will screech indignantly about it being “triggering” and demand that the offending sentence/picture be removed. I don’t understand how these women can function in the real world, where nobody really gives a **** about their feelings. Because nothing says empowerment like being a thin-skinned perpetual victim.


I actually don't agree with that. I don't think we should make other peoples life unnecessary complicated... that includes avoiding things that trigger *a lot* of people.

Anything can trigger somebody, but if there is something that triggers a lot of people and you know it and it is not necessary you use that picture or whatever...
One should not hurt other people on purpose.

For example you do not on purpose set up barries people in wheelchairs cannot cross. It is basically just politeness.


----------



## Ikaika

happy as a clam said:


> Why do you need a "send-off" thread, presumably just to rile people up and start a debate of sorts?
> 
> If you want to leave TAM because you don't "fit here" (your words), just leave. :scratchhead:





happy as a clam said:


> If you're frustrated, I don't understand why you would remain here .
> 
> If a website or forum made me frustrated, I simply wouldn't visit it any longer. Way too many things in life to be frustrated over besides "strangers" on an internet forum.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...


Actually I am not annoyed by anyone on TAM; no frustration from a forum otherwise I would have been gone a long time ago. I was simply following a theme and just thought I would express an opinion. But alas it failed - meant no arrogance or self righteousness to rile anyone one up. I appreciated those that help to define the word feminism, thank you. I would have assume if anyone was annoyed by the topic they could have easily just ignored it. I normally do. 

I guess TAM has become too much of a distraction (really that is what TAM is as of late) for me. I have waaaay too many IRL things to keep me stressed out and that is really where I should be spending my time. I just figured I would post one last thread and simply stick with only posting in my journey threads. This latter point I will do, even though I know my one journey thread exist in the graveyard location on TAM. 

So, thank you for suggesting I just leave. I will try not to let the door hit me in the ass  Just my 2 bits worth.


----------



## I'll make tea

I think there is two kinds of feminism. One that makes sense and there is feminazis who despise men.

As the mother of two sons I am opposed to quotas feminazis want to establish and to the fact they want men portrayed in a less then favourable ways in schools and so on.


----------



## Pluto2

ocotillo said:


> Something I pointed out in the other thread is that broad minded, fair people tend to be complacent whereas myopic zealots tend to be driven.


I've not found that broad minded fair people to be complacent. In fact, I've experienced quite the opposite. Lots of the people who come out to work on various civic projects could be described as broad minded, fair people.

Guess its all a perception sort of thing.


----------



## I'll make tea

What? you are going?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Ikaika said:


> Actually I am not annoyed by anyone on TAM; no frustration from a forum otherwise I would have been gone a long time ago. I was simply following a theme and just thought I would express an opinion. But alas it failed - meant no arrogance or self righteousness to rile anyone one up. I appreciated those that help to define the word feminism, thank you. I would have assume if anyone was annoyed by the topic they could have easily just ignored it. I normally do.
> 
> I guess TAM has become too much of a distraction (really that is what TAM is as of late) for me. I have waaaay too many IRL things to keep me stressed out and that is really where I should be spending my time. I just figured I would post one last thread and simply stick with only posting in my journey threads. This latter point I will do, even though I know my one journey thread exist in the graveyard location on TAM.
> 
> So, thank you for suggesting I just leave. I will try not to let the door hit me in the ass  Just my 2 bits worth.


TAM is the mother of distractions... right now I should be wrapping presents but I am putting it off.. for some reason this places pulls us in, even if it's just to hear ourselves think... when we type out these posts, many times it gives us clarity inside ourselves .... and the learning is never ending.... even if it "bites" sometimes... 

Just for the record, I hope you stick around ... you are a valuable member.. One thing I've noticed over the years...so many who want to leave , giving a farewell thread many times...they end up back here anyway.... it's a little crazy, I have resolved the fact I would never give a farewell cause then I would look foolish when I was back in the swing posting again... 

If it's something you enjoy- at least half of the time ... the posts, the community feedback .. *please DO STAY* !!...we all have a place even if our minds over work it feeling we don't belong... Some of us are "too cerebral" for our own good..... All of us could limit our time here to focus on more important things though...TRUE...but I hope you exit on a happy note... 

And always...if you see a thread where you have experience with the subject.. be open to share.. it could be very helpful or brighten someone's day. We all love feedback where someone else has "been there".


----------



## lifeistooshort

Nutjob man haters are not feminists, they are nutjob man haters. That is all.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I'll make tea said:


> I actually don't agree with that. I don't think we should make other peoples life unnecessary... that includes avoiding things that trigger *a lot* of people.
> 
> Anything can trigger somebody, but if there is something that triggers a lot of people and you know it and it is not necessary you use that picture or whatever...
> One should not hurt other people on purpose.
> 
> For example you do not on purpose set up barries people in wheelchairs cannot cross. It is basically just politeness.


I am not fully sure what she meant by her comments...I mean all subjects need talked about.. was she meaning sites where they are mocking....Joking? Seems lots of people get off on that....or demonstrating, speaking on issues ?? ......I guess I will give her the benefit of the doubt.. I am not a "politically correct person" in any way.. I want their to be FREE SPEECH / Free 

expression for all... some are obnoxious and take it to the extreme.....







... really I can't understand how these Westboro people get away with this... but I am not a lawyer..

I feel many times we BRING the backlash on ourselves when we take it too far (like above)...as it should be!!!.. If enough good people rise up, and ethically state their case against such things.. this helps bring things back in balance... (why we need Republics and Democrats, they balance each other out...though some may feel one party needs to slip into the ocean and be drowned.. I would not.. I can see Good & bad on both sides...

Ya see...because of the radical feminists, Men's Rights groups grew.. what can you do.. it's how the world works..

I think one of the dangers we face in understanding each other.. is how the majority now embrace "moral relativism"...there is no right & wrong anymore , it is all relative / opinion based/ subjective ....so your truth will argue against their truth.. and on it goes...no foundation for anything anymore. 

If we start making rules that this one can't express over here.. with it goes someone's liberty.. I am a sensitive person, I don't like everything I read, not by a long shot ...and I think to myself "what a Fvck face"....... but I wouldn't take their freedom to speak it away.. I learn much through debate personally ... I want to hear both sides to see where I fall on an issue... it's generally somewhere in the middle of the bar...

Ethics are not talked about enough in my opinion.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> I know that on the Titanic the rule was women and children first. But as it turned out it was 1st class women and children, and only a few 2nd & 3rd class women & children.
> 
> 1st class men got in the life boats before saving 2nd and 3rd class male, felmale and children.
> 
> Shoot they locked the gates to keep the people in sterage off the decks to make sure they could not be saved.





> Evidence given at the inquiry did suggest that initially some of the gates blocked the way of steerage passengers as stewards waited for instructions and that they were then opened, but only after most of the lifeboats had launched.
> 
> Lord Mersey noted that third class passengers were "reluctant" to leave the ship, "unwilling to part with their baggage", and had difficulty getting from their quarters to the lifeboats.
> 
> None of the evidence presented pointed to any malicious intent to obstruct third class passengers - but rather an oversight caused by unthinking obedience to the regulations, but the results were still deadly.
> 
> When the lifeboats were finally lowered officers gave the order that "women and children" should go first. *One hundred and fifteen men in first class and 147 men from second class are recorded as having stood back to make space available and as a result died.* *(Note: this is out of 124 First Class Casualties)*
> 
> No third-class passengers testified at the British inquiry but they were represented by a lawyer, W D Harbinson, who concluded that: "No evidence has been given in the course of this case that would substantiate a charge that any attempt was made to keep back the third class passengers."
> 
> Class did make a difference however - less than one third of steerage passengers survived, *although women and children survived in greater numbers across all classes as they were given priority on the lifeboats.*


It helps if we don't rely on James Cameron to give us historical accuracy.

Seventy five percent (75%) of all women of all classes survived. Most of the first class, 82% of the second class and half of the third class survived...if you were a girl.

Nineteen (19%) percent of all men survived. 32% of First Class men survived. All 54 our of 171. This is worse than the survival rate of women in steerage. 


Titanic: Demographics of the Passengers


----------



## JCD

WandaJ said:


> I think these guys are still trying to find themselves in new reality. Up to now they just had to go to work and put food on the table. If they were cheating, there were not consequences, wife wouldn't leave them anyway or she would go barefoot wtih bunch of dirty nose kids. They didn't have to worry about emotional needs of their spouses.
> 
> And now all that has changed. Going to work is not engough to be a good husband. Wife goes to work too often, and expects help in the house. She has emotional needs, who knew?. Even worse, she has her own paycheck. She doesn't have to stick around just out of fear of poverty, the laws ensure that daddy still takes care of his kids. Even though divorce still puts many more women into poverty then men. But we have men complaining all about it, because they aer surprised that they are on the hook for their kids for life, and they have to split their paycheck to raise them.
> 
> So now some of these men feel cheated, frustrated. Some show sense of entitlement, "it was so good before, why to change?" Guess what? It wasn't that good for everybody.
> 
> I can not really take seriously any man who makes generalizations like this. Blaming feminism on his lack of success with women. I would say your attitude towards women is your problem, not feminism. More insight is recommended. You know what they say, if you think everybody around you is crazy or bad, it really is you.... If you believe 50% of world population is there to get you, think again.


Yes and...

There is an and. A man can not cheat, work hard, be there, attempt to minister to his wife and her bag of issues as best he can (just like one assumes that HE has his own bag of issues), try to find some kind of satisfaction and joy in life...and if the woman doesn't feel...whatever enough, she can divorce his butt...and take half of all his assets, take his kids and move her new boyfriend (pre or post divorce) into the house...and the man gets raped in the settlement.

So anti-women generalizations...meet anti-man generalizations: that we are all cheaters who buy their women and treat them like chattel.

Men have real and significant issues. Some feminists acknowledge this. Many are too busy with their own empowerment to notice or care and then wonder why men think they are anti-men.

Heck, some women would APPLAUDE a woman who, merely feeling dissatisfied with life (as if it is a female monopoly) divorce this ugly brute who 'just doesn't get her'. Go Women!



That they get a look of askance from men as a result is frankly pretty rational to me.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> This article sums up why I have little desire to call myself a Feminist *and it's written by a feminist*! ....if more feminists felt like THIS feminist .... I wouldn't have such a problem with the term.. but I don't see it happening any time soon.
> 
> Why Modern Day Feminists Are Making Me A Misogynist -
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care to identify with a movement who enjoys telling me *how ignorant I am* for having different views over them or throwing jabs that people like ME are holding back society....I have been told I feed the Misogynist men here.. lovely.. .it comes to the point where you feel you are backed into the corner.. they have alienated you to such a degree...and you find more understanding with those outside the movement..
> 
> And here I thought I was a decent human being....who rallies for good in society, honesty, integrity, for social justice, who has empathy for those treated unfairly.. whether male or female.....go figure.


Yes, there are some women who claim to be feminists who say stupid things. There are some women who do not claim to be feminists who say some pretty stupid things too.

In the same light, there are men in the men's movement (masculinists) who say some pretty stupid things. Just as there are men who don't claim to be masculinists who say some pretty stupid things.

Believe me, those women who say stupid things don't have a monopoly on saying stupid things.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Fear not Octillo! The world would be a sad and sorry place without men. I promise to act as a human shield should such idiocy come to pass!


But there is only one of you. Even if you have significant girth (and a gentleman would never suggest that), you are unlikely to save more than perhaps two or three of the smaller guys.

As I am rather tall with broad shoulders, I am not sure your sacrifice will do me any good


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Yes, there are some women who claim to be feminists who say stupid things. There are some women who do not claim to be feminists who say some pretty stupid things too.
> 
> In the same light, there are men in the men's movement (masculinists) who say some pretty stupid things. Just as there are men who don't claim to be masculinists who say some pretty stupid things.
> 
> Believe me, those women who say stupid things don't have a monopoly on saying stupid things.


Well I am asking you point black Elegirl... DO I HAVE A RIGHT to call myself a FEMINIST and be included with the sisterhood IF I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT ARTICLE & what she laid out?

You speak of feminists saying stupid things but you didn't address anything in that article.. so is the author stupid .. or has some legitimate points ?


----------



## Ikaika

SimplyAmorous said:


> TAM is the mother of distractions... right now I should be wrapping presents but I am putting it off.. for some reason this places pulls us in, even if it's just to hear ourselves think... when we type out these posts, many times it gives us clarity inside ourselves .... and the learning is never ending.... even if it "bites" sometimes...
> 
> Just for the record, I hope you stick around ... you are a valuable member.. One thing I've noticed over the years...so many who want to leave , giving a farewell thread many times...they end up back here anyway.... it's a little crazy, I have resolved the fact I would never give a farewell cause then I would look foolish when I was back in the swing posting again...
> 
> If it's something you enjoy- at least half of the time ... the posts, the community feedback .. *please DO STAY* !!...we all have a place even if our minds over work it feeling we don't belong... Some of us are "too cerebral" for our own good..... All of us could limit our time here to focus on more important things though...TRUE...but I hope you exit on a happy note...
> 
> And always...if you see a thread where you have experience with the subject.. be open to share.. it could be very helpful or brighten someone's day. We all love feedback where someone else has "been there".



I didn't mean to suggest my days on TAM are gone for good, just after this and another thread where I am helping another guy make it through the same addiction I have, I will primarily post in journey threads. I will read from time to time, but there are plenty of well intentioned smart folks here who can help others and encourage others.


----------



## SamuraiJack

Im very egalitarian in my views. 
Always have been.
I can see how certain things still need to be reinforced but I think for the most part we are well on our way to getting women to where they should be:
Standing right next to us as equals.

Im not saying there isnt still work to be done and I will gladly pitch in to help...as long as it is moving towards the goal of equality and not superiority.

That said, I see man "feminists" who seem to be working directly against the cause with ridiculous displays and ideologies.
This is a perfect example.
Disturbing New Feminist Trend: Free-Bleeding - Modern Woman Digest

Weather this is true or not, the fact remains that this person is discrediting the movement.
She seems eager to sabotage it in the name of getting recognition.

As I said before, I am all about equality but sometimes the "Feminists" take it too far.

Seems like there is always a small vocal percent determined to ruin it for everyone..


----------



## Mr The Other

There are some very wise posters on here. 

One thing I learnt (and I think it is significant), is that men in pretty good marriages are useless for advice. It amounts to, communicate, be considerate. If that does not work, it tends to come to an end. Furthermore, if your marriage is struggling, they assume that you cannot be communicating or thinking of your partner. In actual fact, most (not all) men in good marriages tend to be rather spoilt and their wisdom goes about as far as those hideous passages of advice that go round Facebook.

The other side of that coin, is that people who think that making a marriage work can be far from straight forward. THey have picked up wisdom along the way, but also bad things. As a man going through a divorce, after effective rejection from after the wedding, I am hurt. Sometimes that feeling of hurt produces very mysogenistic thoughts. They are just thoughts and I know they are stupid, but were I feeling worse I might cling onto them. I can understand how this happens. 

Also, both sexes have a bad side that we only see by going into relationships. Within a few years, I became quite good at telling when a pregnency scare was genuine and when it was a fiction, which is very common. I am sure women would be surprised that is a common thing. Many women have rape fantasies and want the man to have sex while they say "no" and struggle, not many will tell their friends that. I have not seen that side of men, as I do not go out with them.

Feminism depends on the world women live in individually. If you believe life as your friends tell you, then men will seem to be bastards. If we see both sexes as weak and doing their best, we will have a movement that will help both.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Seventy five percent (75%) of all women of all classes survived. Most of the first class, 82% of the second class and half of the third class survived...if you were a girl.
> 
> 
> Nineteen (19%) percent of all men survived. 32% of First Class men survived. All 54 our of 171. This is worse than the survival rate of women in steerage.


A larger % of children died 66% of the children in 3rd class died

children.........saved................lost
1st class........83% (5).............5% (1)
2nd class......100% (24)..........0% (0)
3rd class.......34% (27)...........66% (52)

Women.........saved................lost
1st class........97% (140)..........3% (4)
2nd class.......86% (80)..........14% (13)
3rd class.......46% (76)...........54% (89)
crew.............87% (20)...........13% (3)

Men..............saved................lost
1st class........33% (57)..........67% (118)
2nd class.........8% (14)..........92% (154)
3rd class.......16% (75)...........84% (387)
crew.............22% (192).........78% (698)

Men/women/children
...................saved................lost
1st class........62% (57)..........38% (118)
2nd class.......41% (14)..........59% (154)
3rd class.......25% (75)...........75% (387)
crew.............23% (192).........77% (698)




RMS Titanic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Anon Pink

SA,

The article you quoted was a highly ill informed piece that completely missed the mark.

I know you feel attacked for your views on premarital sex. But just because few people agree with you doesn't mean you are being attacked. I disagree with you but I don't think I've ever attacked you. I have, however, attacked the inherent problems absurdly common among girls and a few boys, who were raised in an abstinent only home.

It seems to me this badly misinformed article spoke to you because it lumped slvt shaming into the category or promoting promiscuity. 

A classic invalidating tactic to take an idea, that slvt shaming is bad and twist it to a ridiculous conclusion. How does one arrive at the conclusion that a daughter taught to embrace her sexuality and happily own her sexual decisions is henceforth a semen guzzling tramp? 

You have committed the same error in judgement against ME; (because I do teach my daughters to embrace their sexual selves) that my girls will end up semen guzzlers, that you feel others have placed against you; that your children will end up sexually repressed and in very unhappy sexless marriages. Neither of those conclusions in judgment are correct. However statistically, kids raised in abstinence only households DO tend to have more sexual dysfunctions than kids raised in homes in which sexuality is embraced and ownership bestowed.

The reason why kids raised in abstinence only homes tend to have more sexual dysfunction is because they were taught shame and guilt as a tactic to keep that precious bit of skin tissue intact. And I have said in other threads I doubt very much that you would stoop to such shaming tactics with your kids.

Secondly, the article uses another invalidating tactic with regard to sexuality and even commits some nastiness with regard to body image. The author notes that burlesque is for fat women while stripping is for hard bodied woman. Oh really? I never knew that and as a feminist I feel like I should.

The ONLY valid point in that article was the complain against thin skinned young angry feminists who claim trigger alerts.

I suggest that you are developing the same kind of thin skinned triggering that article warns about. OWN your decision to teach abstinence and get some thicker skin about people not agreeing with you.




SimplyAmorous said:


> This article sums up why I have little desire to call myself a Feminist *and it's written by a feminist*! ....if more feminists felt like THIS feminist .... I wouldn't have such a problem with the term.. but I don't see it happening any time soon.
> 
> Why Modern Day Feminists Are Making Me A Misogynist -
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care to identify with a movement who enjoys telling me *how ignorant I am* for having different views over them or throwing jabs that people like ME are holding back society....I have been told I feed the Misogynist men here.. lovely.. .it comes to the point where you feel you are backed into the corner.. they have alienated you to such a degree...and you find more understanding with those outside the movement..
> 
> And here I thought I was a decent human being....who rallies for good in society, honesty, integrity, for social justice, who has empathy for those treated unfairly.. whether male or female.....go figure.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well I am asking you point black Elegirl... DO I HAVE A RIGHT to call myself a FEMINIST and be included with the sisterhood IF I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT ARTICLE & what she laid out?
> 
> You speak of feminists saying stupid things but you didn't address anything in that article.. so is the author stupid .. or has some legitimate points ?


I need to go to work right now so I'll address this tonight.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well I am asking you point black Elegirl... DO I HAVE A RIGHT to call myself a FEMINIST and be included with the sisterhood IF I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT ARTICLE & what she laid out?
> 
> You speak of feminists saying stupid things but you didn't address anything in that article.. so is the author stupid .. or has some legitimate points ?


I'll answer that.

Yes, you do have the right to call yourself a feminist. You place the same expectations on your sons as you do your daughter, correct? You support your daughters educational opportunities as vehemently as you support your sons, correct? You expect your daughter to achieve HER goals just as you expect your sons to, correct? You expect your daughter to own her decisions just as you expect your sons to, correct?

Then you are a feminist who simply doesn't believe in premarital sex and expect her kids to hit the Love Lottery as their parents did.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> But there is only one of you. Even if you have significant girth (and a gentleman would never suggest that), you are unlikely to save more than perhaps two or three of the smaller guys.
> 
> As I am rather tall with broad shoulders, I am not sure your sacrifice will do me any good


You're forgetting how scary and intimidating I am. I could save hundreds!


----------



## I'll make tea

I'll make tea said:


> I think there is two kinds of feminism. One that makes sense and there is feminazis who despise men.
> 
> As the mother of two sons I am opposed to quotas feminazis want to establish and to the fact they want men portrayed in a less then favourable ways in schools and so on.


Oops. The point has been made before. Several times actually. Feeling pretty silly. Should have read everything before posting.


----------



## I'll make tea

lifeistooshort said:


> Nutjob man haters are not feminists, they are nutjob man haters. That is all.


But the nutjob man-haters call themselves feminsist giving every feminist a bad name. Feminists which are no nutjobs should speak up against them.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> Fear not Octillo! The world would be a sad and sorry place without men. I promise to act as a human shield should such idiocy come to pass!


I appreciate that, but even Laurie Fendrich acknowledged that eradicating men would be a "Logistical challenge." 

Humor aside though, there actually was a pragmatic side to my observation. 

A lot of women self identify as feminists, just like a lot of people self identify as Christian. Plenty of people who call themselves Christian don't actually go to church; they don't belong to any particular denomination; they don't really read the Bible that much, etc. They're Christian mostly in the sense of treating other people as they would like to be treated themselves.

These people may be the majority of Christians, but they (obviously) don't lead parishes and congregations; they don't teach at seminaries; they don't serve on translation committees; they don't write books on theology and they don't speak on behalf of Christians in general.

A similar situation exists with feminism. There's a tendency to portray some of the more egregious things that get said as only the poorly thought out comments of a radical fringe within the movement. --A feminist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church if you will.

That analogy doesn't hold up if the inmates are running the asylum though. If these are the people teaching in our colleges; chairing Women's Studies departments at universities; writing articles in _The Chronicles of Higher Education_ and holding executive positions in feminist organizations, then they are not simply a fringe element within the movement.


----------



## Jellybeans

*Feminism does not and has never bothered me.
*
You're a good egg, Ika.



Ikaika said:


> I realize this may build into my exit thread from TAM other than occasional updates on my two journal threads. I just don't fit here.


Aw, don't say that. You are one of the positive posters of TAM and a success story!


----------



## unbelievable

I have no problem with the consumption of alcohol until someone drinks it in excess and becomes loud, obnoxious, unreasonable, and tries to fight everyone in the room. Equal rights? "Absolutely". Pain-in-the-A$$ radicals who live to bash males and who find offense in a bowl of yogurt? "No use for them at all."


----------



## I'll make tea

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am not fully sure what she meant by her comments...I mean all subjects need talked about.. was she meaning sites where they are mocking....Joking? Seems lots of people get off on that....or demonstrating, speaking on issues ?? ......I guess I will give her the benefit of the doubt.. I am not a "politically correct person" in any way.. I want their to be FREE SPEECH / Free
> 
> expression for all... some are obnoxious and take it to the extreme.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... really I can't understand how these Westboro people get away with this... but I am not a lawyer..
> 
> I feel many times we BRING the backlash on ourselves when we take it too far (like above)...as it should be!!!.. If enough good people rise up, and ethically state their case against such things.. this helps bring things back in balance... (why we need Republics and Democrats, they balance each other out...though some may feel one party needs to slip into the ocean and be drowned.. I would not.. I can see Good & bad on both sides...
> 
> Ya see...because of the radical feminists, Men's Rights groups grew.. what can you do.. it's how the world works..
> 
> I think one of the dangers we face in understanding each other.. is how the majority now embrace "moral relativism"...there is no right & wrong anymore , it is all relative / opinion based/ subjective ....so your truth will argue against their truth.. and on it goes...no foundation for anything anymore.
> 
> If we start making rules that this one can't express over here.. with it goes someone's liberty.. I am a sensitive person, I don't like everything I read, not by a long shot ...and I think to myself "what a Fvck face"....... but I wouldn't take their freedom to speak it away.. I learn much through debate personally ... I want to hear both sides to see where I fall on an issue... it's generally somewhere in the middle of the bar...
> 
> Ethics are not talked about enough in my opinion.


I agree with you. There is too much PC nowadays... but politeness is something different than PC.

I think the word "trigger" is typically used related to trauma. It is something that reminds somebody of a traumatic event.
Let's assume someone was in a boating accident. In this case everything related to boats will be a trauma for him or her.

So if you are planing a DVD evening with your friends and you know one of them was a suvivor of that kind of accident it would be impolite if you insist that you must watch Titanic and no other movie will do.
It's totally your right to watch is but it wouldn't be nice.

To my mind the fact a person is triggered by certain things does not necessarily mean the person is unable to deal with real life.

There are definetly persons who make up allegations of sexual abuse and there is the false memory syndrome and there are people who use trauma as an excuse not to deal with real life. That all being true - there are persons who have been raped or abused, deal with their lifes as everybody else would and just need a little kindness there - and why shouldn't we give it to them if it is no big deal to us?
Why do we need to make a big deal out of it?


----------



## I'll make tea

unbelievable said:


> I have no problem with the consumption of alcohol until someone drinks it in excess and becomes loud, obnoxious, unreasonable, and tries to fight everyone in the room. Equal rights? "Absolutely". Pain-in-the-A$$ radicals who live to bash males and who find offense in a bowl of yogurt? "No use for them at all."


I have a muslim friend who is offended by yoghurt because it contains pig gelatin.


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> I appreciate that, but even Laurie Fendrich acknowledged that eradicating men would be a "Logistical challenge."
> 
> Humor aside though, there actually was a pragmatic side to my observation.
> 
> A lot of women self identify as feminists, just like a lot of people self identify as Christian. Plenty of people who call themselves Christian don't actually go to church; they don't belong to any particular denomination; they don't really read the Bible that much, etc. They're Christian mostly in the sense of treating other people as they would like to be treated themselves.
> 
> These people may be the majority of Christians, but they (obviously) don't lead parishes and congregations; they don't teach at seminaries; they don't serve on translation committees; they don't write books on theology and they don't speak on behalf of Christians in general.
> 
> A similar situation exists with feminism. There's a tendency to portray some of the more egregious things that get said as only the poorly thought out comments of a radical fringe within the movement. --A feminist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church if you will.
> 
> That analogy doesn't hold up if the inmates are running the asylum though. If these are the people teaching in our colleges; chairing Women's Studies departments at universities; writing articles in _The Chronicles of Higher Education_ and holding executive positions in feminist organizations, then they are not simply a fringe element within the movement.


Point well taken Octillo. What do you suggest?


----------



## SamuraiJack

Anon Pink said:


> Point well taken Octillo. What do you suggest?


Seems to me that the most logical thing to do would be for the "Normal Majority" to become vocal about their stance and condemn their radical sisters.


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> I appreciate that, but even Laurie Fendrich acknowledged that eradicating men would be a "Logistical challenge."
> 
> 
> 
> Humor aside though, there actually was a pragmatic side to my observation.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of women self identify as feminists, just like a lot of people self identify as Christian. Plenty of people who call themselves Christian don't actually go to church; they don't belong to any particular denomination; they don't really read the Bible that much, etc. They're Christian mostly in the sense of treating other people as they would like to be treated themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> These people may be the majority of Christians, but they (obviously) don't lead parishes and congregations; they don't teach at seminaries; they don't serve on translation committees; they don't write books on theology and they don't speak on behalf of Christians in general.
> 
> 
> 
> A similar situation exists with feminism. There's a tendency to portray some of the more egregious things that get said as only the poorly thought out comments of a radical fringe within the movement. --A feminist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy doesn't hold up if the inmates are running the asylum though. If these are the people teaching in our colleges; chairing Women's Studies departments at universities; writing articles in _The Chronicles of Higher Education_ and holding executive positions in feminist organizations, then they are not simply a fringe element within the movement.



Just a point to a make, not all college professors are radical in their teaching. Even among that profession what you describe is still a minority. But, I get it, that profession is an easy target for all the ills of society.


----------



## I'll make tea

SamuraiJack said:


> Seems to me that the most logical thing to do would be for the "Normal Majority" to become vocal about their stance and condemn their radical sisters.


I hereby condemn them  They do not speak for all women and do not speak for me.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I'll make tea said:


> But the nutjob man-haters call themselves feminsist giving every feminist a bad name. Feminists which are no nutjobs should speak up against them.


So what? I can call myself anything I want but that doesn't make it so. I could call myself a Buddhist and run around acting like an idiot and inciting violence and generally violating Buddhist principles..... does that all of a sudden make Buddhism look bad?


----------



## I'll make tea

lifeistooshort said:


> So what? I can call myself anything I want but that doesn't make it so. I could call myself a Buddhist and run around acting like an idiot and inciting violence and generally violating Buddhist principles..... does that all of a sudden make Buddhism look bad?


If too many people do it and none of the others speak up against it - yes. 
Ye shall know them by their fruits.


----------



## jld

Mr The Other said:


> There are some very wise posters on here.
> 
> One thing I learnt (and I think it is significant), is that men in pretty good marriages are useless for advice. It amounts to, communicate, be considerate. If that does not work, it tends to come to an end. Furthermore, if your marriage is struggling, they assume that you cannot be communicating or thinking of your partner. In actual fact,* most (not all) men in good marriages tend to be rather spoilt *and their wisdom goes about as far as those hideous passages of advice that go round Facebook.


There is truth to this. Would be an interesting thread.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> Point well taken Octillo. What do you suggest?


The world is now, always has been, and always will be run by those who show up.

So you have to find a way to get the ambivalent unwashed masses to show up.


----------



## SamuraiJack

Cletus said:


> The world is now, always has been, and always will be run by those who show up.
> 
> So you have to find a way to get the ambivalent unwashed masses to show up.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> A larger % of children died 66% of the children in 3rd class died
> 
> children.........saved................lost
> 1st class........83% (5).............5% (1)
> 2nd class......100% (24)..........0% (0)
> 3rd class.......34% (27)...........66% (52)
> 
> Women.........saved................lost
> 1st class........97% (140)..........3% (4)
> 2nd class.......86% (80)..........14% (13)
> 3rd class.......46% (76)...........54% (89)
> crew.............87% (20)...........13% (3)
> 
> Men..............saved................lost
> 1st class........33% (57)..........67% (118)
> 2nd class.........8% (14)..........92% (154)
> 3rd class.......16% (75)...........84% (387)
> crew.............22% (192).........78% (698)
> 
> Men/women/children
> ...................saved................lost
> 1st class........62% (57)..........38% (118)
> 2nd class.......41% (14)..........59% (154)
> 3rd class.......25% (75)...........75% (387)
> crew.............23% (192).........77% (698)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RMS Titanic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am not disputing the numbers. I am disputing the conclusions.

You make it sound like monocle wearing, top hatted thugs were pulling Third class women and children off the boats and being saved in much higher numbers than them.

Well, no. EVERY woman and child in ALL classes had a higher survival rate than even first class men (granted, one percent for the third class kids)

When it came to second class men, they died in even higher numbers.

If first class men died less, part of it was that they were closer to the life boats.

There were a lot of reasons besides mustache twirling Billy Zane evilness for how things panned out.

-Third class was lower in the ship. Closer to the water. Farther from the boats. Logistics.

-Orders were not passed along well.

-Many people thought being in the ship was safer than these tiny boats.

-The Captain did not pass along to the passengers that the ship was doomed in a timely manner.

-Many of the half empty lifeboats were sent out as a precaution and early since most people did not think the boat would sink.

I am sure there was some perfidy in action. I don't think that it was as widespread as you are making it seem.

Astor and three other very high dollar men died. Some reports say they did so with honor. I don't know. Neither do you.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I'll make tea said:


> If too many people do it and none of the others speak up against it - yes.
> Ye shall know them by their fruits.


Interesting. Maybe you shouldn't make a judgement for a whole group based on a few. 

So what have you done lately to counter these radical so called feminists? What do you want? You want us to take out a billboard? Most of us go about our everyday business with work and family as decent people just like everyone else. 
The nature of a radical often means that they devote most of their time to their so called cause. Their are all kinds of lunatics that nobody likes but the masses don't have time to deal with every looney. What has anyone actually done about Westboro baptist? Yet everyone knows they're a bunch of idiots and not Christian. 

If I see a nutjob claiming to be a Buddhist I don't see it as a reflection of Buddhism, all I have to do is research the tenets of Buddhism to know it's not consistent.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Point well taken Octillo. What do you suggest?


Something you say you are not willing to do.


----------



## Shoto1984

Anon Pink said:


> SA,
> 
> The article you quoted was a highly ill informed piece that completely missed the mark.
> 
> I know you feel attacked for your views on premarital sex. But just because few people agree with you doesn't mean you are being attacked. I disagree with you but I don't think I've ever attacked you. I have, however, attacked the inherent problems absurdly common among girls and a few boys, who were raised in an abstinent only home.
> 
> It seems to me this badly misinformed article spoke to you because it lumped slvt shaming into the category or promoting promiscuity.
> 
> A classic invalidating tactic to take an idea, that slvt shaming is bad and twist it to a ridiculous conclusion. How does one arrive at the conclusion that a daughter taught to embrace her sexuality and happily own her sexual decisions is henceforth a semen guzzling tramp?
> 
> You have committed the same error in judgement against ME; (because I do teach my daughters to embrace their sexual selves) that my girls will end up semen guzzlers, that you feel others have placed against you; that your children will end up sexually repressed and in very unhappy sexless marriages. Neither of those conclusions in judgment are correct. However statistically, kids raised in abstinence only households DO tend to have more sexual dysfunctions than kids raised in homes in which sexuality is embraced and ownership bestowed.
> 
> The reason why kids raised in abstinence only homes tend to have more sexual dysfunction is because they were taught shame and guilt as a tactic to keep that precious bit of skin tissue intact. And I have said in other threads I doubt very much that you would stoop to such shaming tactics with your kids.
> 
> Secondly, the article uses another invalidating tactic with regard to sexuality and even commits some nastiness with regard to body image. The author notes that burlesque is for fat women while stripping is for hard bodied woman. Oh really? I never knew that and as a feminist I feel like I should.
> 
> The ONLY valid point in that article was the complain against thin skinned young angry feminists who claim trigger alerts.
> 
> I suggest that you are developing the same kind of thin skinned triggering that article warns about. OWN your decision to teach abstinence and get some thicker skin about people not agreeing with you.


I found the article thought provoking and several points worthy of discussion. I also think the woman who wrote it is expressing a valid opinion that some will share and other's won't. 

How about we leave past differences and conflicts in the past and be a bit more gentle with each other.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> SA,
> 
> The article you quoted was a highly ill informed piece that completely missed the mark.
> 
> I know you feel attacked for your views on premarital sex. But just because few people agree with you doesn't mean you are being attacked. I disagree with you but I don't think I've ever attacked you. I have, however, attacked the inherent problems absurdly common among girls and a few boys, who were raised in an abstinent only home.


 You may not have attacked ME but you have most definitely attacked those who think like me (one is banned now & the other is not coming back)... and for the record.. I am not against premarital sex....I just feel *it's best* to wait for Love, for something long lasting.. to have sexual boundaries ... depending on where the relationship is.... (most especially when our children are young , impressionable)...... Yes...I feel the sexual revolution is hurting our children .. . I disagree with many feminists on this count.. I *do not* want our children falling prey to the "Hooking up" culture on college campuses today... other parents may not care, think it's all a "right of passage".. I am not one of those.. 



> It seems to me this badly misinformed article spoke to you because it lumped slvt shaming into the category or promoting promiscuity.
> 
> A classic invalidating tactic to take an idea, that slvt shaming is bad and twist it to a ridiculous conclusion. How does one arrive at the conclusion that a daughter taught to embrace her sexuality and happily own her sexual decisions is henceforth a semen guzzling tramp?


 Ok ...well let's open that up.. do you think it's OK , or healthy for a 18-19 yr old to sleep with a 2-3 different guys a week.. Hooking up.. Frat parties, getting drunk.. this lifestyle.. so it's perfectly fine with you?? 

It's NOT with me....am I allowed to voice this ?? Should I be silenced ? If I wrote the article.. I wouldn't be so brash as to say what SHE DID..we all know this gets the feathers up .. *so does it matter how IT IS SPOKEN .. or that a behavior is spoken of at all? --is the question?*... 

You hated the article ... I resonated with it.. should I lie to save face here ?? I could find articles that slam my way of thinking written by feminists... would you care ?? The different world views are going to rub each other the wrong way.. I still feel as I feel... you still feel as you feel at the end of the day..



> You have committed the same error in judgement against ME; (because I do teach my daughters to embrace their sexual selves) that my girls will end up semen guzzlers, that you feel others have placed against you; that your children will end up sexually repressed and in very unhappy sexless marriages. Neither of those conclusions in judgment are correct. However statistically, kids raised in abstinence only households DO tend to have more sexual dysfunctions than kids raised in homes in which sexuality is embraced and ownership bestowed.


 Well again.. I don't teach abstinence only -- the last thing I want is our kids to LIE and hide from us out of religious conformity.. where they despise it's tenants.. it has to be so much deeper than that... a part of who they are .... 

One must understand WHY they feel as strongly as they do.. We want them to question themselves, to understand what they want out of sex, it's deeper meaning to them...for their own lives, their happiness..and to care about those they sleep with also.. 

Our oldest son is a christian, if anything -I have tried to corrupt him -which you ought to find rather amusing.. He is just as stubborn in his sexual views.. he does believe in waiting till marriage.. who am I to change him- oh but I have tried ! (I bet you would give me some praise on that , wouldn't you!?)... Thankfully he still listens to all my ramblings - cause that's what we DO in our family.. we debate, we discuss, we open things up WIDE ... this is all we can do with anyone.. 



> The reason why kids raised in abstinence only homes tend to have more sexual dysfunction is because they were taught shame and guilt as a tactic to keep that precious bit of skin tissue intact. And I have said in other threads I doubt very much that you would stoop to such shaming tactics with your kids.


 and you are right.. we do NOT belittle with shaming or anything of the sort..a little story I shared on my repression thread.. about our 2nd son.....



> *Simplyamorous said*:
> I have a little story ... some may find our tactics very strange, HOW me & the husband dealt with this, but I am very pleased with the outcome & it didn't end with "*shaming*" our son, which is what we wanted to avoid.
> 
> We suspected our 13 yr old might be sneaking *porn* (he is of that hormonal age where boys want to look upon these things), we noticed he started taking the Laptop to his room (something new), so husband decided to play Detective-- he discovered this impressively HIDDEN file by clicking on this DOT the size of a period on a sentence & OH MY -a treasure of naked beautys , seductive you tube videos, even some funny sexual cartoons -nothing hard core thankfully. Husband was getting a charge out of some of this, even commenting on how his son has good taste .
> 
> Since our older christian son was Home from college, we asked his input , after all he is in youth ministry. Before he answers, husband comes up with the idea to have a little FUN with this before we have "THE TALK" so he decided to take some of these files & plaster them all over his desktop so when he turns the laptop on, well it would be quite entertaining _ a kodak moment I wish I had! My older son felt this was a brilliant by the way, he even wanted to see that moment! So this is what we did. Of course this 13 yr old never says anything to us after he discovers his pornographic desktop.
> 
> A couple days later I was replying on TAM about this very subject, this son walked in the room & I just felt *THIS IS THE TIME* , so told him to sit down. I should have waited for his dad, but I am quite comfortable with the subject & my kids are used to me. We talked for an entire hour! It went VERY VERY well, a little awkward at 1st of course.
> 
> He said it was easier than he thought- talking to me, his mother!! I spoke about puberty & Testosterones role, about his dad in his youth, how it is NORMAL to be sexually curious , how I know he is not gay (gotta get a little laughter going on) He asked me questions, he was honest, he even wanted me to look up Crissy Moran , an X-porn star who got "saved" -he admired her, told me she had a movie about it ! I guess this son is also a Researcher on who he looks at. Interesting! * He opened up about how he struggles with this, how HE FEELS shame for looking, but that it IS good that we did not add to his shame.* (His words to me).
> 
> He even ASKED ME to download something on this laptop to stop him from doing this (this was already in the plan). He wants to do the right thing. He did laugh about what we did, I am sure this cut the awkwardness also. We laughed a lot that hour! He was not sure Dad did that to his desktop, but it did FREAK him out.
> 
> So there you have it, talk to your kids, even about these very very sensitive matters, but don't shame, belittle, lay on the guilt. They feel it already (as in my son's words), many good kids WANT to do the right thing, they may not even understand Why they are so drawn to these things. It helps them to know their parents understand , been there. And look, we turned out just fine.
> 
> 
> Whether we are comfortable or not about our kids sexuality/erotic curiosity, it WILL be raging in their minds, especially boys, they really can't help it, it is testosterone's curse.





> *AvonPink said:* I suggest that you are developing the same kind of thin skinned triggering that article warns about. OWN your decision to teach abstinence and get some thicker skin about people not agreeing with you.


I will certainly try to take this course...


----------



## I'll make tea

lifeistooshort said:


> So what have you done lately to counter these radical so called feminists? What do you want?


Nothing because I do not claim to be a feminist... but I have spoken out against things that were done "in my name" for example I have attended protest marches against my governments politics. I have made clear that certain things are not done in my name.



lifeistooshort said:


> What has anyone actually done about Westboro baptist? Yet everyone knows they're a bunch of idiots and not Christian.


I am a Christian but I am outspoken about how much I dislike fundamentalism at any chance. I think I also mentioned on this boards.
If the majority of Christians were like them I would leave the religion.

If I would call myself feminist and I would see that there are people call for discrimination against men I would join a protest march against them. That must come from other feminists in my mind... so that they see they are all alone with their hateful attitude.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> Point well taken Octillo. What do you suggest?


People a hulluva lot smarter than I am like Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) and W.J. Brown pointed out this weakness in human organizations a long time ago. They didn't really have an answer and I'm afraid I don't either.

At an individual level I would say to be very careful about accepting the ideas of others as _a priori _assumptions. 

As a simple example not applicable to anyone on this thread, terms like, "THE patriarchy" (Note the use of the definite article) are not simply an acknowledgment that societies have tended to be patriarchal. This is a term with roots in feminist critiques of society as an active conspiracy by men to exploit women. It's comparable to other 70's terms like, "The Man" and "The Establishment."

Certainly there have been men who seemed to dislike women just like there have been women who seemed to dislike men. But the vast majority of men and women *genuinely* like each other and want things to be fair. 






Ikaika said:


> Just a point to a make, not all college professors are radical in their teaching. Even among that profession what you describe is still a minority. But, I get it, that profession is an easy target for all the ills of society.


My wife and oldest daughter are both in academia. My daughter actually taught a course on gender bias in language which was a requirement for a major in Women's Studies, so I'm not exactly going off on a "******* rant" against higher education here.


----------



## Ikaika

Mr The Other said:


> There are some very wise posters on here.
> 
> 
> 
> *One thing I learnt (and I think it is significant), is that men in pretty good marriages are useless for advice*. It amounts to, communicate, be considerate. If that does not work, it tends to come to an end.
> 
> 
> 
> The other side of that coin, is that people who think that making a marriage work can be far from straight forward. THey have picked up wisdom along the way, ...



I don't completely agree with all of these comments. While it may be true that a person who has had to deal with divorce may (if they don't get mired in their own details to suggest it is "how" it is done in all cases) have the best advice for someone going through divorce. In the same vane a person who is struggling to maintain sobriety is likely to find better help from someone who is or dealt with those same struggles.

However, for some (maybe not all) getting to the point of Long Term Success in Marriage is not just about luck. Some of us have had to work hard to make it a success. And, success is not the same as perfect or something built on a house of cards. I'm not trying cast some righteous indignation with this statement, rather working through things can be examples of advice for some but it may not be for everyone. We have had to fight and work hard to keep our marriage together and not just our marriage but a real long-term commitment to each other. 

Just saying.


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> People a hulluva lot smarter than I am like Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) and W.J. Brown pointed out this weakness in human organizations a long time ago. They didn't really have an answer and I'm afraid I don't either.
> 
> At an individual level I would say to be very careful about accepting the ideas of others as _a priori _assumptions.
> 
> As a simple example not applicable to anyone on this thread, terms like, "THE patriarchy" (Note the use of the definite article) are not simply an acknowledgment that societies have tended to be patriarchal. This is a term with roots in feminist critiques of society as an active conspiracy by men to exploit women. It's comparable to other 70's terms like, "The Man" and "The Establishment."
> 
> Certainly there have been men who seemed to dislike women just like there have been women who seemed to dislike men. But the vast majority of men and women *genuinely* like each other and want things to be fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and oldest daughter are both in academia. My daughter actually taught a course on gender bias in language which was a requirement for a major in Women's Studies, so I'm not exactly going off on a "******* rant" against higher education here.



Well I can tell having been in this profession for nearly 20 years, I still disagree with your basic assumption about academia. I'm sure there are specific professors in some degree programs, but nowadays, those degrees are poorly populated. Also, I have found students to be more efficient driven. They care less about the personal rants of professor X than they do about their next social media posting. They always just want to know what will be on the next exam rather than engaging in the true learning process. 

Those radicals are fewer than you think and their influence is almost nil.


----------



## Cletus

Ikaika said:


> Well I can tell having been in this profession for nearly 20 years, I still disagree with your basic assumption about academia. I'm sure there are specific professors in some degree programs, but nowadays, those degrees are poorly populated. Also, I have found students to be more efficient driven. They care less about the personal rants of professor X than they do about their next social media posting. They always just want to know what will be on the next exam rather than engaging in the true learning process.
> 
> Those radicals are fewer than you think and their influence is almost nil.


My brother is a professor of psychology at a Large University. He teaches statistics to graduate and under-graduate students in the department. A large chunk of the class doesn't want to learn one of the most important tools of the trade because it's "hard". 

The most common question he gets in class is "is this going to be on the test"?


----------



## Ikaika

Cletus said:


> My brother is a professor of psychology at a Large University. He teaches statistics to graduate and under-graduate students in the department. A large chunk of the class doesn't want to learn one of the most important tools of the trade because it's "hard".
> 
> 
> 
> The most common question he gets in class is "is this going to be on the test"?



That's what I hear constantly as I get ready to give my last final today. I ask them if they attended class and took notes. Let's go over the things you did not understand. I get the deer caught in the headlights look. 

Later down the hall they are glued to their smart phone. Oh well.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> I'll answer that.
> 
> Yes, you do have the right to call yourself a feminist. You place the same expectations on your sons as you do your daughter, correct? You support your daughters educational opportunities as vehemently as you support your sons, correct? You expect your daughter to achieve HER goals just as you expect your sons to, correct? You expect your daughter to own her decisions just as you expect your sons to, correct?
> 
> Then you are a feminist who simply doesn't believe in premarital sex and expect her kids to hit the Love Lottery as their parents did.


I do wish you would stop referring to us as hitting some love lottery... 

I am a REALIST... . I simply want them to make wise choices in life ....from high school & beyond..as I feel this is good for their futures...and will win the respect of others along the way (with their future husband or wives in mind).....it matters the type of people they hang around with , these are their influencers in life... to how they conduct themselves...

I feel it is even more important for our sons to get a college education over our daughter to be honest. ...this would be blasphemy to a feminist.. I realize that...

Can we just be honest here... Who will fare worse in life & love if they work a low income job... without an education/ better job prospects.... Men generally look to other things over a woman's independence ....women classify sex rank on what a guy earns/ his financial success.. 

I don't think anything I feel is going to change something that is inherently ingrained.. 

But then again.. NO....you are right ! Thanks to the sexual revolution where the man doesn't have to buy the cow, sees ZERO incentive to marry (unless he holds some religious value in it).... She damn well better get a degree and make good money or she may be destitute, a poor spinster...


----------



## SamuraiJack

Ikaika said:


> That's what I hear constantly as I get ready to give my last final today. I ask them if they attended class and took notes. Let's go over the things you did not understand. I get the deer caught in the headlights look.
> 
> Later down the hall they are glued to their smart phone. Oh well.


When I taught I always had to give them the value speech. IE. "How valuable must something be for you to PAY to learn it?"

ending with "There is no reason you should PAY to get a FAILING grade."


----------



## ocotillo

Ikaika said:


> Well I can tell having been in this profession for nearly 20 years, I still disagree with your basic assumption about academia.


???

Feminist scholarship / Women's Studies is the only branch of academia I've mentioned and that discipline tends to be insular, so again I am not talking about academia in the general sense. 




Ikaika said:


> Those radicals are fewer than you think and their influence is almost nil.


If by, "Radical" you are talking about people like Valerie Solanas, then I would agree.

At the same time though I don't think there's any series debate that the feminist movement took on an acrimonious tone during the late 1960's and 1970's; (At least in the U.S.) that male involvement suffered as a result and that things have never fully returned to a more amicable state. Are we in disagreement on that? 

As far as influence; How many English speaking adults have not heard the term, "Objectification?" And to be clear, I'm not talking about how Kant or even how more balanced feminist scholars like Martha Nussbaum (Whom I greatly respect) have defined it. I'm talking about the term as it has been adopted and bandied about in the common vernacular.


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> ???
> 
> 
> 
> Feminist scholarship / Women's Studies is the only branch of academia I've mentioned and that discipline tends to be insular, so again I am not talking about academia in the general sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by, "Radical" you are talking about people like Valerie Solanas, then I would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time though I don't think there's any series debate that the feminist movement took on an acrimonious tone during the late 1960's and 1970's; (At least in the U.S.) that male involvement suffered as a result and that things have never fully returned to a more amicable state. Are we in disagreement on that?
> 
> 
> 
> As far as influence; How many English speaking adults have not heard the term, "Objectification?" And to be clear, I'm not talking about how Kant or even how actual feminist scholars like Martha Nussbaum (Whom I greatly respect) have defined it. I'm talking about the term as it has been adopted and bandied about in the common vernacular.



This is academia of the 21st C, the 60s and 70s... Long gone. 

I have no problem with with those who championed the "objectification" as being a negative connotation. I guess, personally I'm funny that way. But, given the push back it would appear the academic influence is not as strong as some might assume. Simply my opinion.


----------



## ocotillo

Ikaika said:


> This is academia of the 21st C, the 60s and 70s... Long gone.



And yet the article I referenced from _The Chronicles of Higher Education_ arguing that men have become extraneous and unnecessary appeared in July of 2009.





Ikaika said:


> I have no problem with with those who championed the "objectification" as being a negative connotation. I guess, personally I'm funny that way.


If one's use of the term is not supported by feminist philosophers themselves, wouldn't you agree that it is little more than an exercise in name calling?


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> And yet the article I referenced from _The Chronicles of Higher Education_ arguing that men have become extraneous and unnecessary appeared in July of 2009.


One person's opinion, no different than all the TAM opinions on this matter. Again, I believe to read an article written as an opinion by a single professor to assume that higher academics is a bastion for this dribble is inaccurate and continue to take exception. Maybe I read your original assumption wrong, if so please feel free to correct. 













ocotillo said:


> If one's use of the term is not supported by feminist philosophers themselves, wouldn't you agree that it is little more than an exercise in name calling?



I guess I have a bit more of a nuanced support of the term objectification. So, in academics we rarely nod our head in complete approval of our colleagues scholarly work. In fact we often banter much harder than anything you read on TAM. Most of what I hear would be bannable offenses. So, no I don't take to the tactic of name calling or male hating etc.

I guess I don't view the draconian approaches (like male bashing or whatever term is used in reverse) as something I ever supported. Respect, that is my view. If part of feminism is to gain respect (as opposed to objectification), then I have no issue with it as my original rant proposed.


----------



## Ikaika

There is always a tendency to push ones ideology (not just an academic exercise) so it swings the pendulum far away from the view we dislike. I can appreciate a lot of reasons why this is done. 

I believe however, civil discourse normally allows the pendulum to rest somewhere in a middle compromise. Sometimes that feels like no one wins or that no one loses. In my experience, that is where most of these philosophical debates usually head to and thus is best for all.


----------



## Wolf1974

that.girl said:


> Feminism is kind of like religion -
> 
> You have a large group of normal, reasonable people trying to make a rational point.
> But they get overshadowed by a *small* group of crazy radicals, because those radicals make more noise and are more interesting to put on the news.
> 
> I am a feminist. I love men, and think we deserve equality. I don't like being associated with the man-hater types, they undermine the point of feminism with their antics.


I agree with everything but this word. Great post!


----------



## Anon Pink

SamuraiJack said:


>



Where can I buy that Tee shirt! can I get it in a V Neck? In Pink?


----------



## SamuraiJack

Anon Pink said:


> Where can I buy that Tee shirt! can I get it in a V Neck? In Pink?


Where everything can be delivered to you in two days....Amazon...

(Amazon Prime is SOOOOOOOO Evil. I got all my Xmas shopping done without ever having set foot in a store...even the candy.)


----------



## Ikaika

Feel free bash away on my views. I'm a grown man. I'm ejecting from my thread. And, it has nothing to do with anything said or being annoyed. My real life issues require I concentrate more on those issues. 

I should re-state, I'm not leaving TAM, just going on permanent TAM diet. A diet that is more selective. I want to help a few on here that share my addiction for alcohol. That is more my calling. I also will continue my journey threads. I will read but not respond as much. 

I wish all of you happy holidays. 

Malama pono.


----------



## SamuraiJack

lifeistooshort said:


> What has anyone actually done about Westboro baptist? Yet everyone knows they're a bunch of idiots and not Christian.


Well...last time I met up with them I was standing in front of my bike sheilding a funeral from their crappy taunts.

Good day. 
The Hell's Angel next to me didnt even give me grief for riding a Japanese bike.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> I do wish you would stop referring to us as hitting some love lottery...


But you have! You both are so perfectly suited to one another its uncanny. This isn't an insult...at least I don't think it is... But I will stop if it offends you.



> I am a REALIST... . I simply want them to make wise choices in life ....from high school & beyond..as I feel this is good for their futures...and will win the respect of others along the way (with their future husband or wives in mind).....it matters the type of people they hang around with , these are their influencers in life... to how they conduct themselves...


What every parent wants for their children. I would not call you a realist at all.



> I feel it is even more important for our sons to get a college education over our daughter to be honest. ...this would be blasphemy to a feminist.. I realize that...


What happens to your daughter and her children should her marriage go south? What happens to your daughter should her husband die? What happens to your daughter should she have a special needs child and her husband's income isn't enough to cover the costs of special baby sitters, special after school clubs, special enrichment activities? 

While it's true, most women expect that they will marry a man who can pay his way and help support his wife and kids but reality is that this simply isn't the case for many people.

So yes my dear, I may have to call the board of feminists to review your membership! 




> Can we just be honest here... Who will fare worse in life & love if they work a low income job... without an education/ better job prospects.... Men generally look to other things over a woman's independence ....women classify sex rank on what a guy earns/ his financial success..


It's not often that educated men are interested in women with no education and less job skills. Just saying...if you expect her to marry a man who can provide for her, you might want to ensure that kind of man is going to be interested in taking on a wife who would not be able to get a job should the unthinkable happen. and the unthinkable happens all the time.



> I don't think anything I feel is going to change something that is inherently ingrained..
> 
> But then again.. NO....you are right ! Thanks to the sexual revolution where the man doesn't have to buy the cow, sees ZERO incentive to marry (unless he holds some religious value in it).... She damn well better get a degree and make good money or she may be destitute, a poor spinster...


SA, you live in a bubble out in the country where skilled jobs and skilled workers are the norm. Don't assume your kids will end up with the same kind of life even if they say that is what they want. 

Back in my high school days, a bachelor degree wasn't absolutely needed to get a decent job, but people who wanted earning power got a bachelor degree. Now a days, a bachelor degree is necessary to get a decent job and those who wish to excel in their earning power have to get a higher degree. 

SA, you know I like and respect you but you have to get out of your bubble and don't assume Mayberry will be around when your kids fly the nest.


----------



## ocotillo

Ikaika said:


> One person's opinion, no different than all the TAM opinions on this matter. Again, I believe to read an article written as an opinion by a single professor to assume that higher academics is a bastion for this dribble is in inaccurate and continue to take exception. Maybe I read your original assumption wrong, if so please feel free to correct.


You are still stating that which you take exception to in terms that can't be attributed to me. :scratchhead: I did not draw any conclusions from the _decision_ to publish the article or present it as an indictment of higher education.

I pointed out that feminism took an acrimonious turn starting around the late 1960's. You stated that, "....the 60s and 70s... [are] Long gone" (Forgive the interpolation if it's presumptuous) and I gave a fairly recent example of that adversarial tone. 

My contention all along on this thread is that zealots within any movment tend to be highly driven and they are the ones that get their voices heard and eventually rise to positions of prominence within the movment. Could we agree on all or part of that? 




Ikaika said:


> In fact we often banter much harder than anything you read on TAM. Most of what I hear would be bannable offenses. So, no I don't take to the tactic of name calling or male hating etc.


Most of my active participation on the internet prior to stumbling onto TAM was on academic forums dedicated to ancient languages. Debate _could_ be robust when it was respectful, but the tiniest hint of personal rancor (Or in the case of B-Greek and B-Hebrew, religious bias) would get you reprimanded once and banned the next time it happened. Maybe you and I are looking through entirely different windows of the house because TAM is fairly tolerant in comparison.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> But you have! You both are so perfectly suited to one another its uncanny. This isn't an insult...at least I don't think it is... But I will stop if it offends you.


 Well now that you have expressed it *this* way, it doesn't offend me.. it's hard to know how to read some comments on here.. we've all been there. 



> What happens to your daughter and her children should her marriage go south? What happens to your daughter should her husband die? What happens to your daughter should she have a special needs child and her husband's income isn't enough to cover the costs of special baby sitters, special after school clubs, special enrichment activities?
> 
> While it's true, most women expect that they will marry a man who can pay his way and help support his wife and kids but reality is that this simply isn't the case for many people.
> 
> So yes my dear, I may have to call the board of feminists to review your membership!


 ya know what is sad to me...there is not enough jobs for all the degrees ...not by a long shot.. and some people just aren't college material (I may have been one of those, I couldn't get past algebra in high school).. what about them?

H's brother went , hated it. got out & now he's in construction.. he did Ok... had you knew our daughter and heard how much she WHINES about reading, school..education.. well I am not sure what the heck to do with her...I try to encourage learning at every turn, READING at the very least.. I wonder how she is my daughter -I LOVE TO [email protected]#$ ... her teen brothers get on her about this too.. to no avail.. she struggles in spelling, dad helps her.. will she be college material ?? I don't know...should I look down on her if she isn't ...should I shame her if she doesn't want to go .. if her heart is not into it...what is a Mother to do ? 

Just because I feel she should go -doesn't mean she will...but yes, I want this for her..I DO.. I just am more concerned about the sons making it -because women are so big on money/ success in a man.... I don't want our sons falling through the cracks or women feeling they are *worthless* because they are lower income....



> It's not often that educated men are interested in women with no education and less job skills. Just saying...if you expect her to marry a man who can provide for her, you might want to ensure that kind of man is going to be interested in taking on a wife who would not be able to get a job should the unthinkable happen. and the unthinkable happens all the time.


 Yes, I am always reminded on TAM how valueless and skill-less women like myself are in today's society... I hear you... I don't even disagree with you.. . at least it keeps me humble.. 



> SA, you live in a bubble out in the country where skilled jobs and skilled workers are the norm. Don't assume your kids will end up with the same kind of life even if they say that is what they want.


 I assume nothing... and actually I worry a great deal about all of it.. but I can't brow beat my kids do to what I think they should do..

Last report cared.... I did pass out $200 to 4 of them (including daughter ) who got all A's & B's ...($50 each).....there is some encouragement and incentive to care about learning / education. 

I am well aware "Mayberry" has been bombed...and isn't coming back.


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> You are still stating that which you take exception to in terms that can't be attributed to me. :scratchhead: I did not draw any conclusions from the _decision_ to publish the article or present it as an indictment of higher education.
> 
> I pointed out that feminism took an acrimonious turn starting around the late 1960's. You stated that, "....the 60s and 70s... [are] Long gone" (Forgive the interpolation if it's presumptuous) and I gave a fairly recent example of that adversarial tone.
> 
> My contention all along on this thread is that zealots within any movment tend to be highly driven and they are the ones that get their voices heard and eventually rise to positions of prominence within the movment. Could we agree on all or part of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my active participation on the internet prior to stumbling onto TAM was on academic forums dedicated to ancient languages. Debate _could_ be robust when it was respectful, but the tiniest hint of personal rancor (Or in the case of B-Greek and B-Hebrew, religious bias) would get you reprimanded once and banned the next time it happened. Maybe you and I are looking through entirely different windows of the house because TAM is fairly tolerant in comparison.



I will answer just this last one. Yes, there are those "want to be heard" with their vitriol on an issue (both side of this argument). And, on that I can agree upon. But, to suggest anyone is actually listening? I have no idea. Students and faculty are supposed to be critical thinkers, that is my approach. 

Well, I don't know about religious arguments, but scientist are a different breed. We never shut down arguments. And in meetings with faculty from other disciplines (on committee meetings) I can only think of reprimands coming when one shows utter contempt or disrespect for their colleagues. So, on the last point I cannot relate.


----------



## naiveonedave

Ikaika said:


> Well, I don't know about religious arguments, but scientist are a different breed. We never shut down arguments. And in meetings with faculty from other disciplines (on committee meetings) I can only think of reprimands coming when one shows utter contempt or disrespect for their colleagues. So, on the last point I cannot relate.


Well, scientists are at the forefront of AGW and conveniently use the term Denier to attempt to shut down any argument. Just saying scientists are not as pure as the wind driven snow (and yes, I am one).


----------



## ocotillo

Ikaika said:


> Well, I don't know about religious arguments....


--Just want to clarify one point. Injecting religious bias into what is ostensibly a purely linguistical argument is exactly what will get you banned on those two forums, so we're not talking about religious arguments here.

I've greatly enjoyed our conversation today. Thank you.


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> --Just want to clarify one point. Injecting religious bias into what is ostensibly a purely linguistical argument is exactly what will get you banned on those two forums, so we're not talking about religious arguments here.
> 
> I've greatly enjoyed our conversation today. Thank you.



Got it, I understand.


----------



## Anon Pink

*SA!!!!!!!

You are NOT valueless!!!!*

Having a trade or a skill is something this country is in need of. Kids who aren't college material need to learn a skilled trade. 

Do you know how many people I asked if they had a number for a handyman? I had a bunch of little jobs around the house that needed to get done last year. Took forever to find somebody and then it took weeks before he was free!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2014%2F08%2F06%2F338011367%2Fconstruction-industry-missing-key-tool-skilled-workers&ei=qguKVLrTKJHisAT8rYDYCg&usg=AFQjCNGMg6bvPL-MSWbgLqqASsRbu8vzhA&sig2=ZNyaL0fm5mHqjZiGDR1sqw&bvm=bv.81828268,d.cWc


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=r7jTdor1bMBtcwSKfX4g6w&bvm=bv.81828268,d.cWc


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> *SA!!!!!!!
> 
> Having a trade or a skill is something this country is in need of. Kids who aren't college material need to learn a skilled trade.
> 
> *


*

By definition, 15% of the population has an IQ below 90. A chunk of these will struggle in college, yet they are certainly not valueless (and SA clearly isn't in this category, just to be clear) and need to feel valued.*


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anon Pink said:


> *Having a trade or a skill is something this country is in need of. Kids who aren't college material need to learn a skilled trade.*


 Ok.. fair enough, I just think of DEGREES and college campuses when I hear the term "SKILLS" ....I see your links refer more to vocational schools.... that's where me & husband met ! I was taking Graphic Arts and he was in Electronics... 

I find it hard to believe there isn't more people wanting to go into these fields -but it's probably because of the push for degrees, as this is where the bigger $$ is...

I look at this a couple different ways.. oldest just got a psychology degree... had a decent job climbing up in a juvenile delinquent school... he quit for something he would ENJOY MORE -yet I felt he was screwing up his resume , taking a step backwards.... who is right.. He is choosing happiness/ fulfillment in what he does (while teaching guitar on the side).... where as me & his father are looking more at his future. 



> Do you know how many people I asked if they had a number for a handyman? I had a bunch of little jobs around the house that needed to get done last year. Took forever to find somebody and then it took weeks before he was free!


We have a ton of those in our area, H graduated with one that we run into all the time in McDonalds, just did last night again.. he's low income too.. we haven't had to call on him for anything cause H is a fine handy man himself.. I just never looked upon that as being "skilled"... not sure others would either cause there is surely NOT big money in it.. and isn't this the bottom line..what speaks..


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I have no issues with feminism. I have issues with claimed feminists who also still prefer privilege of the more popular social conventions. ie, He is expected to ask her out. He is expected to buy dinner. So on and so forth. Mostly simple things, and certainly not negatives like "glass ceilings"... but decidedly unequal. If you're advocating equality of more than just "right", but also norms and conventions, then I really think you can't pick and choose - consistency and equality demands you oppose such things.

If feminism is truly about equality, then traditional chivalry is out. I find the two incompatible and have difficulty accepting those who pick and choose which inequities they desire to keep. Don't tell me we're equal while still expecting more of me than is expected of you. Even though I enjoy the work (I'm subject to the same social norms we all are), it's still decidedly unequal expectation.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

naiveonedave said:


> Well, scientists are at the forefront of AGW and conveniently use the term Denier to attempt to shut down any argument. Just saying scientists are not as pure as the wind driven snow (and yes, I am one).


That's because scientists are humans first and foremost.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> some people just aren't college material


Just wanted to say, based on some of your lines of thought in many of our conversations, I'd fully endorse you as "college material".

Whether you were interested in much of the material is another matter. You're certainly capable.

Not having gone to college or lacking skills doesn't render one's thoughts valueless or worthless. Abigail Adams didn't go to school. She had no skills. Yet she was highly intelligent and valued counsel to the second President of the United States, John Adams, and highly regarded by prominent men of the day - Washington, Jefferson, Franklin. Her views most definitely helped shape those of John Adams and made a mark on the discussion of independence.


----------



## HuggyBear

I have NO problem with feminism whatsoever. I personally feel that we, as a global society, could do more to further this cause.

Feminists insist, and demand, that females are equal to men... let's hold females up to that standard.

Start early in life... no excuses during physical education for "that time of month". Either you compete, or get assigned some kind of physical labor to make up that class "period(s)" that you miss

Get rid of sex-based scholarships, and curricular programs like WISE (women in science and engineering) and keep them out of minority-empowerment academic programs and laboratories.

Eliminate tax incentives for women-run or owned companies, and criminalize sex-based "equality" quotas for companies.

If a woman gets pregnant, and can no longer function at work, have her take an unpaid leave... a man could certainly never get away with that. I'm not saying eliminate maternal (or paternal) leave, that is something that any sex can take, as it is simply providing care for an infant.

Make women fight on the front lines of combat in equal numbers as men.

Let women and men compete in the olympics on an equal footing... of course, few women will make the team, and the olympics will only be half as long, but it will be what it was INTENDED to be.

The fact is that women and men are NOT the same, and that is the basic tenet of feminism. 
Men and women are different physiologically, from bone structure to brain structure - and brain structure determines FUNCTION.

Men and women are DIFFERENT. From genes to sexual differences to brain structure is is clearly apparent. Get with that oft-exclaimed propaganda of "togetherness", and let us "embrace our differences" and together realize certain truths that are codified in religions, cultures, manners, and laws.

But, as I stated, have NO problem whatsoever with feminism, or feminists... I simply treat them they way they make me understand they want to be treated.... with hilarious results ensuing.


----------



## that.girl

Saying that men and women deserve equal rights and opportunities is not saying they are "the same."


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening HuggyBear
would that include designing fighter planes for the average person, rather than the average male. That would save weight and improve performance, but a lot more women than men would make the size cut.

I use this as an example because there are a lot of historical issues here. A lot of physical tasks are designed around the average male. A lot of social interaction is male oriented. 

I'm not a fan of any sort of affirmative action, but I do see the need to compensate for existing imbalances and biases. Exactly when and how is very tricky. 

FWIW, I work in a technical field and I've seen no obvious difference between men and women technically. I have seen significant issues with social / interpersonal interaction issues with female managers. (not for the moment blaming either the managers or the employees).


----------



## Anon Pink

I guess this may be difficult to wrap your brain around.

Equal 
Does
Not
Mean
Same





HuggyBear said:


> I have NO problem with feminism whatsoever. I personally feel that we, as a global society, could do more to further this cause.
> 
> Feminists insist, and demand, that females are equal to men... let's hold females up to that standard.
> 
> Start early in life... no excuses during physical education for "that time of month". Either you compete, or get assigned some kind of physical labor to make up that class "period(s)" that you miss
> 
> Get rid of sex-based scholarships, and curricular programs like WISE (women in science and engineering) and keep them out of minority-empowerment academic programs and laboratories.
> 
> Eliminate tax incentives for women-run or owned companies, and criminalize sex-based "equality" quotas for companies.
> 
> If a woman gets pregnant, and can no longer function at work, have her take an unpaid leave... a man could certainly never get away with that. I'm not saying eliminate maternal (or paternal) leave, that is something that any sex can take, as it is simply providing care for an infant.
> 
> Make women fight on the front lines of combat in equal numbers as men.
> 
> Let women and men compete in the olympics on an equal footing... of course, few women will make the team, and the olympics will only be half as long, but it will be what it was INTENDED to be.
> 
> The fact is that women and men are NOT the same, and that is the basic tenet of feminism.
> Men and women are different physiologically, from bone structure to brain structure - and brain structure determines FUNCTION.
> 
> Men and women are DIFFERENT. From genes to sexual differences to brain structure is is clearly apparent. Get with that oft-exclaimed propaganda of "togetherness", and let us "embrace our differences" and together realize certain truths that are codified in religions, cultures, manners, and laws.
> 
> But, as I stated, have NO problem whatsoever with feminism, or feminists... I simply treat them they way they make me understand they want to be treated.... with hilarious results ensuing.


Ugh...why bother... Crawl back into your cave mr bear.


----------



## RandomDude

Personally I have found myself romantically incompatible with any woman who proclaims herself a feminist. Even though I support equal rights for women it's too often that I've seen "feminism" used as an excuse for female chauvinism. Just so happens it tends to be the ones who are loudly feminists. The quieter feminists, seem to be much more level headed.

This is just my experience anyway over the years.


----------



## Anon Pink

RandomDude said:


> Personally I have found myself romantically incompatible with any woman who proclaims herself a feminist. Even though I support equal rights for women it's too often that I've seen "feminism" used as an excuse for female chauvinism. Just so happens it tends to be the ones who are loudly feminists. The quieter feminists, seem to be much more level headed.
> 
> This is just my experience anyway over the years.


So then it's not feminists but loud mouthed angry feminists who are looking for a fight to prove something...and not just feminists because you said you like the quieter ones...

Okay pretend I'm whisper...so you are intimidated by loud women?


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well I am asking you point black Elegirl... DO I HAVE A RIGHT to call myself a FEMINIST and be included with the sisterhood IF I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT ARTICLE & what she laid out?


Of course you have the right to call yourself “a FEMINIST and be included with the sisterhood IF you AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT ARTICLE & what she laid out”.

The only thing that all feminists have in common is that feminists believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. That’s it. I think you believe in that.


SimplyAmorous said:


> You speak of feminists saying stupid things but you didn't address anything in that article.. so is the author stupid .. or has some legitimate points ?


I did not respond to the article point by point because I think it’s extremely poorly written. The author cannot even agree with herself who she is talking about. She’s said she’s talking about: 

some women these days who claim to be feminists.
The women in question are, often young, idealists
self-identified feminist on the internet
modern day feminists

I thought that my comment that some feminists say stupid things was pretty clear. 

But if you want by blow by blow comment on the article, here it is… you asked.

============



> Let me preface this article by stating that I am, in fact, female (and a liberated one at that). I am NOT slamming feminists or feminism as a whole, but rather noting some strange trends by some women these days who claim to be feminists. The women in question are, often young, idealists who, in many ways, are doing more harm than good to the feminist movement.


Ok so she’s slamming some women who claim to be feminists. She says that she’s talking about mostly young, idealists. So she is clearly not talking about all feminists. But her identification of those she is choosing to slam not clear. She did not provide any names, links to website, or books.


> If you peruse any self-identified feminist space on the internet, you will find words and phrases such as “triggering”, “****-shaming”, “girl-on-girl hate” etc. One word these women are constantly spewing is “empowerment”. What’s especially funny about this is that never have I ever encountered such a group of people who cling to “victim” status.
> 
> Many of these modern day feminists are quick to cry out “misogyny” the moment anyone has an issue with a person who happens to be female. They frequently blast other women for “girl-on-girl hate” just because a woman has the gall to criticize one of their “sisters”.


I have no doubt that there is some small subset of people who call themselves feminists who act like this. However, it’s not all feminists who do this. Here the author is talking about “self-identified feminist…on the internet”. The vast majority of feminists don’t have websites. So obviously she’s talking about some small subset of feminists.

Do you know of any group of people who number in the hundreds of millions that don’t have a few outliers who spew nonsense? There are always a few in every group.



> What’s especially funny about this is that never have I ever encountered such a group of people who cling to “victim” status.


I guess she has never visited the men’s rights sites…. Talk about clinging to “victim” status. Just like there are men in the men’s movement who will cry out "misandry" the moment anyone has an issue with anyone who is male.


> I find this way of thinking utterly ridiculous. Since when does feminism mean that women are infallible creatures worthy of nothing but praise? I have always thought being a feminist meant lobbying for equality. Equality does NOT mean that you can say or do anything without being held accountable. Equality means you will be held to the same standards and outcome as everyone else. Now you are telling me that you should be treated differently because you are female?


I agree with the author, if anyone thinks that feminism means that women are infallible and only worthy of praise..they are wrong. If anyone thinks that any group of people, or any individual, is infallible and only worthy of praise.. they are wrong. Duh!!!

But again this is not what the vast majority of the hundreds of millions of feminists believe. 


> “Trigger” or “triggering”. This is the cry of outrage in response to, well, pretty much anything. A “trigger” refers to a picture or words that “trigger” a negative memory/experience in the reader. Common themes are sexual assault, eating disorders, domestic abuse etc. Instead of scrolling past, closing the website or dealing with it like an adult, they will screech indignantly about it being “triggering” and demand that the offending sentence/picture be removed. I don’t understand how these women can function in the real world, where nobody really gives a **** about their feelings. Because nothing says empowerment like being a thin-skinned perpetual victim.


I am sure that some small subset of the millions of feminists post obnoxious and overbearing comments on websites. However, the vast majority of feminist do not do this.

Apparently the author does not take her own advice and just stop reading and move on. Why does the author think that anyone really gives a **** about her feelings? 

This is the internet. People are mostly anonymous on the internet and post things that they would never say in real life. Since most people on the internet are anonymous, who knows if it's even really a woman who claims to be a feminist making the statements that the author objects to. 

Have you seen the things that people post on political forums? Have you seen the names they call each other and everyone else? 



> Were you aware that taking off your clothes for the sexual pleasure of men was empowering? Neither did I. That’s what many of these feminists will have you believe. While I don’t think it should be a stigma for a woman to keep food on the table, I fail to see how stripping is an “empowering” career move.


Yes, there are some feminists who are saying that being a sex worker is a valid career choice for any woman or man. I doubt that the vast majority of feminists agree with this concept. I would not want my daughter or son to take up this ‘career’. And I would not do this myself. 

The reason that some feminists say that stripping, porn and other sex work is an empowering career move is that a woman who is good at it can make 6 to 7 figures doing that for a living. Since the dawn of civilization, wealth has been considered empowering. The feminists who say that it’s empowering are not saying it’s good or moral, they are saying that the women who do this are economically empowered.

Let’s look at the other side of the coin here. Since jointing TAM I have become aware that about 99% of all men use porn on a regular basis. Most of these men don’t consider it immoral to use porn. Look at the threads here on the topic.. don’t take their porn away from them. It’s their right as men. If it’s not immoral to view porn, then why is it immoral to create it? Just something to contemplate.



> This includes “burlesque”, which is mistakenly thought of as “empowering” because many of the women are overweight and not terribly attractive.


The author is showing some real bitterness here. She so wrong on this that it’s laughable. Go do a google search on burlesque. Go to youtube and search there as well. It is hard to find an overweight woman who does burlesque.

I don’t think she knows what burlesque is either. 

1: a literary or dramatic work that seeks to ridicule by means of grotesque exaggeration or comic imitation 
2: mockery usually by caricature 
3: theatrical entertainment of a broadly humorous often earthy character consisting of short turns, comic skits, and sometimes striptease acts 



> Instead of trying to make it some ridiculous political statement, why can’t you just admit that you (a) need the cash (b) are an exhibitionist, or (c) you mistakenly rely on male attention to validate your attractiveness? You’ll just have to trust me on the fact that the men in the audience are not picking up on the feminism.


Oh, women who do this know exactly what the men are picking up on. 

It’s unclear if the author is saying that it’s the sex workers who are saying that what they do is empowering, or if some feminists say this about sex workers.


> Oh well, what can you expect from women who on one hand claim to be against the sexual objectification of women while simultaneously engaging in “rape fantasies”. (I was pretty surprised to discover the amount of feminists who confess to having rape-fantasies.)


I’m yea.. I’m sure that the author has taken a thorough poll of all feminists and knows exactly what percentage engage in “rape fantasies”. I want to see her data.

My guess is that the percentage of feminists who have rape fantasies is about the same as the percentage of non-feminists who have rape fantasies. Shocking, isn’t it?

However, I think it’s a small percentage of women how have these fantasies.


> “****-shaming” is a feminist jab at people who look down upon women for expressing their sexuality. While I do think there is certainly a valid point about the double-standards society has towards women’s sexuality, this is another overused term.


Oh, so the author agrees that there is a double standard when it comes to the way men and women are treated in regards to sex. But she seems to want to tell people when they are allowed to mention this.



> Some ladies seem to think that guzzling back liters of sperm and taking as much **** as they can until they are verging on prolapse is pretty feminist. They call it being a “pro-sex” feminist. If you do anything but high-five them, they will accuse you of “****-shaming”.


The below quote is a very good response to the above grotesque paragraph.


Anon Pink said:


> A classic invalidating tactic to take an idea, that slvt shaming is bad and twist it to a ridiculous conclusion. How does one arrive at the conclusion that a daughter taught to embrace her sexuality and happily own her sexual decisions is henceforth a semen guzzling tramp?


I think the author has been watching too much porn and is convinced that the female porn stars are feminists.


> Rampant promiscuity is pretty nasty regardless of gender. I am not making a moral judgement here, I just think both genders (and genders in between or what have you) should be concerned about sexually transmitted infections and diseases.


LOL, yes she is making a moral judgment. Other than that, yes I agree that all people should be concerned with sexually transmitted infections and diseases.


> The problem with a lot of these “modern feminists” is the lack of logic and the constant knee-jerk reactions. The issues they bring up are definitely valid and the terms that they use they DO actually have a place, yet the constant overuse of them constitutes a “boy who cried wolf” situation where they eventually lose their meaning. These women eventually become a shrill caricature of themselves and it becomes very hard to take them seriously.


This paragraph is one more spew of hyperbole.


----------



## RandomDude

Anon Pink said:


> So then it's not feminists but loud mouthed angry feminists who are looking for a fight to prove something...and not just feminists because you said you like the quieter ones...
> 
> Okay pretend I'm whisper...so you are intimidated by loud women?


Not at all, and I can be very acquainted with loud mouthed angry feminists, however they will never be among my inner circle due to political disagreements and personality clash.

However, I do look down on chauvanism, bitterness, sexist hate, entitlement, qualities that I have found these loud feminists do tend to have compared to your average modern woman.


----------



## JCD

Ikaika,

Re the 'inquiring investigation of ideas'.

Ask Larry Summers about his experiences with that sense of 'free inquiry'.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> So then it's not feminists but loud mouthed angry feminists who are looking for a fight to prove something...and not just feminists because you said you like the quieter ones...
> 
> Okay pretend I'm whisper...so you are *intimidated* by loud women?


Can't speak for him but I would describe it as turned off. Like the one who made a scene at me pulling open a door for her. She could have just politely said thank you but she had to let everyone in the bar know she could open her own door. Lol ok good to know.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Can't speak for him but I would describe it as turned off. Like the one who made a scene at me pulling open a door for her. She could have just politely said thank you but she had to let everyone in the bar know she could open her own door. Lol ok good to know.


I agree. Making a rude scene when someone is simply being polite is uncalled for.

Loud, obnoxious, people are a turn off... man or woman.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just wanted to say, based on some of your lines of thought in many of our conversations, I'd fully endorse you as "college material".
> 
> Whether you were interested in much of the material is another matter. You're certainly capable.
> 
> *Not having gone to college or lacking skills doesn't render one's thoughts valueless or worthless.* Abigail Adams didn't go to school. She had no skills. Yet she was highly intelligent and valued counsel to the second President of the United States, John Adams, and highly regarded by prominent men of the day - Washington, Jefferson, Franklin. Her views most definitely helped shape those of John Adams and made a mark on the discussion of independence.


It wasn't so much the THOUGHTS being worthless.. but the fact educated men would not want *un*educated women...

All those women didn't have opportunities back then..today they do.. so if one is foolish enough to not take advantage of it.... it speaks something about who we are... this is how I read what the majority feels.. (today)...that's the verdict so to speak. 

That's Ok.. I am almost 50 , I believe I will be fine... I told my H if he married a career woman ...after the last feminist thread....if he got sick/ disabled ... she could take care of him --that he wouldn't have to work, he threw a joke at me 1st- like "hey, that would be good".. then made light of it immediately assuring me he loves our life the way it is.... I guess I will just chalk it up to his being one of those NEEDY MEN who derives validation on his woman being dependent upon him (I could just hear a feminist somewhere twisting this into misogyny, trying to hold women down , barefoot & pregnant).. That's not him at all however.. he'd support ANYTHING I wanted to do.. ... he's just one of those geared to "Protect & Provide" for his family..it can't be separated from who he is... 

Whatever the case may be.. it's the risk* we've* taken.. I need to just stand in it, and stop loading my mind on others judgments of it.. 



> *EleGirl said*: The only thing that all feminists have in common is that feminists believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. That’s it. I think you believe in that.


 But here is the THING. how many people REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THIS ?? Do you think anyone on this forum doesn't believe this.. so we're all feminists... so why go on about it so much.

It's like we're all humans too.. so what ?? I don't know of one person in my life that thinks women should be used like chattel and all these things feminists love to go on about.. we're arrived already. (here in the United states anyway)...

Seems none of them agree anyway, it's just opinions, isn't it ?? You said of this lady's article >> ."Why does the author think that anyone really gives a **** about her feelings? " 

Well maybe that's how I feel reading most feminist articles too... 

Here is another one , oh you ought to love this, it's written for MEN.. and I agree with it .. that's how I see all these issues ..I just see PEOPLE... I don't jump to calling others misogynists... 

The inflated definition of misogyny

A recap of your post: ... so you think that woman's article was poorly written, she doesn't agree with herself, she doesn't know what she is talking about, she's bitter, she's so wrong its laughable, she doesn't take her own advice.....she is watching too much porn (which she is obviously against), you don't like her moral judgments and she is spewing hyperbole. 

Once again.. and not a bit surprised.. the issues I have will be ridiculed by feminists.. Ok, so she didn't leave links (not everyone does)... she mentions Fat women in relation to burlesque, I don't get it -but it didn't jump out at me to be all that obnoxious I guess.. 




> Yes, there are some feminists who are saying that being a sex worker is a valid career choice for any woman or man. I doubt that the vast majority of feminists agree with this concept. I would not want my daughter or son to take up this ‘career’. And I would not do this myself.
> 
> The reason that some feminists say that stripping, porn and other sex work is an empowering career move is that a woman who is good at it can make 6 to 7 figures doing that for a living. Since the dawn of civilization, wealth has been considered empowering. The feminists who say that it’s empowering are not saying it’s good or moral, they are saying that the women who do this are economically empowered.


 Hey, how about this.. I actually AGREE with those feminists ....if they are over 18... and they choose to get into any of these things.. it's their choice..just like it is mine to be a skill-less SAHM ...I met strippers who were paying off their education..... One was helping pay her son's loans.... It's their life and choices..



> Do you know of any group of people who number in the hundreds of millions that don’t have a few outliers who spew nonsense? There are always a few in every group.


 Yes, I get all of this.. but you seem to be upset if anyone speaks of these things.. it's a legitimate reason for those of us who also has issues with many of these things .. she is writing about it.. . if we want to shut her up too.. she will just leave the movement and leave the label behind ...just the way I feel.. why does she have to be corrected and put down for how she feels.. I give her the right to feel that way.. it's how I feel too. damn it. Heck I wouldn't want to be a writer and have you give me a response , you'd tare my a** up & down. 



> I’m yea.. I’m sure that the author has taken a thorough poll of all feminists and knows exactly what percentage engage in “rape fantasies”. I want to see her data.
> 
> My guess is that the percentage of feminists who have rape fantasies is about the same as the percentage of non-feminists who have rape fantasies. Shocking, isn’t it?
> 
> However, I think it’s a small percentage of women how have these fantasies.


 Well I'm in that small %... t*hey should be called Ravishing fantasies though*.....they are pretty common.. It's a woman thing. Romance novels are full of those.. ..from an article explained like this...



> Rape or near-rape fantasies are central to romance novels, one of the perennial best-selling categories in fiction. These books are often called "bodice-rippers" and have titles like Love's Sweet Savage Fury, which imply at least some degree of force. In them, a handsome cad becomes so overwhelmed by his attraction to the heroine that he loses all control and must have her, even if she refuses--which she does initially, but then eventually melts into submission, desire, and ultimately fulfillment.
> 
> Romance novels are often called "porn for women." Porn is all about sexual fantasies. In porn for men, the fantasy is sexual abundance--eager women who can't get enough and have no interest in a relationship. In porn for women as depicted in romance novels, the fantasy is to be desired so much that the man loses all control, though he never actually hurts the woman, and in the end, marries her.





> I agree with the author, if anyone thinks that feminism means that women are infallible and only worthy of praise..they are wrong. If anyone thinks that any group of people, or any individual, is infallible and only worthy of praise.. they are wrong. Duh!!!


 Hey something we agree on but you dislike his author so much you have to add a DUH!! at the end.. it's very obvious you think she's an azzh***.. 



> But again this is not what the vast majority of the hundreds of millions of feminists believe.


 Well from where I sit and just the way some of the women go on HERE AT TAM ...if you speak one word against another women...they JUMP to correct.... I relate more with what the author has said here... 

I may be more sensitive to this , however, as I have had a few women come against me here.. I've been told I lack empathy, I am compassion-less... Just like you feel about this woman's writing... "Why does the author think that anyone really gives a **** about her feelings? " ..it's the same thing, isn't it?

I guess we are all just wasting our time then.


----------



## RandomDude

Wolf1974 said:


> Can't speak for him but I would describe it as turned off. Like the one who made a scene at me pulling open a door for her. She could have just politely said thank you but she had to let everyone in the bar know she could open her own door. Lol ok good to know.


Those are the worst.

Reminds me of a lady who was on a wheelchair, pushing herself uphill. I offered to help and she yelled "get out of my fking way or I'll run you over"... 

She was lucky I didn't turn her around and push her back downhill.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Ikaika,
> 
> 
> 
> Re the 'inquiring investigation of ideas'.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Larry Summers about his experiences with that sense of 'free inquiry'.



He had his detractors but just as many defenders in the academic ranks, not so uncommon when you are President of a high profile university

http://media.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/?p=145


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> It wasn't so much the THOUGHTS being worthless.. but the fact educated men would not want *un*educated women...


Keep in mind that only about 25% of the population have college degrees. But in our younger generation, ages 25-29, 33.5 have at least a bachelor’s degree.

People tend to marry someone who has similar values and goals.

I’ve read for example that a lot of wealthy men will not marry a woman who is not wealthy. Sure there are guys who marry trophy wives. They are in a class of their own. I’m talking about the average wealthy man. They want a woman who will not be their equal socially, education wise and financially.

For the rest of us… 

People who have degrees tend to marry people who have degrees… even marry people with the same level of degree. Not only that, if a couple is married, and one of them goes on to get a higher level degree… the one with the higher level degree tends to dump the other person. 

I’ve known a lot of guys who are specifically looking for a woman, not only with one or more degrees but who have a good professional career established. These men have no intention of being the sole bread winner. 
On the flip side there are men who will not marry a career woman. They want a woman who will either work fewer or not work at all and take care of the home and support him in his career.

People who are blue collar types in the trades tend to marry someone with a similar level of training.

And poor people tend to marry poor people. 

Now of course we can all come up with exceptions to those ‘rules’. But that’s generally how it works. And yes there are men who will not marry a women who



SimplyAmorous said:


> All those women didn't have opportunities back then..today they do.. so if one is foolish enough to not take advantage of it.... it speaks something about who we are... this is how I read what the majority feels.. (today)...that's the verdict so to speak.


This has everything to do with the economic shifts in our country and worldwide. Today our school systems turn out high school graduates who are not qualified to do much of anything in the work force. However, the vast majority of jobs like manufacturing no longer exist in the USA. A kid coming out of high school needs more education to get the types of good paying jobs that exist today.

When you and I were younger this was not so important. But today it is.



SimplyAmorous said:


> That's Ok.. I am almost 50 , I believe I will be fine... I told my H if he married a career woman ...after the last feminist thread....if he got sick/ disabled ... she could take care of him --that he wouldn't have to work, he threw a joke at me 1st- like "hey, that would be good".. then made light of it immediately assuring me he loves our life the way it is.... I guess I will just chalk it up to his being one of those NEEDY MEN who derives validation on his woman being dependent upon him (I could just hear a feminist somewhere twisting this into misogyny, trying to hold women down , barefoot & pregnant).. That's not him at all however.. he'd support ANYTHING I wanted to do.. ... he's just one of those geared to "Protect & Provide" for his family..it can't be separated from who he is...


Oh come off it. Your husband is not some NEEDY MAN who needs you to depend on him. You two followed what was a very normal life choice at the time you were young. And it’s worked very well for you. 


SimplyAmorous said:


> Whatever the case may be.. it's the risk* we've* taken.. I need to just stand in it, and stop loading my mind on others judgments of it.. Working on it.


I don’t know who is judging you as I’ve not seen anyone here doing it. if anyone does, just ignore them.


EleGirl said:


> The only thing that all feminists have in common is that feminists believe that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. That’s it. I think you believe in that.





SimplyAmorous said:


> But here is the THING. how many people REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THIS ?? Do you think anyone on this forum doesn't believe this.. so we're all feminists... so why go on about it so much.


I don’t know. I didn’t start any of the treads in which a lot of people say that feminism’s goal is to take rights away from men. This is what most of the threads end up discussing… that men seem to fear this and so some are telling women (feminists) that it’s time to shut up.

And yes there are people who do not believe that women should have equality. 


SimplyAmorous said:


> It's like we're all humans too.. so what ?? I don't know of one person in my life that thinks women should be used like chattel and all these things feminists love to go on about.. we're arrived already. (here in the United states anyway)...


We have come a long way, but no we have not arrived. There are issues that still need to be dealt with. It takes more than one or two generations to change an entire society.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Seems none of them agree anyway, it's just opinions, isn't it ?? You said of this lady's article >> ."Why does the author think that anyone really gives a **** about her feelings? "


I was doing that tongue in cheek. She said that no one gives a **** about the feelings of whatever women she was complaining about. So if she had that attitude about others, why should anyone care about what she thinks? If she wants her point of view to be respected, she needs to show some respect for others and their point of view.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Well maybe that's how I feel reading most feminist articles too...


Ok, so you don’t care what any woman who does not think exactly like you believes. Is this really what you are saying?


SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is another one , oh you ought to love this, it's written for MEN.. and I agree with it .. that's how I see all these issues ..I just see PEOPLE... I don't jump to calling others misogynists...
> The inflated definition of misogyny


I think that the article “The inflated definition of misogyny” is just one more ranting of someone who is wallowing in the victim chair. It takes generalizations and then gives back generalizations in as “answers”. Of course the author is not talking about real life instances where this stuff happens. Then we can discuss if a particular situation is an issue.
Here is one. A friend of mine was working as the head of IT at an insurance company. She has all the degrees and certifications to make her more than qualified. She started there 15 years ago and worked her way up. So the company hired a new CEO. The new CEO systematically first drummed up complaints about every woman in a position of leadership in the company. Then one by one he demoted them and then fired them. She was the last to go because her team fought the CEO. Not one male was demoted or fired. 
Now tell me what you call that? I’ve got a lot more similar stories that happened just in the last 2 years.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Ok , so you think that woman's article was poorly written, she doesn't agree with herself, she doesn't know what she is talking about, she's bitter, she's so wrong its laughable, she doesn't take her own advice.....she is watching too much porn (which she is obviously against), you don't like her moral judgments and she is spewing hyperbole.


The porn thing was a joke pointed at her disgusting depiction of women as cum swallowing slvts. Yes it read like an off the top of her head rant, not a well thought out piece with real thought put behind it.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Once again.. and not a bit surprised.. the issues I have will be ridiculed by feminists..


No, this is not about you. This is about what she wrote. What are your issues in your own words? State an issue, one or two at a time and we can discuss them. 


SimplyAmorous said:


> Ok, so she didn't leave links (not everyone does)...


My point is not that she had to have links. My point is that I have no idea who exactly she is talking about. She’s just throwing out accusations that some undefined group of women who call themselves feminists. Who exactly is she talking about?


SimplyAmorous said:


> she mentions Fat women in relation to burlesque, I don't get it -but it didn't jump out at me to be all that obnoxious I guess..


I think it’s very obnoxious and she was wrong anyway. She just wanted to make sure she got in a jab at overweight women. Why else would she say something so stupid?


SimplyAmorous said:


> Hey, how about this.. I actually AGREE with those feminists ....if they are over 18... and they choose to get into any of these things.. it's their choice..just like it is mine to be a skill-less SAHM ...I met strippers who were paying off their education..... One was helping pay her son's loans.... It's their life and choices..


I agree that men and women who want to be sex workers can make that choice. It’s not something I would do or would want my daughter to do.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes, I get all of this.. but you seem to be upset if anyone speaks of these things..


What is upsetting, or annoying, is using a broad brush to paint all people the same and take thing out of context accusing this undefined broad group of people of something that only a few did.


SimplyAmorous said:


> it's a legitimate reason for those of us who also has issues with many of these things .. she is writing about it.. . if we want to shut her up too.. she will just leave the movement and leave the label behind ...just the way I feel..


Who wants to shut her up? I never suggested that. If she has legitimate gripes about what particular people say then let’s see who those individuals are and let’s see if we can make a difference. After reading her article, I still don’t know who she is talking about.


SimplyAmorous said:


> why does she have to be corrected and put down for how she feels.. I give her the right to feel that way.. it's how I feel too. damn it. Heck I wouldn't want to be a writer and have you give me a response , you'd tare my a** up & down.


That’s how you feel? You feel that feminists are “guzzling back liters of sperm and taking as much **** as they can until they are verging on prolapse is pretty feminist.” Really?
Now wait a minute. I gave you my opinion of the article… that I agree that some feminists say stupid things just like a lot of people in other groups. But that was not enough for you. You then posted YELLING at me because I did not respond point by point to the article. I took a long time out of a very busy day to respond to your request. 
I did not try to shut her up. I actually read every word she wrote several times. And then I gave you my opinion as you asked. I simply replied with what I thought of what she wrote.
So let me get this straight. She can write anything she wants trashing things written and said by some unnamed group of self-identified feminists. But I am not allowed to give my opinion on what she wrote? 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Well I'm in that small %... t*hey should be called Ravishing fantasies though*.....they are pretty common.. It's a woman thing. Romance novels are full of those.. ..from an article explained like this...


Ok, you are in that small number of women who have rape fantasies. But apparently the author of the article things that’s wrong .

Having been a victim of rape and attempted murder/rape I could never have that kind of fantasy. The thought alone puts me into a PTSD situation that I cannot let myself go.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Hey something we agree on but you dislike his author so much you have to add a DUH!! at the end.. it's very obvious you think she's an azzh***..


No I don’t think she’s an a$$. I think that she wrote the article quickly and did not think it through.
That paragraph is about her claim that the self-identifying feminists think of themselves and infallible because she claim that they attack any woman who does not agree with them. But apparently I am not allowed to disagree or even agree with the author. 


SimplyAmorous said:


> Well from where I sit and just the way some of the women go on HERE AT TAM ...if you speak one word against another women...they JUMP to correct.... I relate more with what the author has said here...


I disagree that here on TAM that if a person speaks one word against another woman they jump to correct. A lot of the woman on TAM have gotten very very tired of thread after thread trashing women, call all women names and painting women as creatures trying to take things away from men. So we are trying to talk this through. 


SimplyAmorous said:


> I may be more sensitive to this , however, as I have had a few women come against me here.. I've been told I lack empathy, I am compassion-less... Just like you feel about this woman's writing... "Why does the author think that anyone really gives a **** about her feelings? " ..it's the same thing, isn't it?


Now that’s funny. The author said that about the self-identifed feminist. And you were ok with it when she said it about them. But now you are really upset when I turned her own words back on her. 
It’s writing technique… the mirror. When a person says something offensive, repeat their very same words to them. And watch to see if they are offended by thie rown words when applied to themselves.

So now, I would like to you explain to me why it was ok for the author to say the following to the self-identified feminists who she obviously loathes but it’s not ok to say the same thing to her? 

“I don’t understand how these women can function in the real world, where nobody really gives a **** about their feelings.”



SimplyAmorous said:


> I guess we are all just wasting our time then.


No I listened and gave my input. I asked for clarification. Who exactly is the author talking about? I want to know the websites and the individuals so that I can go look for myself. I would like clarification on why it’s ok for her to tell the self-identifying feminists that not one gives a **** about what they think. But it’s not ok to parrot her own words back to her. Why is it ok for her to voice her opinion but it’s not ok for them to voice theirs? Why is it no ok for me to voice my opinion?


----------



## I'll make tea

HuggyBear said:


> If a woman gets pregnant, and can no longer function at work, have her take an unpaid leave... a man could certainly never get away with that.


*lol* I say: Every pregnant man should have the very same rights.

I actually do agree with what you say about quotas. How do feminist defend quotas? I would love to discuss that. May be there is something I don't see.
To my mind it is sexist to think you deserve a job just because your female gender. It is also harming women. I do not want to fly with a pilote who has the job because she is female, don't want to trust a token female doctor with my health.... and so on.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Well obviously Elegirl she is talking about the Radicals, just as I am..though I am not even sure some of them are so radical.... she probably has a more conservative slant .... just as I ..

I think we'd all be better off to just not use the word feminism at all --but speak about specific issues.. it causes so much contention to label feminism all over the place.. where it doesn't even apply since -as you & Avon Pink has explained to me.. we can choose to like porn, be a hooker or teach our kids to abstain, get a career / or just be a SAHM IF THAT'S WHAT THE WOMAN CHOOSES...(basically you have validated MY choices as a woman) and you claim this is all it's about. Period. We all belong. 

So in effect, every article where one is advocating to BE THIS WAY , DO IT THAT WAY... with any form of belittling to a woman's choices is null & void anyway, it's just more stupid opinions.. 

This is precisely why I don't care to use the word at all, seems meaningless to even use it since none of us agree anyway and have our own personal choices !

I also think those who started the movement would roll over in their graves to see what it has turned into today...that's my opinion. 

I personally have always looked at life , our behaviors through ethical lenses .....* it's people , it's right & wrong, it's not woman vs man..we should strive to live the Golden rule*.....until I come here and poster after poster is saying those who don't call themselves feminists are just *IGNORANT*...

One thing is for sure...this is NOT my area of specialty , interest, or cause. I do not have friends in the corporate world like yourself. 

I care more about speaking how to be good to our husbands ...bringing back connection / vulnerability, communication , conflict resolution, harmony to the sexes.. this is where I am passionate.... I missed it some with my Husband -It was MY FAULT.. not his.. us , as women, can turn our marriages around... but of course...it takes 2... always. 

You asked what my specific issues are.. It's just that near every article I read jumps out at me with things I DO NOT agree with or they rant on something that is important to me.. THAT's all it is.. but we've established they are just "*stupid opinions*" ...

This forum is littered with back biting between the sexes.. what is so obvious....in every story...this person has been wronged, hurt... we gain our personal perspectives/ biases at the hands of bad experiences with the opposite sex.... Husbands who have been deeply betrayed by their wives -they put up an emotional wall, resolving to never go there again...and women have the same reaction.. 

Sometimes the divide grows like a grand canyon...both are coming at each other looking through their own personal experiences, no trust in the other... 

Truth is...I have had more women hurt me in life over men.. from my Mother, to step Mother ...to a girl who wanted to beat me up in grade school for looking at her the wrong way in the bathroom the 1st week of a new school...:wtf: ... I was terrified, she was going to do this after school let out...Who saved me.... A BOY! Some things stand in your memory..

Who took me in when I was living in a camper, my husband's Father...his idea.. I think my father saved me from being raped -taking me off my Mother... I LOVE GOOD MEN , I have great admiration for certain types of men.. Certainly not all.. 

Plenty of Bad /even dangerous men .... we need to be careful...this is why I speak so much on our youth... to whom we attach ourselves to, thinking of our children even......these things DO MATTER.. because once you have lived with a monster, been under the hands of abuse, emotional neglect, look what happens, a whole world view emerges , then for so many it does become an "Us against them" mentality. ..

I assume the most radical of feminists was born out of these bad experiences.. I don't know.. I am rambling. . 

You're right...you answered the article, you took the time.. you have a right to feel she is just a mindless ranting women.. . Even if we take away the rants though and discuss with a more level headedness ... it's obvious so many of us would disagree on a myriad of things anyway ...

So it comes to the point it gets very difficult to have a rational reasonable discussion on feminism ...it shoots in too many different directions that we don't need to agree on anyway.. yet we may feel passionate about in our own positions...(from sexual views to SAHMs ... to men -should they still pay for dates, to the death of chivalry, to porn...it's endless..)... 

Better off to speak on a *particular issue* to dissect..and drop the feminism label (for many of these writers)...just seems it would be more productive.


----------



## Shoto1984

HuggyBear said:


> Men and women are DIFFERENT. From genes to sexual differences to brain structure is is clearly apparent. Get with that oft-exclaimed propaganda of "togetherness", and let us "embrace our differences" and together realize certain truths that are codified in religions, cultures, manners, and laws.
> 
> But, as I stated, have NO problem whatsoever with feminism, or feminists... I simply treat them they way they make me understand they want to be treated.... with hilarious results ensuing.


I think we've come a long way on the sex (and race) issues but with a ways to go yet. A big ship that is headed in generally the right direction but with many course corrections along the way. It is always interesting to hear different ideas on this one.


----------



## WandaJ

"If a woman gets pregnant, and can no longer function at work, have her take an unpaid leave... a man could certainly never get away with that."

If a man could get pregnant, the maternity leave would start at conception. At least judging by the way some men behave when they sick., lol. Not mentioning, contraceptives would be sold at the newspaper stand. 

Ok. I think from now on I am going to avoid all women bashing threads. Had no idea there are so many bitter and lost men in the world, who make me personally responsible for their problems. Screw it.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> We have come a long way, but no we have not arrived. There are issues that still need to be dealt with. It takes more than one or two generations to change an entire society.


Yes. Far worse than trying to steer an oil tanker.


----------



## tulsy

WandaJ said:


> ....
> 
> *If a man could get pregnant, the maternity leave would start at conception. At least judging by the way some men behave when they sick., lol.* Not mentioning, contraceptives would be sold at the newspaper stand.
> 
> Ok. *I think from now on I am going to avoid all women bashing threads.* Had no idea there are so many bitter and lost men in the world, who make me personally responsible for their problems. Screw it.


How ironic.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I think we'd all be better off to just not use the word feminism at all --but speak about specific issues.. it causes so much contention to label feminism all over the place.. where it doesn't even apply since -as you & Avon Pink has explained to me.. we can choose to like porn, be a hooker or teach our kids to abstain, get a career / or just be a SAHM IF THAT'S WHAT THE WOMAN CHOOSES...(basically you have validated MY choices as a woman) and you claim this is all it's about. Period. We all belong.


That is right… it’s about women being able to make their own choices… to be a SAHM, to get an education, to work or not work. It’s also about legal rights.. to be able to vote, to be paid the same wage as men for the same work, open a business without a written permission note from her husband, and so forth.


SimplyAmorous said:


> So in effect, every article where one is advocating to BE THIS WAY , DO IT THAT WAY... with any form of belittling to a woman's choices is null & void anyway, it's just more stupid opinions..


But, people who do that, have the right to say any darn fool thing they want. We have free speech. However, what some have not realized is that no one is required to agree with them or to even listen to them. We can ignore it, or read it and comment if we chose.



SimplyAmorous said:


> This is precisely why I don't care to use the word at all, seems meaningless to even use it since none of us agree anyway and have our own personal choices !


But it’s the actions of the women and men to stood up for equal rights (feminists) who gave you and me the legal and social right to make these choices.


SimplyAmorous said:


> I also think those who started the movement would roll over in their graves to see what it has turned into today...that's my opinion.


The movement was started centuries ago. I’m sure that those people could not even imagine what our world is like today. They were living in a world that was very much like places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Packistan.


SimplyAmorous said:


> I personally have always looked at life , our behaviors through ethical lenses .....* it's people , it's right & wrong, it's not woman vs man..we should strive to live the Golden rule*


I agree with this. The concept that what is right & wrong is the same for men & women is modern concept. The concept that we all have equal rights is a very modern concept. A lot of the equality we have today did not exist when I was a young girl. It took people fighting for these changes to make them happen… the changes could turn around at any point because there ae enough people in society who do not believe in equal rights.


SimplyAmorous said:


> ....until I come here and poster after poster is saying those who don't call themselves feminists are just *IGNORANT*...


I have never seen anyone say that. I know that what I have said it that attacking women or men who call themselves feminists, just because they call themselves feminists… not because of their own personal beliefs and actions… but just because they use the for ‘feminist’ is nonsense (the word “ignorant” is too strong for this but I cannot think of a different one right now.)



SimplyAmorous said:


> One thing is for sure...this is NOT my area of specialty , interest, or cause. I do not have friends in the corporate world like yourself.


It’s not my area of specialty either. But from my point of view it is an important point. You see if it were not for the rights women have today… me and my children would be living in abject poverty because we did not have a husband & father who would support us. And I will fight to the bone for the right for a woman to be able to earn enough to support herself and her children.. .I don’t’ mean minimum wage jobs as clerks and secretaries. I mean a job that earns enough to give us a good life.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I care more about speaking how to be good to our husbands ...bringing back connection / vulnerability, communication, conflict resolution, harmony to the sexes.. this is where I am passionate.... I missed it some with my Husband -It was MY FAULT.. not his.. us , as women, can turn our marriages around... but of course...it takes 2... always.


Well, I was good to my husbands, I tried to be connected, vulnerable, communicate, etc etc. THEY CHOSE to not do this. They chose to behave like their grandfathers and fathers. 
Just because something has worked in your life does not mean that it works in the life of every other woman. I support your choice to be a SAHM and all that. But you don’t offer much support for women like myself who have had to fend for ourselves or who chose to have a career. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> You asked what my specific issues are.. It's just that near every article I read jumps out at me with things I DO NOT agree with or they rant on something that is
> important to me.. THAT's all it is.. but we've established they are just "*stupid opinions*" ...


Two things here.
1.	So you don’t agree with some of the things the authors of some articles say. Few people ever agree with 100% of the things that other say. It’s ok to disagree. It’s good to disagree.

2.	If you disagree, you have some choices… voice your opinion on the topics raises that you disagree with. Or just ignore the article and move on.
What should not be done is to read something that you disagree with and then blame all women (or some group) who did not write the article for what the article says.



SimplyAmorous said:


> This forum is littered with back biting between the sexes.. what is so obvious....in every story...this person has been wronged, hurt... we gain our personal perspectives/ biases at the hands of bad experiences with the opposite sex.... Husbands who have been deeply betrayed by their wives -they put up an emotional wall, resolving to never go there again...and women have the same reaction..


Yes there are a lot of very hurt people here, men and women.
If you read threads here by these women who have been hurt. The blame the man who is cheating on them. They do not blame all men. Once in a while a women comes here and makes a blanket statement. The regular women posters here tell her that she’s wrong to focus her anger on all men because most men are good people. She needs to focus that anger and hurt on the individual who hurt her.. .her husband.
However, a huge percentage of the threads here by men who have been hurt are riddled with sweeping, ugly statements about all women or women in general. All women are slvts. All women are liars, take advantage of men, and on and on. There are entire threads with the topic men who are going to go get a subservient foreign wife because American women are {fill in the long list of how terrible we are.. yes they are talking about YOU too.}



SimplyAmorous said:


> Sometimes the divide grows like a grand canyon...both are coming at each other looking through their own personal experiences, no trust in the other...


Most of the long time female posters on TAM do trust men and know/acknowledge that there are a lot of very good men. They also acknowledge that there are some men who have hurt them. They do not blame all men for this.
Sadly there is a large segment of the men on TAM who blame all women (except maybe their mother) for what their wife did to them. That is just wrong. No woman but their wife is responsible for what their wife did.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Truth is...I have had more women hurt me in life over men.. from my Mother, to step Mother ...to a girl who wanted to beat me up in grade school for looking at her the wrong way in the bathroom the 1st week of a new school...:wtf: ... I was terrified, she was going to do this after school let out...Who saved me.... A BOY! Some things stand in your memory..


That’s your experience. Mine is quite a bit different. It was a male to tried to kill/rape me. I was another guy who did rape me. It was my husbands who completely tore m lives and my children’s lives to pieces. And yes I have had some bad experiences with some women… like one woman who told lies about me at work to try to get me fired. Actually it was her and the married uy at work she was having an affair with. But I am wise enough to realize that only those people are responsible for their own actions. I don’t blame all (or most) men and women for what individuals did.
Anyone who blames all, or most, of 50% of the world population for what one individual did to them needs to take a step back and too at themselves and why they would blame about 4 billion people for what one person did… what just because they have the same genitals?

But, outside of those types of experiences, I have had very good friendships with both a lot of both men and women in my life. I care for men and women on the whole equally.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Who took me in when I was living in a camper, my husband's Father...his idea.. I think my father saved me from being raped -taking me off my Mother... I LOVE GOOD MEN , I have great admiration for certain types of men.. Certainly not all..


Seriously… These are your expenses. I understand that. Others have had different experiences.

It’s good that you love good men. It’s sad that you don’t understand that there are women who are equally as good and equally as worthy of respect and admiration.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Plenty of Bad /even dangerous men .... we need to be careful...this is why I speak so much on our youth... to whom we attach ourselves to, thinking of our children even......these things DO MATTER.. because once you have lived with a monster, been under the hands of abuse, emotional neglect, look what happens, a whole world view emerges , then for so many it does become an "Us against them" mentality. ..


You have a very strong view of it’s you against women. This probably started with your mother. I get it. I hope that someday you come to terms with it and realize that all women are not you mother and that girl in the bathroom. Some women are just as wonderful as the good men you admire.

But a lot of use do not have the “it’s us against” which ever gender the person(s) who wronged us belong to. Some of us understand that its individuals how hurt us.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I assume the most radical of feminists was born out of these bad experiences.. I don't know.. I am rambling. .


Maybe. A lot of what we see are younger women struggling to work through their own pain and come to terms with things. I think that instead of attacking them, talking to them to bring them to a new understanding is a much better approach.



SimplyAmorous said:


> You're right...you answered the article, you took the time.. you have a right to feel she is just a mindless ranting women.. . Even if we take away the rants though and discuss with a more level headedness ... it's obvious so many of us would disagree on a myriad of things anyway ...


true


SimplyAmorous said:


> So it comes to the point it gets very difficult to have a rational reasonable discussion on feminism ...it shoots in too many different directions that we don't need to agree on anyway.. yet we may feel passionate about in our own positions...(from sexual views to SAHMs ... to men -should they still pay for dates, to the death of chivalry, to porn...it's endless..)...


That’s right. Any discussion on feminism as a who will go nowhere because there is no one set of beliefs except the core ones about equality that make up feminism. So we should stick to specific issues. Even if we do not agree on issues, talking through them can give people new ways to think about topics and help to understand why others hold a specific belief. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Better off to speak on a *particular issue* to dissect..and drop the feminism label (for many of these writers)...just seems it would be more productive.


I have a different way of looking at this. There is nothing wrong with the label ‘feminism’. What is wrong is to blame all women who use that label for what one, or a group, of women who use that label say and do.

This is as useless as blaming all men for what my husbands did.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening EleGirl
Agreed. I think its always best to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who is behaving in a polite way. If someone opens a door for a woman, I think the most negative comment she might make is "thank you, but you didn't need to do that". After all, maybe he also opens doors for men....

There are social differences in how people behave toward men and women. As long as those are not negative, I think the right response is a polite, but maybe subtle correction "why thank you, its so nice to see people with old fashioned values"....



EleGirl said:


> I agree. Making a rude scene when someone is simply being polite is uncalled for.
> 
> Loud, obnoxious, people are a turn off... man or woman.


----------



## tulsy

I'll make tea said:


> I actually don't agree with that. I don't think we should make other peoples life unnecessary complicated... that includes avoiding things that trigger *a lot* of people.
> 
> Anything can trigger somebody, but if there is something that triggers a lot of people and you know it and it is not necessary you use that picture or whatever...
> One should not hurt other people on purpose.
> 
> For example you do not on purpose set up barries people in wheelchairs cannot cross. It is basically just politeness.


Well, obviously (hence, this thread) "Feminism" itself is a trigger for a lot of people...so do we avoid that too?

You can't just avoid things that offend people when they expect you to tolerate things that offend you. There has to be room for discussion without sarcastic disparagement aimed to trivialize any other opinion. 

Honestly, there are some truly offensive Feminists with extremely loud voices, and the squeaky wheels are getting greased. As a man, I find a lot of it very offensive. It doesn't come across as the "we want equality" movement it used to be, and claims to still be.

I realize there are some incredibly insightful Feminists out there who are striving for good things for all people, not just women. Still, you can't ignore what has happened within the movement.



Faithful Wife said:


> ...I vote for the word egalitarian, for both genders.


I agree. 
It would be nice if more "REAL" Feminists, those who fall into the text-book definition category, consider Egalitarianism or "Equalism".

I believe in equality for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, color or race. I don't believe that the Feminism of today is helping making things equal.

It can be difficult and tedious to even have a conversation with some Feminists because any comment you make that doesn't agree with the ideology faces condescending belittlement. For some, that's the plan of attack...get the person to give up talking, they'll leave and find another topic of discussion, Feminism wins again. 

If I believed Feminism was all about equality, I'd be a Feminist. I think the train of progress derailed a long time ago, and I think Feminism, like many once progressive movements, has been high-jacked.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening IllMakeTea
this is the huge problem with affirmative action - it can cause people to think that the disadvantaged group is less competent because they were given an unfair leg up.

The problem is that the disadvantaged groups start out from an unfair position. Without affirmative action it is much more difficult for them to succeed. Ideally affirmative action would exactly cancel those disadvantages and create a level playing field. In reality is is impossible to get things right, these policies never do quite what you want.

The problem is that I don't see a better solution. My only hope is that this sort of policy can be directed as closely as possible to where the discrimination is happening, rather than trying to correct after the fact.

It also needs to be time dependent. Right now a higher percentage of women than men are graduating college, I hope that any of these programs to help women at the college level have been canceled. 







I'll make tea said:


> *lol* I say: Every pregnant man should have the very same rights.
> 
> I actually do agree with what you say about quotas. How do feminist defend quotas? I would love to discuss that. May be there is something I don't see.
> To my mind it is sexist to think you deserve a job just because your female gender. It is also harming women. I do not want to fly with a pilote who has the job because she is female, don't want to trust a token female doctor with my health.... and so on.


----------



## WandaJ

tulsy said:


> How ironic.


yes, it meant to be ironic.


----------



## Shoto1984

So Richard you don't want to pay reparations for the transgressions of yours (or others) ancestors?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> It wasn't so much the THOUGHTS being worthless.. but the fact educated men would not want *un*educated women...


Ah, I see. Wouldn't bother me. Intelligence and curiosity matter more to me than whether someone went to school. School is good, but totally over rated. A ton of people come out the other end with nothing but a piece of paper. It's just that most of the intelligent and inquisitive people tend to go to school. Education isn't the attribute, it's a likely by product of having certain attributes. Hence my opinion that you're college material. The only additional things required are interest and discipline.

Some of the smartest and most insightful people I know don't have advanced formal education.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Listen Elegirl ... it saddens me you think I am so unsupportive here..that I dislike and lump women in baskets, just because I shared a few of my experiences.. 

If I happen to agree with a man's point of view on an issue -and sometimes I do here on TAM...it's because In my mind he is being fair.....does this make me hate women.. I don't think so.. you will not be able to find a post by me that is supporting a bad man anywhere on this forum.. you will be able to find me siding with more conservative sexual views of men, however.. 

I've always felt I had a strong sense of Justice.. I hate the unfairness of life. .. I cry easily just watching the news sometimes when I hear of horrendous tragedy , children being beaten.. anything where things shouldn't have happened.. due to innocence... our consciences scream the unfairness in that...

I am only left feeling more misunderstood by contributing to this thread.. 

I'll just end with this..I am thankful for everyone who fought for our rights as women to live freely and have choice.. Not sure how to prove it to anyone.. but I do feel that way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Affirmative action gets a bad rep. It's not as bad as many make it out to be. In order to apply, it basically has to be shown that two candidates are essentially the same in terms of qualifications for the job. Given two equal candidates, affirmative action dictates hiring the member of an under represented group.

That's a reasonable solution imo.


----------



## Cletus

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am only left feeling more misunderstood by contributing to this thread..


But you've provided a huge public service here. If you can step in a thread and get it all over your stiletto heels, then I don't feel so bad when it happens to me!


----------



## ocotillo

tulsy said:


> It would be nice if more "REAL" Feminists, those who fall into the text-book definition category....


You've put your finger on one of my frustrations on these threads. 

What textbook are we talking about here?


----------



## Deejo

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am only left feeling more misunderstood by contributing to this thread..


By women ...

The men get you just fine SA. And that very fact rubs more than a few the wrong way.

We all know there are some hurt, angry, men that shoot their mouths off here. Generally they don't last long, ala Mr. Moops.

Is never a whole lot of talk about those who have a very skewed view of men ... they are most certainly here too. Just a hell of lot more subtle about it.

I myself love feminisms.


----------



## Racer

Personally, I think the issue is that you put a label on it: Feminist. It somehow sets you apart from just being a woman; Sorry you got what you wished for. It’s an identifier with a belief system that is well known for confrontation. The label makes it so easy that any confrontation with a woman that has anything to do with gender differences is a feminist. Might as well call yourself a Nag because that’s really what rolls through people’s head. 

That word tends to conjure up negatives more than positives in men. It’s not even because we disagree with the beliefs in general. Why that is basically comes back to our own personal experiences; We’ve been confronted, belittled, and told what a sexist we are by some woman in our past who called herself a feminist. The typical is commenting on some hot girl where it becomes a nag session about objectification, eating disorders super-models have, obvious gold digger, and fake boobs all to meet the supposed bar men set for what a woman should look like and be like and _____... _(enter white noise in my head and eyes darting for a reason to walk away)_…​
Just think of people you know who are devoutly religious. It’s a lot like that. Overall, their belief system is shared; in simple terms, “Be good”. But there are those who feel if you haven’t adopted their version, you are by default “bad”. There are those that feel they are helping you and saving you by going on and on about their exact belief system. 

Feminist are like that and no one likes to be lectured whether your intentions are good or just going off on a rant… and that’s what it turns into. It isn’t a discussion where two viewpoints are equally considered; it’s just you trying to be right because “they” are wrong and you’ve chosen me to represent a few billion of us. I won’t change your beliefs and I do my best to maintain a perception that you are passionate and animated about something and look so adorable while doing that…. Smiles, nods, and agrees _(while thinking how hot you are when worked up and giggling inside because I know that’d piss you off)_.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Shoto1984
Yes that is an issue that makes me very...irate.:FIREdevil:

I think reparations are appropriate from living people who committed the oppression to living people who were oppressed. As soon as you start to get historical though, I no longer support it because it is no longer so obvious who is a victim and who is an oppressor. Once people start demanding reparations from people who LOOK LIKE the ones who oppressed them but who may not be related either genetically or culturally, I'm completely opposed.






Shoto1984 said:


> So Richard you don't want to pay reparations for the transgressions of yours (or others) ancestors?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Example feminist rant that bothers me:

Commonly given advice to a woman who is out on the town and being hit on by a guy she's not interested in, is to tell him she has a boyfriend. The sort of feminist that bothers me, views this as a form of injustice. They over think it. Where I see nothing more than a simple non-confrontational, non-judgmental, non-rejecting way to tell a guy you're not available... the feminist sees the marginalization of a woman's independence. That she may only go "unbothered" if she's spoken for by a man.

IMO, it's nothing of the sort. "I have a boyfriend" is just a quick end to the situation, as most guys won't pursue it further. Furthermore, you don't have a right to go unbothered... period. Whether it's the guy honking at you in traffic, an irrational customer, a pita employee or a guy hitting on you. This is where feminist thought starts going over the cliff imo. When it extrapolates meaning from scenarios like this, where the only factor is efficiency. You can say you're not interested in him, and maybe you trigger a jerk who thinks you're stuck up... or maybe he takes that fine and thinks "of course you're not interested in me, you don't know me yet" and keeps on coming. Why? Because pursuit and persuasion is part of the assertive role. "I have a boyfriend" generally short cuts all of that out... because it removes the pursuer as a factor. It's not about him, so he can't change it with persuasion, nor will the crazy guy perceive he's being rudely judged. It has nothing to do with your disinterest only being important if you're spoken for by a man. It's just more efficient and neutral to the pursuer, thus avoiding any further issue if the guy happens to be nuts.

That's life. These sorts of feminists will rail about such "examples of patriarchy"... reading far too much into an expedient solution. They'll arbitrarily pick and choose a given scenario as problematic simply because it is not welcome at the moment or from that person, or outright declare all male approaches as unfair burdens.

But being equal entails none of these things. Being equal means they're free to hit on men, just as men do them. Being equal doesn't mean a woman may declare that life conform to her own personal idea of utopia, where only the guys she wants to talk to her, talk to her, in exactly the way she wants. 

We're not mind readers. If she's out in a club having a good time, good and bad guys are going to approach her and react to her in a billion different ways. She doesn't get to control who, or how they approach or react anymore than she can declare that no one should ever try to sell her something. That's life.

Another good example is the whole "woman is crazy" thing. Yes, it invalidates your feelings. Duh. It's not a compliment. Equality doesn't obligate validation, or even concern. If I think she's crazy, I'm going to say she's crazy. That she thinks its valid emotion and I call it crazy doesn't change anything. Equality is her having the power to walk out the door or characterize my behavior as whatever she will.

There are real equality problems to work on, without having to over think some more up.


----------



## ocotillo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Affirmative action gets a bad rep. It's not as bad as many make it out to be.


Some aspects of it (Other than hiring) are humorous though. I have a friend in Las Vegas who owns a business that he affectionately refers to as, "Rent A Black." (His term, not mine...)

He buys construction materials like tile, sheet rock, etc. from large supply houses and then turns around and sells them with a very small markup to large construction companies. 

Listing him as a supplier satisfies one of the MBE requirements in their contracts. He doesn't own a warehouse himself, or for that matter even a truck. --Makes a good living too.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

lol that's hilarious.


----------



## Wolf1974

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Affirmative action gets a bad rep. It's not as bad as many make it out to be. In order to apply, it basically has to be shown that two candidates are essentially the same in terms of qualifications for the job. Given two equal candidates, affirmative action dictates hiring the member of an under represented group.
> 
> That's a reasonable solution imo.


Curious. Have you ever been passed over because of it? Cause I have and it sucks. People shouldn't get a position or job because they are white, black, Hispanic, gay, straight, male or female. Should be best person for the job. 

Can't speak outside the world of government where I have been since 18 but here it's never two equal canidates. Here it's one has more qualifications, expertise, experience, but other other is the "minority" so we need them in them position. 

Maybe corporate world is better


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> Curious. Have you ever been passed over because of it? Cause I have and it sucks. People shouldn't get a position or job because they are white, black, Hispanic, gay, straight, male or female. Should be best person for the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't speak outside the world of government where I have been since 18 but here it's never two equal canidates. Here it's one has more qualifications, expertise, experience, but other other is the "minority" so we need them in them position.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe corporate world is better



I agree, qualifications should be what gets you hired and/or promoted. On that note, my kupuna (Hawaiian grandmother) told me I should take advantage of my looks and never tell or suggest I was part Hawaiian (I look more of my European heritage). She based this on her experience growing up. So, I never told anyone of my heritage on college or job applications. 

History and the blow back on those legacies have done more harm than good for all of us. My hope is future generations, my children your children, will scratch their head at the term feminism or disadvantages minority, because we will all have equal opportunities to succeed or fail beyond silly notions of gender, race, etc. A discussion of this nature would never need to exist.


----------



## Cletus

Wolf1974 said:


> Curious. Have you ever been passed over because of it? Cause I have and it sucks. People shouldn't get a position or job because they are white, black, Hispanic, gay, straight, male or female. Should be best person for the job.
> 
> Can't speak outside the world of government where I have been since 18 but here it's never two equal canidates. Here it's one has more qualifications, expertise, experience, but other other is the "minority" so we need them in them position.
> 
> Maybe corporate world is better


In my area of expertise, it's women. I work in a classic STEM field, and there has been much hand-wringing wasted over the fact that women are underrepresented. So much so that a female with a degree or experience in the field can expect to be a much sought after commodity. 

My wife is a teacher, and the situation is exactly the reverse for the men. 

Insofar as either gender is being actively discouraged from entering certain career paths, that we should fix. But I grate at the notion that their representation in any career should be close to 50% because half of the world is male or female. People should be free to choose what they want to do, and we should be happy to accept that certain choices will attract more women and other more men.


----------



## chaos

On the issue of other people being better qualified for a job, it has been my experience that often times the job duties are just one part of a position. Others include social skills, honesty and psychological health. I've seen individuals who were absolute masters in their field but were horrible team players. Some were so toxic to the work environment that they had to be let go. 

So even if a woman, an African American, a Latino American, etc. gets a job over a more qualified WASP man, it doesn't mean he/she will keep that job if he/she proves to be a toxic employee.


----------



## Cletus

chaos said:


> So even if a woman, an African American, a Latino American, etc. gets a job over a more qualified WASP man, it doesn't mean he/she will keep that job if he/she proves to be a toxic employee.


No doubt that depends too on the industry. I have not in 25 years EVER seen someone fired for cause, much less personality issues, and I've worked with peers who would walk into your cubicle and unload every four letter word in their extensive vocabulary at you (all WASP men, BTW). It has happened to me.


----------



## chaos

Cletus said:


> No doubt that depends too on the industry. I have not in 25 years EVER seen someone fired for cause, much less personality issues, and I've worked with peers who would walk into your cubicle and unload every four letter word in their extensive vocabulary at you (all WASP men, BTW). It has happened to me.


I have and it was because people had finally had enough of the bullying and brought their complaints to HR. HR took their complaints to Legal and Legal came back to HR with a "remedy the situation NOW" edict . HR in turn told management and the toxic employee was put on probationary status. This scenario happened in 5 companies that I worked for. The offenders were 3 WASP males, a woman, and an African American male. 

Workplace violence is very costly for many of today's companies but adopting a zero tolerance to bullying is a protective shield that they cannot afford to be without.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SimplyAmorous said:


> .
> 
> Last report cared.... I did pass out $200 to 4 of them (including daughter ) who got all A's & B's ...($50 each).....there is some encouragement and incentive to care about learning / education.



It is considerably more likely to instill in them a work for reward/money than either a love of learning or a genuine work ethic in my opinion.

<edit> I am not trying to bust your chops. That was more abrupt than I meant. But actions predicate reactions. And paying for grades is more likely to develop an interest in money than anything else seems to me.


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> But here is the THING. how many people REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THIS ?? Do you think anyone on this forum doesn't believe this.. so we're all feminists... so why go on about it so much.


In line with what DvlsAdvc8 said about intelligence and education being two very different things, I wanted to tell you that I appreciated this comment. 

Feminism is defined both _normatively_ and _descriptively_. (..And you don't need to know those terms to understand the difference...)

The normative definition is simply the belief that men and women are entitled to equal rights and respect.

The difference between a feminist and a non feminist *is not* in the normative definition. The majority of us are normative feminists. The difference between a feminist and a non feminist is in the descriptive definition, which is the belief that women are currently disadvantaged in either rights, respect, or both. 

Or as feminist philosopher, Susan James puts it:

"Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified."​
Sometimes people get upset with each other on threads like this, but in the end, I think we're just talking about different aspects of the same thing.


----------



## JCD

ocotillo said:


> Or as feminist philosopher, Susan James puts it:
> 
> "Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified."​
> Sometimes people get upset with each other on threads like this, but in the end, I think we're just talking about different aspects of the same thing.


This is a good conversation to have.

Here is the question: Who is doing the oppression? 


Is it the evil of men? Or is it that women are 20% smaller and have a uterus?

I may be responsible for the first. I'll be damned if I am blamed for the second.

I had a conversation with my daughter. She was railing about past injustices and how men were just 'awful' about how they treated women.

So I asked her: "You are a Bronze Era farmer. You have a son and a daughter. You have enough money to educate ONE person. Due to culture, the girl, when she marries, is leaving the family. She also has, in the course of her life, a one in ten chance in dying from childbirth. So...where do you spend the money without reference to 'universal ideas of justice'?"

She did not like where that logic lead. Never said it was a pleasant thought...but it was a reality for most of history.

I think every Feminist needs to face a fact: the rise of women's rights is directly linked to the wealth of a society. It isn't education. It isn't ideas or justice or sensitivity. We aren't better than our forefathers and mothers. These ideas are not new. 

They had to make hard decisions about what to do with the wealth they had. Where women found themselves historically 'oppressed' is because cogent and sensible economic ideas became institutionalized and unexamined. That isn't 'evil', it is cultural shorthand.

Now it is a grand and good thing that we are both wealthy enough and 'difficult' enough to reexamine these ideas.

As an intellectual exercise, how would the fiscal loss of Medicaid, Welfare and Social Security have on women's rights in America, not as a legal mechanism, but in how much independence they would assert and what they would look for in a man?

I do not think this is the WHOLE truth...but I think it has plenty of pieces of the truth to cut someone who pokes around too much unguardedly.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> It is considerably more likely to instill in them a work for reward/money than either a love of learning or a genuine work ethic in my opinion.
> 
> <edit> I am not trying to bust your chops. That was more abrupt than I meant. But actions predicate reactions. And paying for grades is more likely to develop an interest in money than anything else seems to me.


I see where you are coming from but I would say this is just not the case here... We don't give allowances.. they help around the house, they babysit for us anytime we ask.... they never complain..they ask for very little.. 

At first 3rd son said he couldn't take it , then said it was too much...2nd son said I didn't need to give him anything...(they feel as you -not what it's about) -but of course they still wanted it.. .. Work ethic is very important in our family....especially being a larger lower income family... what else can we show for ourselves..it's everything! 

Our teens do the Carpenters Project every year....they want to..one year they got mad at me cause I had a vacation planned on that week...I was in hot water! 

But yeah....I got a thought coming home from a job that I don't "reward" them enough for ALL they do.. (& thinking of their report cards days before)....I had the $$ in my pocket... I wanted to surprise them..even see how they'd react .....I even told them I might not do this again..but that* I was so proud of them* all for their grades. ...it was a good moment... hanging in the dining room having them try to give my money back -seeing their faces light up..and my taking the time to thank them..

2nd & 3rd sons take their studies very seriously -just because (unlike younger sister's attitude thus far) .. and do very well in school.. They both want to be Engineers.


----------



## I'll make tea

tulsy said:


> Well, obviously (hence, this thread) "Feminism" itself is a trigger for a lot of people...so do we avoid that too?
> 
> You can't just avoid things that offend people when they expect you to tolerate things that offend you. There has to be room for discussion without sarcastic disparagement aimed to trivialize any other opinion.
> 
> Honestly, there are some truly offensive Feminists with extremely loud voices, and the squeaky wheels are getting greased. As a man, I find a lot of it very offensive. It doesn't come across as the "we want equality" movement it used to be, and claims to still be.


I think the word "trigger" means something different. It is basically something that reminds you of a traumatic event. Say you were in an accident with a red car. Then any red car might become a trigger for you.

It is not something you just don't like/that annoys you/you find offensive.

I think the feminist in question voiced the opinion that when discussing rape and so on triggering images should not be used. People who experienced trauma tend to avoid triggers and it would rob them of the opportunity to join the discussion (as well as make them feel miserable). One can still discuss things without using triggering images.

I am all against PC stiffeling discussions but I cannot see this here. In fact using triggers might stiffle discussion because it may keep some people from joining.


----------



## I'll make tea

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening IllMakeTea
> this is the huge problem with affirmative action - it can cause people to think that the disadvantaged group is less competent because they were given an unfair leg up.


Hello richard,

I like how you always say "good evening". That's very nice 

As a woman I do not feel I have been discriminated against by the educational system. There used to be discrimination against women but to my mind that is a thing of the past. I think that today it is men who are discriminated against in the schools by having a curriculum that is more geared towards girls, rewarding conformity and punishing students for being to "alpha".

That is why I do not understand why I should get a leg up.


----------



## Ikaika

Honestly the impetus for this thread was not to create a rife between members or rile folks up. I guess I failed. I was not trying to come off as self righteous (although I can see where at least three folks assumed I was) or assume myself smarter. I was noticing this ongoing theme,as of late, (reading between the lines of threads) and I probably should have taken as a different tact or ignored it altogether (take my own advice to stay away from certain discussion - I don't always need to be heard).

To revise a title, if I could, it would be closer to: feminism v. MRA, I don't get it. I understand we all come from different walks in life and have different experiences, but for me, I don't get it. I respect others opinions on the issue, but it just is not a prevailing theme of my life (personal opinion, does not make me better, just different from another). 

So many more IRL issues that dominate my life, I just think for me it is a battle I'm not willing to partake in. Thus, why I want to find a better use of my time on TAM away from certain areas of TAM and concentrate where I can contribute rather than take away from the intentions of this important forum. My new TAM diet approach. 

Malama pono


----------



## JCD

Ikaika said:


> Honestly the impetus for this thread was not to create a rife between members or rile folks up. I guess I failed. I was not trying to come off as self righteous (although I can see where at least three folks assumed I was) or assume myself smarter. I was noticing this ongoing theme,as of late, (reading between the lines of threads) and I probably should have taken as a different tact or ignored it altogether (take my own advice to stay away from certain discussion - I don't always need to be heard).
> 
> To revise a title, if I could, it would be closer to: feminism v. MRA, I don't get it. I understand we all come from different walks in life and have different experiences, but for me, I don't get it. I respect others opinions on the issue, but it just is not a prevailing theme of my life (personal opinion, does not make me better, just different from another).
> 
> So many more IRL issues that dominate my life, I just think for me it is a battle I'm not willing to partake in. Thus, why I want to find a better use of my time on TAM away from certain areas of TAM and concentrate where I can contribute rather than take away from the intentions of this important forum. My new TAM diet approach.
> 
> Malama pono


You misjudged the issue and the reaction. As a professor, you are immersed in feminism and many of it's tenants are accepted in (forgive me) unquestioning fashion. Many of the concepts are (pardon the phrase) academic.

Unfortunately feminism is far more emotionally charged when it impacts real life. And frankly, feminism has used history as a lash against men for quite a while to get changes made.

I resent being 'lashed', particularly when I feel it is unearned, untrue, or a situation which is unavoidable. (pregnancy will ALWAYS have an impact on a career, for example)

So rhetorically, feminism to upset the status quo, has thrown a lot of elbows around. And when you upset the status quo, you upset people who catch those elbows (men and women who do not think that a particular elbow was thrown fairly)

Has it done good? Sure. Has it done bad? Yes! It is by it's very nature unsettling.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> You misjudged the issue and the reaction. As a professor, you are immersed in feminism and many of it's tenants are accepted in (forgive me) unquestioning fashion. Many of the concepts are (pardon the phrase) academic.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately feminism is far more emotionally charged when it impacts real life. And frankly, feminism has used history as a lash against men for quite a while to get changes made.
> 
> 
> 
> I resent being 'lashed', particularly when I feel it is unearned, untrue, or a situation which is unavoidable. (pregnancy will ALWAYS have an impact on a career, for example)
> 
> 
> 
> So rhetorically, feminism to upset the status quo, has thrown a lot of elbows around. And when you upset the status quo, you upset people who catch those elbows (men and women who do not think that a particular elbow was thrown fairly)
> 
> 
> 
> Has it done good? Sure. Has it done bad? Yes! It is by it's very nature unsettling.



I appreciate your opinion, but I would correct you to assume I'm immersed in any ideology based on my profession. That part is not true.

ETA: I suggested a few post back to Wolf1974, that history and the current blowback rarely ever serves the general public. It would be so much better if we just did the right thing starting with respect and an appreciation for the values each person can possibly give to society.


----------



## JCD

Ikaika said:


> I appreciate your opinion, but I would correct you to assume I'm immersed in any ideology based on my profession. That part is not true.
> 
> ETA: I suggested a few post back to Wolf1974, that history and the current blowback rarely ever serves the general public. It would be so much better if we just did the right thing starting with respect and an appreciation for the values each person can possibly give to society.


Okay. I believe you are deluding yourself to how much contact and acceptance you have with feminism but I am not about to call you a liar.

The important point is when someone throws around elbows, even in a good cause, it is going to p!ss people off. As I've said before, Feminism has legitimately made and earned enemies. 

Were you disputing this part of my post?


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> I believe I used the correct term, but let me try again.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are an academic, you work with and are surrounded by men and women academics who are staunch feminists. Some perhaps radically so. You have become inured to the most ridiculous of assertions because every day, every academic, struck by the 'publish or perish' doctrine, has to say wild and radical things to be noticed. It is in the job description. "Ah...Professor Dirks...there she goes again..." when she says something rather wild eyed.
> 
> 
> 
> Because to you, Professor Dirks is also the lady who helped babysit your kids or had lunch with you. The personal helps blunt the radical in your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want to wager you can define far more types of feminism than I can? And yet, that frequency of contact and breadth of knowledge is not 'immersion'?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Fish can't tell you what temperature the water is either.



Nice try, but again I disagree with your point on academics. We are Mavericks and all of us come to this profession like any other, from many different walks in life with many differing opinions. There are very very very few radicals. They, the radicals, may be outspoken but they don't represent the majority in my profession.


----------



## NotLikeYou

Ikaika said:


> I appreciate your opinion, but I would correct you to assume I'm immersed in any ideology based on my profession. That part is not true.
> 
> ETA: I suggested a few post back to Wolf1974, that history and the current blowback rarely ever serves the general public. It would be so much better if we just did the right thing starting with respect and an appreciation for the values each person can possibly give to society.


Yeah! Forget our history so that, uh, so that we stop being mean to each other! Forward in ignorance! And unicorns.

Okayka, Ikaika. I'm going to try it this way. An honest effort to expose you to a different viewpoint.

Let's start with a partial quote from Robert Heinlein.

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

This is a really short, simple quote. 

As a laid back, "can't we all just get along" kind of guy, I expect that you'd say you're a "no such desire to be controlled" person.

Feminism wants "equal pay." That means laws controlling how much people are paid, enforced by the government, rather than by the market economy.

Feminism wants free birth control, more generous maternity leave and benefits, and improved childcare.

That means more taxes on you, in order for women to have more freedom.

Feminism wants campus sexual assault punished more severely, and its female victims coddled, shielded, and not questioned too deeply about what exactly happened.

That means men accused of such actions lose constitutionally granted rights, such as the presumption of innocence. Because it gets handled in university star chamber behind-closed-doors meetings, and guys get censured, suspended, and expelled.

If they had actually committed a crime, they should have been prosecuted for it, and punished by the legal system.

But feminists who believe women are strong and independent don't think that strong, independent women are strong enough to face their accusers in a court of law.

So everyone should just take their word for it.

And men should be punished.

Feminism has a long list of things it wants. None of the things require any actual sacrifice on the part of women, unless it involves paying taxes to fund benefits for women. But men will pay those taxes too.

Did you ever think about the rights women enjoy that men don't? Naaah, you never even thought of that question.

Here you go, free food for thought-

5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don’t | Thought Catalog


You know what feminists NEVER talk about, Ikaika?

Responsibility.

Have you ever heard a feminist ask that safeguards be added to ensure that women aren't OVER paid, in the process of getting equal pay?

Ever hear one come out in favor of female to male alimony?

How about one who thinks mandatory genetics testing to confirm parentage is a good idea to reduce cuckoldry?

Heck, find me one who espouses lengthy jail sentences for women found guilty of false accusations of rape. You'd think they'd be all over this one- since women never ever do this, the one or two women who really did it per century would serve as examples for the rest of the perfect sex!

But you can't. And you won't.

Feminism isn't about equality. Its about power and control. 


I am bothered deeply by feminism. Its certainly not the only thing out there nibbling away at our freedoms. As a society, we are busy trading away freedom for "security" at an amazing rate, and we will receive our just desserts for our collective decisions.

I guess, really, it doesn't matter.

You're a male feminist. Lots of guys are.

Just be sure that when you say something like

"It would be so much better if we just did the right thing starting with respect and an appreciation for the values each person can possibly give to society"

that you add in something like

"and we should have the government make people do it by ANY MEANS NECESSARY."

Because that's the feminist way.

You know, Ikaika, in your writing, you seem to try really hard to come across as this gentle, laid back guy with malice to none and good will to all.

You seem mystified that everyone doesn't agree with you, doesn't get along with each other, world peace, and where were those unicorns again?

You first speculated that anyone not as enlightened as you must be damaged in a variety of ways, and your latest deep thought seems to be that if we were not burdened by our history that we would all get along better.

You're not impressing me, here.


----------



## ocotillo

Ikaika said:


> Nice try, but again I disagree with your point on academics. We are Mavericks and all of us come to this profession like any other, from many different walks in life with many differing opinions. There are very very very few radicals. They, the radicals, may be outspoken but they don't represent the majority in my profession.


If I've read you correctly, Ikaika, it sounds like you might be coming from a background in a "Hard" science as opposed to a "Softer" science like psychology or sociology. Are Women's Studies / Gender Studies programs offered at your institution? If so, what is your experience with these professors? Are you familiar with Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge?


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> If I've read you correctly, Ikaika, it sounds like you might be coming from a background in a "Hard" science as opposed to a "Softer" science like psychology or sociology. Are Women's Studies / Gender Studies programs offered at your institution? If so, what is your experience with these professors? Are you familiar with Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge?


I don't know Daphne Patai or Noretta Koertge. My experience is that you get where you are based on your ability to do your work. Anyone in natural sciences are not there based on whether they have a penis or a vagina, but simply based on years of hard work and their ability to understand the larger context of their field of work. I have worked for and with good scientist from all over the world (and this is all too true in my field as there are very few of American citizenship) from many different backgrounds, male and female and from different sexual orientations. The ultimate judgement was simply based on their level of work and knowledge. Cellular and molecular structures know no concept of feminism or MRA. 

One reason I stopped being a lab scientist, my wife got tired of being a lab widow. My last stint - in five years I took a total of four days off from on average 10+ hour days. But, I am bred into that culture as are all of my colleagues.


----------



## Ikaika

NotLikeYou said:


> Yeah! Forget our history so that, uh, so that we stop being mean to each other! Forward in ignorance! And unicorns.
> 
> Okayka, Ikaika. I'm going to try it this way. An honest effort to expose you to a different viewpoint.
> 
> Let's start with a partial quote from Robert Heinlein.
> 
> "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
> 
> This is a really short, simple quote.
> 
> As a laid back, "can't we all just get along" kind of guy, I expect that you'd say you're a "no such desire to be controlled" person.
> 
> Feminism wants "equal pay." That means laws controlling how much people are paid, enforced by the government, rather than by the market economy.
> 
> Feminism wants free birth control, more generous maternity leave and benefits, and improved childcare.
> 
> That means more taxes on you, in order for women to have more freedom.
> 
> Feminism wants campus sexual assault punished more severely, and its female victims coddled, shielded, and not questioned too deeply about what exactly happened.
> 
> That means men accused of such actions lose constitutionally granted rights, such as the presumption of innocence. Because it gets handled in university star chamber behind-closed-doors meetings, and guys get censured, suspended, and expelled.
> 
> If they had actually committed a crime, they should have been prosecuted for it, and punished by the legal system.
> 
> But feminists who believe women are strong and independent don't think that strong, independent women are strong enough to face their accusers in a court of law.
> 
> So everyone should just take their word for it.
> 
> And men should be punished.
> 
> Feminism has a long list of things it wants. None of the things require any actual sacrifice on the part of women, unless it involves paying taxes to fund benefits for women. But men will pay those taxes too.
> 
> Did you ever think about the rights women enjoy that men don't? Naaah, you never even thought of that question.
> 
> Here you go, free food for thought-
> 
> 5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don’t | Thought Catalog
> 
> 
> You know what feminists NEVER talk about, Ikaika?
> 
> Responsibility.
> 
> Have you ever heard a feminist ask that safeguards be added to ensure that women aren't OVER paid, in the process of getting equal pay?
> 
> Ever hear one come out in favor of female to male alimony?
> 
> How about one who thinks mandatory genetics testing to confirm parentage is a good idea to reduce cuckoldry?
> 
> Heck, find me one who espouses lengthy jail sentences for women found guilty of false accusations of rape. You'd think they'd be all over this one- since women never ever do this, the one or two women who really did it per century would serve as examples for the rest of the perfect sex!
> 
> But you can't. And you won't.
> 
> Feminism isn't about equality. Its about power and control.
> 
> 
> I am bothered deeply by feminism. Its certainly not the only thing out there nibbling away at our freedoms. As a society, we are busy trading away freedom for "security" at an amazing rate, and we will receive our just desserts for our collective decisions.
> 
> I guess, really, it doesn't matter.
> 
> You're a male feminist. Lots of guys are.
> 
> Just be sure that when you say something like
> 
> "It would be so much better if we just did the right thing starting with respect and an appreciation for the values each person can possibly give to society"
> 
> that you add in something like
> 
> "and we should have the government make people do it by ANY MEANS NECESSARY."
> 
> Because that's the feminist way.
> 
> You know, Ikaika, in your writing, you seem to try really hard to come across as this gentle, laid back guy with malice to none and good will to all.
> 
> You seem mystified that everyone doesn't agree with you, doesn't get along with each other, world peace, and where were those unicorns again?
> 
> You first speculated that anyone not as enlightened as you must be damaged in a variety of ways, and your latest deep thought seems to be that if we were not burdened by our history that we would all get along better.
> 
> You're not impressing me, here.


I'm not mystified by anyone and never assumed anyone should agree with me... I think I stated more than once, I understand other points of view. And, on more than one occasion I simply stated this in "my opinion" We are all equal in sharing our opinion even if I don't agree with yours, I still respect it.


----------



## ocotillo

Ikaika said:


> I don't know Daphne Patai or Noretta Koertge.


I don't know them personally either. 

Ms. Patai is a professor in the Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ms Koertge is a professor in the Department of History & Philosophy of Science at Indiana University. These two ladies are the authors of a book entitled,_ Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women's Studies. _

This is not the only book of its type (A similar book was written by Christina Sommers) and these are not the only female academics to have worked in Women's Studies and become disgusted with what passes for scholarship in that field.

I appreciate the balance of your comments and want to reiterate again that I am not criticizing academia in general. Like I said, my wife and oldest daughter are both professors and I hold an advanced degree myself. I'm talking about something fairly specific and could flesh it out with more examples if that would be helpful. 

I also want to reiterate that this is not a criticism of feminism itself. It's perfectly possible to criticize the strategy of one's political party without being against its objectives. I don't think it is in the best interests of feminism to put swords in the hands of its critics.....


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> I don't know them personally either.
> 
> Ms. Patai is a professor in the Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ms Koertge is a professor in the Department of History & Philosophy of Science at Indiana University. These two ladies are the authors of a book entitled,_ Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women's Studies. _
> 
> This is not the only book of its type (A similar book was written by Christina Sommers) and these are not the only female academics to have worked in Women's Studies and become disgusted with what passes for scholarship in that field.
> 
> I appreciate the balance of your comments and want to reiterate again that I am not criticizing academia in general. Like I said, my wife and oldest daughter are both professors and I hold an advanced degree myself. I'm talking about something fairly specific and could flesh it out with more examples if that would be helpful.
> 
> I also want to reiterate that this is not a criticism of feminism itself. It's perfectly possible to criticize the strategy of one's political party without being against its objectives. I don't think it is in the best interests of feminism to put swords in the hands of its critics.....



Well said, and in your total comments I agree.


----------



## that.girl

NotLikeYou said:


> Have you ever heard a feminist ask that safeguards be added to ensure that women aren't OVER paid, in the process of getting equal pay?
> 
> I believe in equal pay for equal work. If the woman does more, and has more experience, she should make more. Likewise for a man. I would never ask that a woman make more simply because she has lady parts.
> 
> Ever hear one come out in favor of female to male alimony?
> 
> If a SAHD gets divorced, he should get the same spousal support a SAHM would. Alimony, custody, and child support should not be gender specific.
> 
> How about one who thinks mandatory genetics testing to confirm parentage is a good idea to reduce cuckoldry?
> 
> Sure, test it. Fair is fair, there's no doubt who the mom is.
> 
> Heck, find me one who espouses lengthy jail sentences for women found guilty of false accusations of rape. You'd think they'd be all over this one- since women never ever do this, the one or two women who really did it per century would serve as examples for the rest of the perfect sex!
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "lengthy". False rape claims should carry the same punishment as false assault claims. And, as in all other "false claim" cases, "false" does not mean she couldn't prove it happened, but that it can be proven she lied.
> 
> But you can't. And you won't.
> 
> Is this the part where you say I'm not a feminist? Have fun with that.
> 
> You're not impressing me, here.
> 
> Ditto.


----------



## JCD

Ikaika said:


> Nice try, but again I disagree with your point on academics. We are Mavericks and all of us come to this profession like any other, from many different walks in life with many differing opinions. There are very very very few radicals. They, the radicals, may be outspoken but they don't represent the majority in my profession.


The post was edited.

Please address that issue.


----------



## EleGirl

NotLikeYou said:


> Feminism wants "equal pay." That means laws controlling how much people are paid, enforced by the government, rather than by the market economy.


Not true. The market does not demand lower pay for one gender over another. The market (those who buy the products) are what controls the market place. The customer pays the same price for a service or product regardless of the gender of the people who worked to create the service/product.

All the law says is that all people who have the same education/skills/experience and do the same job must be paid equally. If not, the company must show a valid business case for not paying people differently. These laws are gender neutral. So men cannot be paid less than women either.



NotLikeYou said:


> Feminism wants "equal pay."


A caring and smart man wants women to be paid equally. 

Why? It benefits him in many ways.

1.	He no longer has the burden of being the sole breadwinner. He can relax, work less, and spend more time with his children, his wife, and his hobbies. That’s less stress that will probably lead to him living longer.

2.	If anything happens to him, like he is disabled or loses his job, he has someone to fall back on. When this happens he knows that he and his children will not be out on the street.

3.	He knows that if he dies, his wife can take care of the children and they will not be on the street.

4.	If he has a daughter, he knows that she will be more stable and able to take care of his grandchildren and herself. And he knows that his sons, if they marry a woman who has a good education and a career, his sons will have the same benefits of an equally paid wife who is a partner.




NotLikeYou said:


> Feminism wants free birth control,


Up until now, most men refuse to take responsibility for their own birth control and put that responsibility on women mostly. Free birth control benefits men as much as it does women. By providing free birth control, it allows men to participate, via taxes, in the burden put on women to be the ones mostly responsible for birth control.



NotLikeYou said:


> more generous maternity leave and benefits,


In the USA, men have the same rights to maternity leave as women do. The Family Leave Act gives both men and women the same right to leave. 


Some companies provide paid maternity leave. There is a medical need for women to take maternity leave. This helps men. You see, mean are the fathers of the children who are born. And most men care about their wife and their children. So making it so that a women receives paid maternity leave helps her husband or SO. 


In come companies, like the one I work for, men can take the same amount of paid paternity leave and women can take maternity leave. And just think of how lucky these fathers are. They get to take weeks off to play with their new baby and yet they don’t have to do any of the work in carrying the baby and birthing the baby. Lucky guys.




NotLikeYou said:


> and improved childcare.


Childcare is not a woman’s only issue. Most men love and care about their children. They don’t want their children in a bad childcare situation. Men also want improved childcare. How you see this as a woman’s only issue is beyond me and probably beyond most men who care for their own children.




NotLikeYou said:


> That means more taxes on you, in order for women to have more freedom.


No it does not mean more taxes for men... because women earn equal pay, women are paying their fair share of taxes. That means that the tax burden on men is lower that it would be otherwise.


:rofl: Oh no Batman... women have more freedom!!!! Yikes!!!!



NotLikeYou said:


> Feminism wants campus sexual assault punished more severely, and its female victims coddled, shielded, and not questioned too deeply about what exactly happened.
> 
> That means men accused of such actions lose constitutionally granted rights, such as the presumption of innocence. Because it gets handled in university star chamber behind-closed-doors meetings, and guys get censured, suspended, and expelled.
> 
> If they had actually committed a crime, they should have been prosecuted for it, and punished by the legal system.


Again, men are sexually assaulted as often as women are. When a male college student reports a sexual-assault or rape, he too deserves justice.


Most feminists want every rape accusation to be handle by local law enforcement. Of course we know that most rapes will never be prosecuted. But local law enforcement is the best place for this, not some college kangaroo court. It’s the schools that don’t want these things to go public so they are trying keep it on campus and hush hush.



NotLikeYou said:


> But feminists who believe women are strong and independent don't think that strong, independent women are strong enough to face their accusers in a court of law.


You have no idea what a rape victim goes through, not only when she or he is raped, but when he or she goes files a police report and it goes public they treated as though they are the criminal. Male rape victims are not any stronger than female rape victims. 



NotLikeYou said:


> So everyone should just take their word for it.


No one expects that the accusers words should be taken as the absolute truth. That is why we have a criminal justice system. The fact is that even a rape victim who is drugged who has physical proof of an assault… burses, cuts , torn genitals and/or anus usually cannot get any attention paid to their case much less justice.



NotLikeYou said:


> And men should be punished.






NotLikeYou said:


> Feminism has a long list of things it wants. None of the things require any actual sacrifice on the part of women,


Not true. Women have enormous responsibly, in their jobs, in supporting a family, at home, in society. They have as much as men do.


Most single women work and support themselves. They are often the head of household with children. 


70% of married women work, and take care of their home and children.

40% of women are the primary bread winners in their marriage. Plus they take care of their children and the household.


A woman doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. takes as much responsibility as a man in the same career field.




NotLikeYou said:


> Here you go, free food for thought-
> 
> 5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Donâ€™t | Thought Catalog


I’ll address the nonsense in this link in a separate post.




NotLikeYou said:


> You know what feminists NEVER talk about, Ikaika?
> 
> Responsibility.


LOL… we live responsibility every day of our lives, as much as men do. 




NotLikeYou said:


> unless it involves paying taxes to fund benefits for women. But men will pay those taxes too.


Yes, men AND women pay taxes because we are equal. And because we are paid more equally, the taxes we pay are higher than they would be if we all had to work at low paying jobs.

Believe me, the taxes that women pay more than cover the small about that it costs to provide free birth control to women who cannot afford it. 

Most women who work have health insurance and pay for their own birth control.




NotLikeYou said:


> Have you ever heard a feminist ask that safeguards be added to ensure that women aren't OVER paid, in the process of getting equal pay?


It is women and feminists who lobbied for and wrote the laws that are now in place. The laws are not gender specific. So it does seem that feminists have put in place safeguards to make sure that both men and women are protected in regards to equal pay.




NotLikeYou said:


> Ever hear one come out in favor of female to male alimony?


Yep, 40% of married women earn more than their husbands. In divorce, many of these woman are ordered to pay alimony and child support. Divorce laws are gender neutral.

the-de-gendering-of-divorce-wives-pay-ex-husbands-alimony-too


15 famous women who pay alimony


Alimony for Men: More Common Than Ever


On top of women who are the primary breadwinners in their marriages, more and more men are paying no alimony or significantly less alimony because their wives are earning living wages more and more.

See... equal pay for women takes a burden off men. if a divorce happens in a marriage where the husband earns equal pay to his wife... there is no alimony.

If the husband earns more than his wife... then the amount of alimony paid is less than it would have been if she was not working and/or if she was paid less than the males at her place of employment.



NotLikeYou said:


> How about one who thinks mandatory genetics testing to confirm parentage is a good idea to reduce cuckoldry?


Absolutely a good idea. By making it mandatory, it takes away the “offense” of every man basically accusing his wife of cheating if he asks for the test.




NotLikeYou said:


> Heck, find me one who espouses lengthy jail sentences for women found guilty of false accusations of rape. You'd think they'd be all over this one- since women never ever do this, the one or two women who really did it per century would serve as examples for the rest of the perfect sex!


The new data that has come out recently is that men are sexually-assaulted/raped as often as women are. So this should be gender neutral. 

The problem with this is that it is almost impossible to prove rape. It’s also almost impossible to prove that a rape report is false. The same burden for proof should go both ways.

Only about 3% of convicted rapist ever go to prison. The small percent who are convicted get a slap on the wrist. A man or woman who can be proven to have falsely accused someone of rape should not get more of punishment than rapists do.



NotLikeYou said:


> But you can't. And you won't.


Is this the part where you say I'm not a feminist? Have fun with that.


----------



## EleGirl

NotLikeYou said:


> Here you go, free food for thought-


Let’s look at these claims: 



> 1 Women have the right to genital integrity


Circumcision and female genital mutilation were both invented by men. Woman have finally stood up to the men who insist on this barbaric ‘custom’ and demanded and lobbied to get laws against FBM.

If men feel strongly that circumcision should not be allowed on a child, except for medical purposes, then I suggest that men lobby for it. Get out there and get it done.


> Regardless of how you personally feel about the practice of (I personally find it barbaric, cruel and completely unjustifiable), the legal fact is that infant girls are protected against any genital cutting of any kind and infant boys are not. Many feminists will argue that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a magnitude of brutality beyond male genital mutilation and while that may be true, I do not find the “it’s only a little bit brutal” argument to be very compelling. It’s like saying cutting off a toe is okay because cutting off a foot is much worse. Ultimately, the argument is immaterial to the fact that women have the legal right to be protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not.


Circumcised men have can have a good, healthy sex life. 

Women who have had FGM cannot have an orgasm and cannot enjoy sex. 

The difference is not like cutting off a foot vs cutting off a leg. It’s more like removing a toe nail vs cutting off both legs.



> 2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die
> 
> In the US, citizens are free to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to democratically choose their own leaders through the process of casting a ballot in an election once they reach the age of 18. Women achieve this right by the simple act of surviving 18 years. Men may not actualize their basic rights as a citizen without first signing a Selective Service card, in which they agree that at the discretion of the democratically elected government, they will take up arms and die to defend their liberty and way of life. The draft. Men may vote if, and only if, they agree they will face death if required. Women have no such obligation, but they do get to vote for the governments that can potentially send men to meet death. Again, regardless of how you feel about the draft, women have the right to vote without agreeing to be drafted. Men don’t.


In our constitution, the right to vote is not tied to the obligation to fight.
There has never been a time in US History when every male citizen was drafted and/or served in the military. So if having served in the military were the basis for the right to vote, then the vast majority of men would not have the right to vote.

It has been men, not women, who have prevented women from have equal obligation in the draft and in the military. Women have been lobbying and trying to get the laws changed. There are proposed laws that have called for the draft including men and women. I think that including women in the draft is a good idea.

Women are already in just about every MOS in the military and increasingly taking responsibility to include combat roles. 


> 3. Women have the right to choose parenthood
> I’ve written about this before, but it is worth repeating. Women have three options to absolve themselves of all legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend and do not want.


If a man does not want all of the legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend and do not want, then he has the right to control his own reproduction. There are several methods from not screwing women he does not want to have a child with, condoms, and vasectomy. By 2017, men will have Vasalgel.

Male Birth Control, Contraception - No Condom Vasalgel

You will need to talk to God or Mother Nature about the fact that there are sexual and reproductive differences between men and women. 


> Women may abort the child before it is born,


In the same light, men have the right to not get pregnant and not bare children. Thus they have the right to not go through the physiological and physical risks of pregnancy.

Women have the right to control their own bodies just as men do. Women bare the physical aspects of pregnancy and child birth, they take the physiological and physical risks, to include the risk of death to carry a baby to term. So yes women have the right to obtain an abortion if she feels that she cannot handle the pregnancy and child birth.


> Women .... may surrender the child for adoption without notifying or identifying the father


I do think that more needs to be done to protect a birth father’s rights in adoption, the laws we have were mostly established at a time when there were no DNA tests to prove paternity. As usual, the laws have been slow to change. There are people in every state working to get the laws updated.

With adoption, there are legal actions that a "putative father" (potential father of a child carried by a woman he is not married to) can do to retain parental rights and to oppose an adoption. One is that the man can sign up for his state’s "putative father" registry. He files a notarized document stating the name of a woman he has had sex with. If the birthmother puts the child up for adoption, he is sent notification that this has been done. He can then exercise his legal rights to establish paternity and to block he adoption. 

In my state, when the birth father is named he has to be sent notification which is filed with the court. Then if he does not respond to that within 30 days, notification is published in the local newspaper for 30-90 days. Then the birth father has an additional 5 months after all the notifications to come forward and contest the adoption and take custody of the child. When we adopted our son 25 years ago, the birth father ignored all of the notifications.



> or they may surrender the infant under Safe Haven laws and walk away from all responsibility and obligation.


This is not correct. Both men and women have the same rights to give up a child under the Safe Haven laws. 

If one parent gives up a child without the other’s consent, then the other parent has first rights to get custody of the child.

It is usually a mother who uses the Save Haven law to relinquish a new born because she is the one who just had the baby. She is usually a very young (teen) mother who has no support system and the father has long gone. 

The not relinquishing parent has 60 days to come forward to establish paternity/maternity and to claim custody. The state agency has to make attempts to find the non-relinquishing parent or other family members. If the child is a new born, they have to notify the Putative Father Registry for the purpose of determining the identity and location of the putative father in order to provide notice. 




> Women cannot be forced or coerced into parenthood, but they are legally allowed to force men into financing their reproductive choices.


A putative father is not responsible to pay for any prenatal care or for the hospital bills for the birth of a child.

Once a child is born, both parents have the responsibility to their child. This is for the best interest of the child. At this point, the court’s focus goes to the child. And all children need to be taken care of. 


> In many states, men can be forced into financial responsibility for children whom they did not biologically father. As long as a particular man is identified as the father, he will be held accountable. Paternity fraud is legal.


Back to the dawn of civilization, a husband has been considered the legal father of all the children his wife gives birth to. There were no DNA tests. These old laws are being challenged as they should be. This is changing as it should, now that we have DNA testing.


> In no state is legal paternal surrender permitted without the express agreement of the mother.


This is not true. 


> Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with legal paternal surrender, the fact remains that women have the legal right to choose parenthood. Men do not.


Sure men have the right to choose parenthood. They make that choice to risk impregnating a woman every time they have sex with a woman.



> 4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children
> When parental relationships irretrievably break down, current custody laws assume one primary caregiver (almost always a woman) and one tertiary caregiver (almost always a man). In order to win equal or shared custody, the tertiary caregiver must litigate to prove they are worthy of equal parenting, a proposition that is not only very difficult to “prove”, it is also very expensive. The legal presumption of shared parenting upon divorce – that children have a legal right to an equal relationship with both their mother and their father following relationship breakdown – is strongly resisted by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations who know that women will almost always win custody of children under the default laws. In actual fact, men who can afford to purse legal remedies and challenge primary custody stand a good chance of winning, because women do not have the market cornered on loving or caring for children. So while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the defacto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.


The parent who has been the primary care giver for the children is the parent who should get primary physical custody. Legal custody should be joint in most cases.

In an ideal situation, both parents spent equal time with the children prior to divorce. So it makes sense in these cases that the parents share physical and legal custody equally. 

If one parent it proven to be an unfit parent, then the fit a parent should have primary custody. 

This is not gender specific. If a man is a SAHD, then he should have primary custody.

Here is what NOW says about their objection to a new custody law proposed in NY.

N.O.W. NY Speaks on Joint Custody Bill | Fathers' Rights, Child Support, Custody



> 5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape
> The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the “penetration” clause.


The CDC report that you quote below states that 60% of the perpetrators of sexual assault/rape on male are other males and 40% are females. With these numbers, clearly, excluding the penetration clause does not cause “most male rape victims to be excluded.


> Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of “other sexual assault” – it’s the awkwardly named “made to penetrate” category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report “made to penetrate” (p.19). By collecting the information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to have their rapes called “rape”. Men do not.


It was not until this CDC study that men opened up about the fact that men are sexually assaulted about as often as women are. If you add in prison rapes, again normally man on man…men are sexually assaulted/raped more than women. 

However men have been very silent on this. Apparently women bringing this topic to the forefront for discussion has made male victims feel safer to admit that this has been going on. 

Male victims of sexual assault/rape are even less likely to report the sexual- assault/rape. Now that this report has been published, society can start encouraging men to come forward, report what has happened to them. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system will probably be just as unresponsive to male sexual- assault/rape and it is to female sexual- assault/rape.

This topic was discussed at length here on TAM in the last two weeks. To a number, every single woman on TAM (to included self-identified feminists) agree that this should be called rape and that anyone who rapes a boy or a man should be prosecuted no matter if it’s a man or a woman.

These laws that you are objecting to were not created by women. They were created by men who had the attitude that a man could not be raped by a woman, basically that men were happy to get sex no matter how they got it. It’s time for that attitude to change because men in that study were clear that they are traumatized when this happens.



> Why does any of this matter? Feminism is under attack in the popular media for failing to address real problems that have real consequences for real people. Despite insisting that feminism cares for everyone, and wants equality for everyone, the facts suggest the opposite is true. Women have more rights than men and those discrepancies need to be addressed.


No women do not have more rights than men. Twisting things as this article does, does not make them fact.



> But more importantly, gender is just one thing that defines who a person is, what advantages and disadvantages they might have, what opportunities are in front of them, or foreclosed. Class, wealth, race, ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion – all of these things have a profound influence on individuals, and the only way to understand how a specific person can be helped or hindered is to see that person as a human being, first and foremost. Perhaps the reason I don’t need feminism is because what I really need is humanism. And maybe you do, too.


Because of feminism, racial equality movements, etc. Men and women of all races have equal rights legally and society. Things have gotten a lot better than the way there were when I was a child. But we still have a way to go. 

Men have the same right to be paid equally as women do. People of all races have the same rights to equal pay.

Men have the same right to not be sexually harassed at work just as women do. People of all races have the same right to not be sexually harassed at work. Men are suing over sexual harassment at work and winning the cases

People of all races have the same rights in marriage and divorce now. 

The marriage and divorce laws are now gender neutral. There is more work to do in carrying out the divorce laws in a gender neutral way.. but it’s happening.

5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Donâ€™t | Thought Catalog


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Since humans have a tribalistic mentality, they stop seeing the individual, and just view everyone of that label in the same light. It gives us vs them mentality. Even though each side may share the same view, the labels blind each person from all other factors. That is the issue with brushing all with a wide stroke. It limits everything to black and white, and simplifies everything, even though there are a lot of different shades.

When you place everyone under the same tent, you take away all their individuality, differing philosophies, and beliefs. You force them into a mold. My female friend who serves in the military, wants to serve the front line. She is angry that she does not get any experience, and she is only resorted to self-defense if her life comes on the line. She wants the experience in order to have the chance to better defend herself and her comrades. My female cousin is a financial adviser and makes more money than her husband. She is the more dominant figure in their marriage, and she still loves and respects him for what he does bring. She is not some man-hating feminist. Women studies did not warp her views of men. She has her own personal beliefs. Their marriage is going strong because they value what each brings to the table. He is laid back, and helps bring out her more playful side, he relieves her stress at home, and he is the calming factor in her life.

If someone has an issue with what a feminist has said, then his issues are with her. If a caucasian police officer makes a racist comment, should all minorities place all white caucasian officer under the same tent. I am sure within that group that some might be racist, but to place that all share that philosophy is folly.


----------



## ocotillo

Mr.Fisty said:


> Women studies did not warp her views of men. She has her own personal beliefs.


That touches on something I've tried to explain on this thread. Words are the symbols of higher thought. When someone _defines_ the words and terms you use, they are exerting at least a small measure of control over the _way _you think whether you realize it or not. 

Simple example: There are two schools of thought explaining how gender roles came to be defined unfairly. One holds that primitive societies fell into patterns that although horribly unfair, were very efficient. More egalitarian societies simply could not compete. The other holds that men deliberately oppressed and enslaved women primarily to make their own lives easier and to some extent continue to do so. 

The latter view permeates gender dialogue today because basic terms of the discussion have been defined by people who accept it. Even people who consciously deny accepting that view still slip now and then. So although I have no earthly reason to doubt you when you say that your cousin is unaffected, I would point out that it is fairly unusual for anyone.


----------



## Mr The Other

HuggyBear said:


> I have NO problem with feminism whatsoever. I personally feel that we, as a global society, could do more to further this cause.
> 
> Feminists insist, and demand, that females are equal to men... let's hold females up to that standard.
> 
> Start early in life... no excuses during physical education for "that time of month". Either you compete, or get assigned some kind of physical labor to make up that class "period(s)" that you miss
> 
> Get rid of sex-based scholarships, and curricular programs like WISE (women in science and engineering) and keep them out of minority-empowerment academic programs and laboratories.
> 
> Eliminate tax incentives for women-run or owned companies, and criminalize sex-based "equality" quotas for companies.
> 
> If a woman gets pregnant, and can no longer function at work, have her take an unpaid leave... a man could certainly never get away with that. I'm not saying eliminate maternal (or paternal) leave, that is something that any sex can take, as it is simply providing care for an infant.
> 
> Make women fight on the front lines of combat in equal numbers as men.
> 
> Let women and men compete in the olympics on an equal footing... of course, few women will make the team, and the olympics will only be half as long, but it will be what it was INTENDED to be.
> 
> The fact is that women and men are NOT the same, and that is the basic tenet of feminism.
> Men and women are different physiologically, from bone structure to brain structure - and brain structure determines FUNCTION.
> 
> Men and women are DIFFERENT. From genes to sexual differences to brain structure is is clearly apparent. Get with that oft-exclaimed propaganda of "togetherness", and let us "embrace our differences" and together realize certain truths that are codified in religions, cultures, manners, and laws.
> 
> But, as I stated, have NO problem whatsoever with feminism, or feminists... I simply treat them they way they make me understand they want to be treated.... with hilarious results ensuing.


Different and equal is perfectly compatible. 

I live in a country where feminism made further in roads than in the UK. I can think of a couple of differences that I think are effcts of this.

In my new country, pretty much all women are comfortable with how check outs work. In the UK, it is taken for granted that many women will be surprised at the check out when they are asked to pay. This simply does not happen in Denmark. I suspect it is because it would not be seen as OK and having a vagina would not be an excuse.

I can also remember when in our building's back yard, we were removing concrete from cobble stones and sorting them with regard to size. It was a group of men joining us and then a groupd of women came. I was dreading it, I expected the women to start 'organizing' and telling us how they could do it better. Instead they just joined in, generally doing lighter work, not because they were women but because they were physically lighter people. 

These ideals came through feminism. It is the sort of feminism I am sure you would applaud. However, the reasons these things are worse in the UK is because of a sexist legacy. This sexism though is expressed as indulgence. However, having a harder time as a young man toughens you up. Then when you are in your thirties and sexism works for men instead, men have a great time. I have a deep voice and fairly manly features, this helps my career as an expert in matter no end.

The USA has a history of race issues that mean it cannot pretend to be starting from scratch. To a certain extent it is the same with sex. 

Men and women are different. So are men from each other. The way we are viewed though is still heavily influenced by our sex.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wolf1974 said:


> Curious. Have you ever been passed over because of it? Cause I have and it sucks. People shouldn't get a position or job because they are white, black, Hispanic, gay, straight, male or female. Should be best person for the job.
> 
> Can't speak outside the world of government where I have been since 18 but here it's never two equal canidates. Here it's one has more qualifications, expertise, experience, but other other is the "minority" so we need them in them position.
> 
> Maybe corporate world is better


I haven't. But it sounds as though your problem isn't with affirmative action then, but with the ignorance of people around you applying it. If you can demonstrate that you were more qualified for a position than a lesser skilled minority, then you have a legal case I should think.

I imagine it does suck to lose out on the basis of affirmative action. It probably sucks even more to not have any connections or professional network whatsoever because your race/gender etc has been historically excluded.

My office - about 30 or 40 people - is 40% women (which is pretty high for my field), but we have zero black people and only 1 Hispanic. What you're implying is a quota, and I think that's illegal. We don't have any black folks because we get almost no resumes from black folks. We're not obligated to meet some magic diversity quota. You can't hire someone if they don't apply. Affirmative action is about the most fair way of getting minorities in these positions so they, as a group, have an opportunity to build the professional networks that will enable a rightfully diverse workplace. A lot of times people get the job because they knew a guy who knew a guy who was hiring and gave them a good reference. If your entire gender/race has been historically excluded... that's a major handicap.


----------



## Forest

On a much less scholarly note, there is one aspect of feminism that bothers me some: messing with my TV shows.

We watch a show from the UK called Scott and Bailey on Hulu. Its about two detectives in Manchester. Naturally, they are the two over-achievers of the show. I've noticed that all the creators of the show are female.

Every major character is female. All of the police supervisors, the coroners, crime scene techs, attorneys, doctors, on and on. It is glaringly improbable. Maybe someone from the UK could tell me if this is something you could expect in Manchester.

The males characters are all either dull subordinates, or pompous twits, especially if they are also white. Trendy, predictably stuff.
It really is a good show, good plots, acting, etc. I realize its all make-believe, and fiction, but more realism would only help.

In the end, I believe this improbable theme is actually a bit of a disservice to women. Instead of seeing how these two women excel in the police ranks, people will walk away thinking its just a fairy tale.


----------



## Wolf1974

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I haven't. But it sounds as though your problem isn't with affirmative action then, but with the ignorance of people around you applying it. If you can demonstrate that you were more qualified for a position than a lesser skilled minority, then you have a legal case I should think.
> 
> I imagine it does suck to lose out on the basis of affirmative action. It probably sucks even more to not have any connections or professional network whatsoever because your race/gender etc has been historically excluded.


You don't have any recourse in government work. Even if you were able to win a HR case you will be blackballed not only in our agency but God forbid you leave you are blackballed everywhere. It's just the way it is. 

Like I said maybe the corporate world works better but I have my doubts as I have had friends speak of the same thing. Having been passed over for someone less qualified just because of gender or race just flat out sucks but is the way of the world. Work is work and should go to the best person for the position period


----------



## Forest

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I haven't. But it sounds as though your problem isn't with affirmative action then, but with the ignorance of people around you applying it. If you can demonstrate that you were more qualified for a position than a lesser skilled minority, then you have a legal case I should think.
> 
> I imagine it does suck to lose out on the basis of affirmative action. It probably sucks even more to not have any connections or professional network whatsoever because your race/gender etc has been historically excluded.
> 
> My office is 40% women (which is pretty high for my field), but we have zero black people and only 1 Hispanic. What you're implying is a quota, and I think that's illegal.



I think affirmative action stinks from every angle. It suggests an inferiority, and breeds reliance on race or sex rather than ability. I would be insulted to think I got anything that way.

In 1983 I was working (as a student) for a state university, but applied for a full time position within the same dept. I was given the job in writing; then called into the dept head's office. He was a plain spoken guy, and told me they had to give the job to black female that applied instead. He said the personnel dept found out about the existence of a minority applicant, and he was direct to give the job to her.

He admitted her ratings were lower, and she also had less seniority, another factor. Now, maybe today there is a lawsuit in that. At the time? Hah. Would have gone nowhere, and never seen the light of day.


----------



## Forest

Wolf1974 said:


> You don't have any recourse in government work. Even if you were able to win a HR case you will be blackballed not only in our agency but God forbid you leave you are blackballed everywhere. It's just the way it is.
> 
> Like I said maybe the corporate world works better but I have my doubts as I have had friends speak of the same thing. Having been passed over for someone less qualified just because of gender or race just flat out sucks but is the way of the world. Work is work and should go to the best person for the position period


Most definitely. Working for a city dept for 25 years, I saw some downright shameful decision making and promotions come about in the name of affirmative action. Exams thrown out, supervisory positions created for unqualified persons, unfit people promoted. It was a farce. 

One time the city got the promotion system changed so that they could put out a list of everyone who "passed", then pick at random from the list. I imagine you can predict who got promoted. Very egregious stuff to the people who scored well, but were booted in favor of others that were promoted because they were of the desired race or sex.

Things did improve after about 2000 some, with some Supreme Court rulings, thank goodness. The 80s and 90s absolutely sucked. 

We can all say these people were deprived of networking or synergy, but when the are unfit to lead, yet are promoted, and making decisions that effect the public at large, I don't think its a reasonable trade-off.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Curious. Have you ever been passed over because of it? Cause I have and it sucks. People shouldn't get a position or job because they are white, black, Hispanic, gay, straight, male or female. Should be best person for the job.
> 
> Can't speak outside the world of government where I have been since 18 but here it's never two equal canidates. Here it's one has more qualifications, expertise, experience, but other other is the "minority" so we need them in them position.
> 
> Maybe corporate world is better


Another side of the coin...

Have you ever been told that they will not give you a job because you are a man? I mean you cannot apply. You will never get the job because you are a man?

Have you ever been told that you will only get half as much pay because you are a man and women need to earn more?


I have, many times.

I've been told many times that I would not be considered for a job because I am a woman and women cannot do that work (not work where body strength is needed).

I've been told, when I complained, that the reason I was paid half as much as men is that women don't need to earn as much as men.


----------



## EleGirl

Forest said:


> On a much less scholarly note, there is one aspect of feminism that bothers me some: messing with my TV shows.
> 
> We watch a show from the UK called Scott and Bailey on Hulu. Its about two detectives in Manchester. Naturally, they are the two over-achievers of the show. I've noticed that all the creators of the show are female.
> 
> Every major character is female. All of the police supervisors, the coroners, crime scene techs, attorneys, doctors, on and on. It is glaringly improbable. Maybe someone from the UK could tell me if this is something you could expect in Manchester.
> 
> The males characters are all either dull subordinates, or pompous twits, especially if they are also white. Trendy, predictably stuff.
> It really is a good show, good plots, acting, etc. I realize its all make-believe, and fiction, but more realism would only help.
> 
> In the end, I believe this improbable theme is actually a bit of a disservice to women. Instead of seeing how these two women excel in the police ranks, people will walk away thinking its just a fairy tale.


LOL.. now I find this funny.

Most show have males as the creators. So you can replace the roles as you describe them above for male/female.

Does it bother you as much when that's the case?

It could be a disservice. Or it could be that most viewers see it for what it is... an exercise in reversing the way things usually are so that people can see things and think about them in a different light.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening I'll make tea
I think you are right that discrimination against women has decreased dramatically, and is even reversed in many situations. There are still isolated bad pockets (gamergate), and whole industries (like software) where there is widespread but subtle discrimination. 

The wide variety of situations makes it difficult to write good laws. 




I'll make tea said:


> Hello richard,
> 
> I like how you always say "good evening". That's very nice
> 
> As a woman I do not feel I have been discriminated against by the educational system. There used to be discrimination against women but to my mind that is a thing of the past. I think that today it is men who are discriminated against in the schools by having a curriculum that is more geared towards girls, rewarding conformity and punishing students for being to "alpha".
> 
> That is why I do not understand why I should get a leg up.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wolf1974 said:


> You don't have any recourse in government work. Even if you were able to win a HR case you will be blackballed not only in our agency but God forbid you leave you are blackballed everywhere. It's just the way it is.
> 
> Like I said maybe the corporate world works better but I have my doubts as I have had friends speak of the same thing. Having been passed over for someone less qualified just because of gender or race just flat out sucks but is the way of the world. Work is work and should go to the best person for the position period


I've hired like 10 people the past couple years. I'm not aware of a blacklist I was supposed to check. Is a minority who sues over AA similarly blacklisted?

Out of curiosity, how do you know the person was less qualified? And what incentive does gov or private enterprise have to choose the less qualified person? Affirmative action compels no such thing, and the actual qualifications of the candidates are on record should anyone be critical of a given workplace's systemic lack of diversity. There are no quotas or anything compelling them.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> Another side of the coin...
> 
> Have you ever been told that they will not give you a job because you are a man? I mean you cannot apply. You will never get the job because you are a man?
> 
> Have you ever been told that you will only get half as much pay because you are a man and women need to earn more?
> 
> 
> I have, many times.
> 
> I've been told many times that I would not be considered for a job because I am a woman and women cannot do that work (not work where body strength is needed).
> 
> I've been told, when I complained, that the reason I was paid half as much as men is that women don't need to earn as much as men.


the odds of a woman under 40 having heard any of that is practically zero, in the US. However, we see the outcome in colleges, in spades. Women way out number men. Pendulum is way off the other way there.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> LOL.. now I find this funny.
> 
> Most show have males as the creators. So you can replace the roles as you describe them above for male/female.
> 
> Does it bother you as much when that's the case?
> 
> It could be a disservice. Or it could be that most viewers see it for what it is... an exercise in reversing the way things usually are so that people can see things and think about them in a different light.


My wife and I were discussing this the other day. I think that since the feminist movement, you really can't pick on women for negative traits, so the show creators go after the easy target that they can make fun of.....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Forest said:


> On a much less scholarly note, there is one aspect of feminism that bothers me some: messing with my TV shows.
> 
> We watch a show from the UK called Scott and Bailey on Hulu. Its about two detectives in Manchester. Naturally, they are the two over-achievers of the show. I've noticed that all the creators of the show are female.
> 
> Every major character is female. All of the police supervisors, the coroners, crime scene techs, attorneys, doctors, on and on. It is glaringly improbable. Maybe someone from the UK could tell me if this is something you could expect in Manchester.
> 
> The males characters are all either dull subordinates, or pompous twits, especially if they are also white. Trendy, predictably stuff.
> It really is a good show, good plots, acting, etc. I realize its all make-believe, and fiction, but more realism would only help.
> 
> In the end, I believe this improbable theme is actually a bit of a disservice to women. Instead of seeing how these two women excel in the police ranks, people will walk away thinking its just a fairy tale.


This made me laugh because it is so true, and not just for BBC. It's all over the place.

Women presented as the cornerstones of everything, with men presented as bumbling twits. And then they pat themselves on the back for presenting examples of "strong women". smh.

Seems equality would dictate that they'd advocate against stereotypical bumbling, incompetent, clueless men/husbands in media as those depictions may inform boys expectations just as "weak" female characters informed girls expectations of themselves.


----------



## Mr The Other

EleGirl said:


> LOL.. now I find this funny.
> 
> Most show have males as the creators. So you can replace the roles as you describe them above for male/female.
> 
> Does it bother you as much when that's the case?
> 
> It could be a disservice. Or it could be that most viewers see it for what it is... an exercise in reversing the way things usually are so that people can see things and think about them in a different light.


There is a difference here between TV shows in the UK and US. American TV is remarkably sexist, with comedy shows typically having a superwoman, model looking wife delighted to be married to a fat, lazy, balding slob because he deserves it, right?


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> However, we see the outcome in colleges, in spades. Women way out number men. Pendulum is way off the other way there.


We hear a lot that there are more females in colleges now than there are males. WE usually hear this in combination with a claim that today’s young males are under achieving. But the fact is that enrollments of male students are up by 30% or more. 

However, what we don’t hear often is that the numbers of enrollments for all people, male, female, and by racial groups are all up. 

“Enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 11 percent between 1991 and 2001. Between 2001 and 2011, enrollment increased 32 percent, from 15.9 million to 21.0 million. Much of the growth between 2001 and 2011 was in full-time enrollment; the number of full-time students rose 38 percent, while the number of part-time students rose 23 percent. During the same time period, the number of females rose 33 percent, while the number of males rose 30 percent. Enrollment increases can be affected both by population growth and by rising rates of enrollment.”

So it’s not that fewer males are attending college… in fact more males are attending college than ever have. Just as more females are attending college.

On a national scale, public universities had the most even division between male and female students, with a male-female ratio of 43.6–56.4. While that difference is substantial, it still is smaller than private not-for-profit institutions (42.5-57.5) or all private schools (40.7-59.3). The nearly 40-60 ratio of private schools was most surprising, though perhaps this is partly due to the fact that most all-female schools are private. Nevertheless, the female domination of higher education prevails across all types of schools. It should also be noted that the national male-female ratio for 18-24 year olds is actually 51-49, meaning there are more (traditionally) college-aged males than females.

Fast Facts


----------



## EleGirl

Mr The Other said:


> There is a difference here between TV shows in the UK and US. American TV is remarkably sexist, with comedy shows typically having a superwoman, model looking wife delighted to be married to a fat, lazy, balding slob because he deserves it, right?


No, there are some shows like that.. mostly sit coms. Interestingly enough, these shows are usually written and produced by men.

There are many US TV shows that have both strong men and women and none of the put downs of either males or females... Bones, CSI, Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, The Mentalist, NCIS. Those are just a few I can think of.

I don't watch the kinds of shows that you describe. They are so brain dead that I cannot take it.


----------



## ocotillo

Forest said:


> On a much less scholarly note, there is one aspect of feminism that bothers me some: messing with my TV shows.


I don't know if this happens on British television or not, but with American television, there's a tendency to portray female characters breaking more laws than the criminals themselves and just generally behaving in the most irresponsible ways imaginable. 

I didn't notice it so much until my wife started pointing it out. It irritates her to no end and makes her wonder out loud if it's deliberate or not. It's definitely not the positive portrayal of women that she would like to see.


----------



## EleGirl

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This made me laugh because it is so true, and not just for BBC. It's all over the place.
> 
> Women presented as the cornerstones of everything, with men presented as bumbling twits. And then they pat themselves on the back for presenting examples of "strong women". smh.
> 
> Seems equality would dictate that they'd advocate against stereotypical bumbling, incompetent, clueless men/husbands in media as those depictions may inform boys expectations just as "weak" female characters informed girls expectations of themselves.


Yes there are some shows that present men as bumbling idiots. And there are some that show women as empty headed twits. what I find interesting is that usually these shows are written and produced by men. 

However there are a very large number of shows that have both strong male and female characters: Just a few are: Bones, CSI, Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, The Mentalist, NCIS


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> I don't know if this happens on British television or not, but with American television, there's a tendency to portray female characters breaking more laws than the criminals themselves and just generally behaving in the most irresponsible ways imaginable.
> 
> I didn't notice it so much until my wife started pointing it out. It irritates her to no end and makes her wonder out loud if it's deliberate or not. It's definitely not the positive portrayal of women that she would like to see.


What shows are the ones in which your wife points these out?


----------



## Mr The Other

EleGirl said:


> No, there are some shows like that.. mostly sit coms. Interestingly enough, these shows are usually written and produced by men.
> 
> There are many US TV shows that have both strong men and women and none of the put downs of either males or females... Bones, CSI, Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, The Mentalist, NCIS. Those are just a few I can think of.
> 
> I don't watch the kinds of shows that you describe. They are so brain dead that I cannot take it.


I was trying to cite an example. I am also just going from impressions of living there a couple of years and seeing Modern Family probably reinforced that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

EleGirl said:


> Yes there are some shows that present men as bumbling idiots. And there are some that show women as empty headed twits. what I find interesting is that usually these shows are written and produced by men.
> 
> However there are a very large number of shows that have both strong male and female characters: Just a few are: Bones, CSI, Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, The Mentalist, NCIS


True, but those shows do not really focus on relationship/family dynamics. Most of those that do present men in a remarkably negative light.

It's a popular trope to present mom as wonder woman and dad as incompetent. What message is this sending to our sons?


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> Another side of the coin...
> 
> Have you ever been told that they will not give you a job because you are a man? I mean you cannot apply. You will never get the job because you are a man?
> 
> Have you ever been told that you will only get half as much pay because you are a man and women need to earn more?
> 
> 
> I have, many times.
> 
> I've been told many times that I would not be considered for a job because I am a woman and women cannot do that work (not work where body strength is needed).
> 
> I've been told, when I complained, that the reason I was paid half as much as men is that women don't need to earn as much as men.


Yep exactly this. I went out for a position that my competition was a lesbian female cop. Was just me and her in the running. I had more experience, better performance reviews and more than the qualifications for the position. I know all this because the supervisor interviewing for the position told me all this, and then told me that they were asking me to drop out of the process. Shocked I asked why. He said that he was directed by his supervisor to hire the female officer. Why? Becuase part of the position, a small part, was working with the gay and lesbian community directly and they wanted to have a gay or lesbian in that position for that reason.

Things are not one sided Ele. As a white heterosexual male you get discriminated against plenty in the country. They just don't call it that anymore. They call it affirmative action.


----------



## Wolf1974

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've hired like 10 people the past couple years. I'm not aware of a blacklist I was supposed to check. Is a minority who sues over AA similarly blacklisted?
> 
> Out of curiosity, how do you know the person was less qualified? And what incentive does gov or private enterprise have to choose the less qualified person? Affirmative action compels no such thing, and the actual qualifications of the candidates are on record should anyone be critical of a given workplace's systemic lack of diversity. There are no quotas or anything compelling them.


Please see one of many examples above

And FYI if you think thier are no Quotas then you are seriously mostaken. On my department they have had departmental goals to hire % of female, Hispanics, black, and Asians since I came on in 2000. If you are any of those genders or races and apply you are immediately given consideration

YES they do still have to pass the tests same as everyone but they are given consideration of score in interviews and panels. I have assisted with recruiting for the last 4 years.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wolf1974 said:


> Yep exactly this. I went out for a position that my competition was a lesbian female cop. Was just me and her in the running. I had more experience, better performance reviews and more than the qualifications for the position. I know all this because the supervisor interviewing for the position told me all this, and then told me that they were asking me to drop out of the process. Shocked I asked why. He said that he was directed by his supervisor to hire the female officer. Why? Becuase part of the position, a small part, was working with the gay and lesbian community directly and they wanted to have a gay or lesbian in that position for that reason.
> 
> Things are not one sided Ele. As a white heterosexual male you get discriminated against plenty in the country. They just don't call it that anymore. They call it affirmative action.


^The above example isn't affirmative action though.


----------



## Wolf1974

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> ^The above example isn't affirmative action though.


That's what they called it



Well that's what they cite to get around it....


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> What shows are the ones in which your wife points these out?


One that irritated her were the differences between the 1968 and 1999 versions of The Thomas Crown Affair. In the original, the insurance investigator (Faye Dunaway) comes close to breaking the law in a few places but doesn't technically do it. In the remake, the same character, portrayed by Rene Russo stages a professional break-in of Crown's house and is not even the tiniest bit contrite about it.

She got so disgusted with The Closer that she quit watching it entirely. I don't remember the exact reason and would have to ask her though. She wasn't terribly happy with a few episodes of The Blacklist either, but with that show, I think the writers might be trying to portray the Elizabeth Keen character gradually becoming disillusioned with the system or perhaps even drifting towards the "Dark Side" herself.


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> Yep exactly this. I went out for a position that my competition was a lesbian female cop. Was just me and her in the running. I had more experience, better performance reviews and more than the qualifications for the position. I know all this because the supervisor interviewing for the position told me all this, and then told me that they were asking me to drop out of the process. Shocked I asked why. He said that he was directed by his supervisor to hire the female officer. Why? Becuase part of the position, a small part, was working with the gay and lesbian community directly and they wanted to have a gay or lesbian in that position for that reason.
> 
> Things are not one sided Ele. As a white heterosexual male you get discriminated against plenty in the country. They just don't call it that anymore. They call it affirmative action.


I don't think that hiring, pay and promotion should be based on qualifications and “business need” alone. Unfortunately this is not always the way it goes.

What happened to you is unfair.

What happened to my friend last year is equally as unfair. She and all of the women in positons of leadership in her old company, were fired solely because they are women. Yes the CEO, when he took his position said that he intended to fire all women above a particular grade. Sure the women can sue. If they do they will never find another job anywhere.

In the firm where I work, there is not one woman above a particular position. Even though there are women have been with the company for decades, have the background needed to include having been an officer in the military (military helicopter pilot among them). I have been turned down for every promotion I applied for above my current position. In every case a male was promoted, to include males with less experience, education, etc. All of the women I work with have experienced this once they try to go beyond a certain level.

Things are better today in some ways, not better in others and worse in some.

I don’t know what the answer is.

ETA: I don't think that the answer is to go back to the way things were. We need to find a path forward that works for all people .. or most since we can never make everyone happy all the time.


----------



## Racer

I do get where you are coming from Wolf. And it does suck.

The perception I adopt. Whether we like it or not, minorities and women have been discriminated against in the past. Due to this, those sub-cultures were kept artificially low in caste system.. essentially poor regardless of potential. 

So these programs are based on a concept of 'fast tracking' these cultures into the mainstream. Basic theory is sending a ton of jobs and money their way. Because you also know it takes money to make money. And you can't really argue with the results.. across the board minorities and women have made a strong appearance into the middle class and upper middle class. That means more potential for their kids to compete on equal terms with our kids since they can now get the same education and now have the job experience to compete on equal terms with their white male counterparts. It's about the next generation starting off on equal footing, in those neighborhoods, those schools, and the financial resources available.

The expense though, is us white middle class guys currently living through these times. We lose those some of those jobs. Yet, we still have potential and opportunity. We lost something like 20% but still have 80%. So, I like to think it will hopefully help our overall society in the long run at the cost of some short term discomfort. I just hope it ends at some point so the next generation doesn't have to deal with discrimination at this level. 

And yes, I totally agree with you that me not getting that job because I'm a white male is pure racial & sexual discrimination; it can't be anything else. I just think it's done for a higher purpose rather than hate motivated. I don't think I lost that contract because they hate white guys and don't trust me. Someone who's faced real discrimination might actually feel that because they've actually experienced it.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> One that irritated her were the differences between the 1968 and 1999 versions of The Thomas Crown Affair. In the original, the insurance investigator (Faye Dunaway) comes close to breaking the law in a few places but doesn't technically do it. In the remake, the same character, portrayed by Rene Russo stages a professional break-in of Crown's house and is not even the tiniest bit contrite about it.
> 
> She got so disgusted with The Closer that she quit watching it entirely. I don't remember the exact reason and would have to ask her though. She wasn't terribly happy with a few episodes of The Blacklist either, but with that show, I think the writers might be trying to portray the Elizabeth Keen character gradually becoming disillusioned with the system or perhaps even drifting towards the "Dark Side" herself.


In a lot of shows of that type, male characters definitely stretch the limits of the law. They are seen as strong men who will do what is needed to get things done. And breaking a rule does not phase these guys.

I think that perhaps it bothers your wife because women are supposed to be good. I'd have to go back and look at the shows to see what your talking about. I think that the shows are trying to portray the women as just tough as the guys and willing to break the rules to do the right thing. It's always an argument of what is ethical/moral... is following a law ethical/moral when more harm will come from following it? I'm not defending.. only thinking out loud

I agree with you about the Blacklist. She is has been moving to the dark side slowly since the first episode. Disillusioned with the system part of it. The other part is that I think it starts out with us thinking that she is working with 'the good guys' but in reality we will find out that it's the other way around... the real good guys start out looking like the bad guys.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr The Other said:


> I was trying to cite an example. I am also just going from impressions of living there a couple of years and seeing Modern Family probably reinforced that.


I've never watched Modern Family. I'll have watch at least a few episodes to see what it's about.

I've not had regular TV for years. I've uses Netflix, Amazon prime and Hulu since they stated and pick and chose what I watch.

And so I don't see the type of shows you are talking about. The point I was making is that the types of shows that do not show men as airheads far out number those that do.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> My wife and I were discussing this the other day. I think that since the feminist movement, you really can't pick on women for negative traits, so the show creators go after the easy target that they can make fun of.....


Did you watch the series "Weeds". Now there is one in which the female character was a total basket case drama queen. I loved the show but man, she was a loser.


In the show "Sons of Anarchy"... .Jena is a stereo typical b!tch who gets into cat fights ... her character takes it to the point of legal, but yea the show is definitely using a certain stereo type of a female motorcycle "old lady" in that show. Not flattering to women at all.


----------



## Wolf1974

Racer said:


> I do get where you are coming from Wolf. And it does suck.
> 
> The perception I adopt. Whether we like it or not, minorities and women have been discriminated against in the past. Due to this, those sub-cultures were kept artificially low in caste system.. essentially poor regardless of potential.
> 
> So these programs are based on a concept of 'fast tracking' these cultures into the mainstream. Basic theory is sending a ton of jobs and money their way. Because you also know it takes money to make money. And you can't really argue with the results.. across the board minorities and women have made a strong appearance into the middle class and upper middle class. That means more potential for their kids to compete on equal terms with our kids since they can now get the same education and now have the job experience to compete on equal terms with their white male counterparts. It's about the next generation starting off on equal footing, in those neighborhoods, those schools, and the financial resources available.
> 
> The expense though, is us white middle class guys currently living through these times. We lose those some of those jobs. Yet, we still have potential and opportunity. We lost something like 20% but still have 80%. So, I like to think it will hopefully help our overall society in the long run at the cost of some short term discomfort. I just hope it ends at some point so the next generation doesn't have to deal with discrimination at this level.
> 
> And yes, I totally agree with you that me not getting that job because I'm a white male is pure racial & sexual discrimination; it can't be anything else. I just think it's done for a higher purpose rather than hate motivated. I don't think I lost that contract because they hate white guys and don't trust me. Someone who's faced real discrimination might actually feel that because they've actually experienced it.


So the answer for past discrimination is to now discriminate against someone else? No I don't agree. I didn't agree with them being discriminated against and don't agree with it happening now against them or me or anyone. Two wrongs do not make a right

you can create equal opportunity without giving someone else an advantage based on something we can't control such as race or gender. I have never wanted a job I didn't EARN on my own merits. Unfortunately not everyone shares that sentiment. I know that my daughters with have the same if not greater opportunities than I have had. And I am glad they will have those opportunities to be what they want in life. But, and I have said this before, I have no illusion that they will face discrimination at some time in thier lives. Just as I have and everyone I know has at one time or another. But just because it exists doesn't make it right, just makes it what is.


----------



## Forest

EleGirl said:


> LOL.. now I find this funny.
> 
> Most show have males as the creators. So you can replace the roles as you describe them above for male/female.
> 
> Does it bother you as much when that's the case?
> 
> It could be a disservice. Or it could be that most viewers see it for what it is... an exercise in reversing the way things usually are so that people can see things and think about them in a different light.


I can't imagine any (serious) modern shows that depict women as being equally absent from the hierarchy as this show does toward men. 

Overall, there seems to be generally an effort put forth to show some realism, and equality. More often than not women are depicted women to hold more strategic positions that are present in real life, but that doesn't nag me. This particular show just asks you to believe that males are completely absent or inexperienced; its ridiculous.


----------



## lifeistooshort

The more posts I read here the more it's apparent to me that we're still struggling with the pendulum swings that accompany social change. Much like with racial equality, attempts to deal with institutional inequalities will cause the pendulum swings too far before it ultimately settles into equilibrium. You can change laws to limit discrimination, but you can't change deep seated attitudes that believe women belong at home or don't need to make as much money. That comes with generations passing.

In the past, women had few rights and I don't know how this would be disputed. But how best deal with it? Unfortunately radical measures have been needed to try to address these deep seated mentalities that are difficult to change. In addition, those who are accustomed to having all of the power will struggle as they lose some, that's just human nature. Even my father, who had all daughters and believed in every right for us, still struggled with the idea that men now can't support their families because women take their jobs. Through our discussions he came to rethink it, but it's an example of a deep seated mentality that's hard change.

Both genders are still struggling with their rights and place in this new era. You can still see that in the numbers of both men and women that still think it's a man's place to provide. Except that it's not..... adults are responsible for themselves and their children equally between men and women, and however they decide to work that out is up to them. But the mentality that gender dictates one's role has go. 

Some things simply can't be equal and we all have to live with that. Men can't carry children so that will always be slanted a little towards women. .... that's just the way we're made. Women aren't as strong as men, that's the way it is. Truly, some men are stronger than others, so we must all be equal to the extent that it's reasonable. Otherwise, why have boxing or wrestling, for example, divided by weight class? Well because some guys are bigger and have that advantage. 

I actually think about these things a great deal because I'm a professional woman raising boys, I'm worried about my rights but of course I think about their futures.

The answer, which will never be perfect, lies in understanding that most people aren't out to get you and want what's right. With that in mind we must have open dialogue where concerns and viewpoints are respected and addressed, not belitted. And no generalizations. .... we're all individuals and deserved to be treated as such. I don't want my sons to get screwed in family court or be blocked from jobs simply because they're men. I imagine men with daughters think about these things in much the same way I do.


----------



## Forest

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This made me laugh because it is so true, and not just for BBC. It's all over the place.
> 
> Women presented as the cornerstones of everything, with men presented as bumbling twits. And then they pat themselves on the back for presenting examples of "strong women". smh.
> 
> Seems equality would dictate that they'd advocate against stereotypical bumbling, incompetent, clueless men/husbands in media as those depictions may inform boys expectations just as "weak" female characters informed girls expectations of themselves.


A side issue:

I notice a lot of women kicking and punching the heck out of men in movie trailers these days. Something I've truly never seen in real life. I guess its all part of the dopey flying ninja fighting in so many movies.

And number 2, for you Brits: Doesn't anyone ever fight with the police there? I see a little of it, but mostly its:
"Awright lad, you're nicked"
then straight to the interrogation scene with the tape recorder, two attorneys, social worker, 24 hours total surveillance video, 2 hr DNA lab, etc.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Another side of the coin...
> 
> Have you ever been told that they will not give you a job because you are a man? I mean you cannot apply. You will never get the job because you are a man?
> 
> Have you ever been told that you will only get half as much pay because you are a man and women need to earn more?
> 
> 
> I have, many times.
> 
> I've been told many times that I would not be considered for a job because I am a woman and women cannot do that work (not work where body strength is needed).
> 
> I've been told, when I complained, that the reason I was paid half as much as men is that women don't need to earn as much as men.




What decade was that, Elegirl? Cause you are making it sound like it was something recent and not 30 years ago.

Funny how on some issues, feminism does very little to correct context issues like that 1 in 5 women thing if it gets them more mileage. You have been forthright on that particular stat (though not that the creators don't think it's a credible stat for the entire country)

This chestnut you do trot out a lot. Add the context please.


----------



## Ripper

This post is about the wage gap myth because it kind of came up. Not an attempt to discredit an individual poster. I'm sure that individual people get discriminated against all the time, regardless of gender or race. _I have issue with the belief there exists a system wide conspiracy._

It is hard to imagine that in today's litigation happy society that anyone would be foolish enough to pay a woman less than a man, *if* they have the same qualifications, work the same amount of hours, and complete the same amount of work.

The wage gap was been debunked by self proclaimed feminists.
Sexual Assault, Wage Gap, and More Feminist Myths that Will Not Die

A graphic, because I'm too lazy to type all this out this morning.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> I think that perhaps it bothers your wife because women are supposed to be good. I'd have to go back and look at the shows to see what your talking about.


My wife says her gripe is with the negative stereotype of women as emotional creatures lacking a sense of fairness. 

Her final straw with The Closer was when Brenda Johnson threatened to withhold medication from a sick boy in order to extract a confession from his father. (Didn't see the episode myself) Threat of harm to family members, especially minors is duress and any confession extracted under those circumstances is worthless, so the character comes across as someone who lets her good judgment be subverted in an especially mean and nasty way.

--Similar situation with The Thomas Crown Affair. Breaking into Crown's house comes across as motivated more by anger and frustration than rational thought. Nothing obtained that way would have been legally admissible, which would have put her on the wrong side of the police who were graciously allowing her to work with them.

In The Black List, Keen experiences a crises of conscience in one episode when she learns that her boss very likely beat a confession out of a man years ago. In the very next episode, she's taking a pair of pliers to her fake husband's knuckles in an effort to interrogate him. The audience understands why she's upset, but at the same time Keen is the person who shot and killed a man earlier in the series before he could administer what might have been a cure for his terminally ill child. So she comes across as one willing to let others suffer when professional and/or legal principles demand it, but heaven help the person who upsets her personally, because those principles are going straight out the window. 

I agree that strong male characters are often depicted as bending or breaking the rules themselves, but according to my wife, screen writers are much kinder to men in this regard. With men, the ethical scales are often made to balance with the lives of innocent people rather than the character's own self interest.


----------



## Racer

ocotillo said:


> I agree that strong male characters are often depicted as bending or breaking the rules themselves, but according to my wife, screen writers are much kinder to men in this regard. With men, the ethical scales are often made to balance with the lives of innocent people rather than the character's own self interest.


Interesting perspective... I also see that in Homeland. When the lead female goes over that line; she really goes over it as a emotional choice. The males do it too... just not as far.


----------

