# What do you think about women that spell women "womyn" or such?



## Garro (May 16, 2013)

So on another forum I visit there is a feminist that ALWAYS uses alternative spellings of woman/men such as "womyn" instead of "woman" or "Womin" I've even seen her spell person as "persyn". 

Now, granted, I am a grammar Nazi so it hurts for me to read things like that as-is but I was wondering what the Womyn oops..I mean Women here feel about it? Do you do it, or know a Womin that does?


----------



## melw74 (Dec 12, 2013)

Dunno whatcha talkin abaout


----------



## Giro flee (Mar 12, 2013)

I've never seen this......do people do this here?

I have learned to just let creative spelling, poor spelling, and horrible grammar go. Most people are doing the best they can and as long as I can figure out what they are trying to communicate none of it hurts me.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm too busy being part of the monstrously oppressive cisheteropathiarchy to notice. Now scootch your cute little butt in there that sandwich's not going to make itself.


----------



## Garro (May 16, 2013)

Giro flee said:


> I've never seen this......do people do this here?
> 
> I have learned to just let creative spelling, poor spelling, and horrible grammar go. Most people are doing the best they can and as long as I can figure out what they are trying to communicate none of it hurts me.


Some feminists do. I haven't seen it here or seen it that much but now and again I do.


----------



## lucy999 (Sep 28, 2014)

Runs like Dog said:


> I'm too busy being part of the monstrously oppressive cisheteropathiarchy to notice. Now scootch your cute little butt in there that sandwich's not going to make itself.


That's hilarious!:rofl:

To OP, I've seen it around, but not particularly on this forum.

Am I correct in saying it's purposeful to get around the 'men' in 'wo_men_'?

If so, I think it's ridiculous. Oh brother.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I've never heard of it. So I looked it up.

*wom·yn /ˈwimin/

noun

plural noun: womyn

nonstandard spelling of “women” adopted by some feminists in order to avoid the word ending -men.*

What do I think now? There are some stupid people in the world.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

OP,

I know what you're referring to. I've seen it on other sites; can't remember which ones.

Womyn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from that page:



> Some feminists object to the fact that "woman" and "women" are just "man" and "men" with a "wo-" prepended.
> 
> “	By taking the "men" and "man" out of the words "woman" and "women" we are symbolically saying that we do not need men to be "complete"


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

I've never personally seen it.

But if this is how they are spelling the word "w-o-m-e-n" then they need to go back to third grade.


----------



## CantePe (Oct 5, 2011)

It is the stupidest crap I've ever seen. Really, come on!

I'm a copy editor and cover designer. I freaking hate seeing it. Drives me nuts.

I'm sorry, I just don't like it. It is a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

Does that mean we can spell "men"... "myn"??

:rofl:

I hate when people butcher the English language.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Ah, feminists! I would have guessed illiterate foreigners, but then I'd have been misogroinist.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm happy that feminists don't want to be close to men. Safer that way really.
MN


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

I do not know people who do that. I have never run into anyone who does that.

Personally, I am more offended by people who ask for "advices," discuss "prostrate" glands, or share secrets by saying "keep this between you and I."


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

happy as a clam said:


> Does that mean we can spell "men"... "myn"?


They would just change their pronoun to something else.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

I'm a feminist, and I think the alternate spelling of "womyn" is a bit too far, and unnecessary. I think it distracts from the more important issues, and is more divisive than helpful.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

I most likely would think they were foreign.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I've never heard of it. So I looked it up.
> 
> *wom·yn /ˈwimin/
> 
> ...


:iagree:

Considering 'man' was originally a gender neutral term it makes no sense.


----------



## another shot (Apr 14, 2015)

I think "angry, misguided attention w hore that has issues I don't want to hear about because they are so boring"


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Never hear or seen it before.

I sort of get why some would want to have an alternative to woman as it actually stands for Wife Of MAN or the plural, Wives Of Men. It does seem to be a bit out dated as a man is a man regardless of his marital status but women are that because they are married to a man, before that they are referred to as Miss, after that they are referred to as Ms.

I am a feminist but also hate txt speak with a few exceptions. Maybe there is a less confrontational word that one day may be coined. I am not anti men at all, I adore them but I do get the jist of what they are trying to convey.

ETA what does annoy me is that in New Zealand they use Woman as the singular and the plural, ugh.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Wow!

:rofl:

And people wonder why I don't like feminists (FIP excluded - she's cool). I prefer meritocratic equality, not gender division.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Guess I will adopt a new word.... "mehn."


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Most people, to include those who say they are feminists, don't use that silly spelling. Shoot, most people don't even know that a few people use that spelling.

But because a few people, very few, use that spelling... it's reason to hate feminism?????

Why would something that almost no one does warrant so much attention?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

It was a "thing" for a while. Feminist theory was objecting to the very widespread notion of women being derivatives of men (eg. Eve being carved from Adam's rib, lacking in personhood in their own right, etc.), and were experimenting with ways to articulate those issues, as well as change thinking. 

Personally, I see nothing wrong with using words to express ideas and encourage people to think differently. No language is set in stone, and new words and new spellings evolve all the time.

Just compare English today to Shakespearean English, for example.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Considering 'man' was originally a gender neutral term it makes no sense.


This was also one of the complaints. "Human" is gender neutral. "Man" used to refer to humankind became common in a time when women weren't actually people. They were chattel.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

always_alone said:


> This was also one of the complaints. "Human" is gender neutral. "Man" used to refer to humankind became common in a time when women weren't actually people. They were chattel.


"Man" wasn't a term for males originally though, it used to just meant "human".


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

That goes beyond feminism to outright man-hating. Weird. I've never seen that.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm in academia and deal quite often with women's issues, including discrimination claims, and I've never seen it actually used.

I think if I did I'd just smile at the affectation, kind of like I do when I see an attorney put "esq." after his or her name.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

I consider my wife a Wo-Mine


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> "Man" wasn't a term for males originally though, it used to just meant "human".


Yes, true, "man" was derived from other languages, where it was indeed used refer to both men and women, but in English the predominant use quickly became adult male.

Thomas Jefferson, eg., claimed that "all men are equal". Given that only males had the right to vote or hold property at that time, it was clear that he was referring only to actual men, and indeed, only free men, as slaves were also not equal.

In a culture where women are but chattel, the idea that the word "man" was inclusive demonstrated only their secondary statuts.

This is the objection, at any rate. I personally don't really see any real value in changing the spelling of "women", but I don't have any problem with it either. I don't see why it would be construed as man-hating, certainly no more so than pointing out patriarchal social structures.

In order to effect change, you need to raise consciousness, and I'm all for marginalized and oppressed groups looking for ways to draw attention to their issues.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

always_alone said:


> In order to effect change, you need to raise consciousness, and I'm all for marginalized and oppressed groups looking for ways to draw attention to their issues.


Ironically, a Berkeley trust-fund PhD candidate would be much more likely to use the incorrect spelling to draw attention to how oppressed she is than an illegal immigrant doing manual labor.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Satya said:


> Guess I will adopt a new word.... "mehn."


Shouldn't that be Mhen. For married and henpecked men?


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Mr. Nail said:


> Shouldn't that be Mhen. For married and henpecked men?


I was trying to be a bit cheeky..."meh"+n, as I think these types of words are silly in of themselves.

I don't advocate that men be henpecked...although I see what you did there.


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

another shot said:


> I think "angry, misguided attention w hore that has issues I don't want to hear about because they are so boring"


And this is exactly why we need feminism.


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

EnjoliWoman said:


> That goes beyond feminism to outright man-hating. Weird. I've never seen that.


How on earth is about man hating?


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Yes, true, "man" was derived from other languages, where it was indeed used refer to both men and women, but in English the predominant use quickly became adult male.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, eg., claimed that "all men are equal". Given that only males had the right to vote or hold property at that time, it was clear that he was referring only to actual men, and indeed, only free men, as slaves were also not equal.
> 
> ...


:iagree:
Exactly.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Wow!
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> And people wonder why I don't like feminists (FIP excluded - she's cool). I prefer meritocratic equality, not gender division.


Awe, thanks! :smthumbup:


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Ironically, a Berkeley trust-fund PhD candidate would be much more likely to use the incorrect spelling to draw attention to how oppressed she is than an illegal immigrant doing manual labor.


Nothing ironic about it at all. The Berkeley Ph.D. candidate has more time to notice the disparity between her and her male counterparts. As well as the intellectual training to notice it. There is a reason that severely misogynistic cultures ban women from education. Educated people are much more likely to realize the injustices of the world. 

The migrant worker probably little formal education, in addition her husband is also oppressed. Her reality that being a woman is that in addition to economic unfairness that her husband also suffers from, she's much more likely to be sexually assaulted.


----------



## Vorlon (Sep 13, 2012)

IMHO Sounds like a first world problem. Way to much time on their hands to find creative ways to make themselves feel special. Everyone is special... well at least to their parents. Everything else is earned. 

I due find the "Women as Chattel" theme a bit tired and smacks of a victim mentality. The whole women as chattel is a form of revisionist history. Before you lose your mind I agree women have been treated as chattel at times in history. But please look past the last few 100 years or so before jumping on me. Also realize that some have been treated that way while at the very same time some have been the some of the most powerful people on earth. 

The truths is always more complicated than one liners can capture. You can make any case you want by assembling facts in a specific order. So "women as chattel"...ok during human history everybody, man, women and children have been chattel. The strong always oppressed the weak. Whoever was strongest at the time was on top and the weaker were at the bottom. What determine strong and weak has been determined in many ways throughout history but the rule is consistent. Right or wrong is irrelevant in the case.

Based on the way human history has unfolded: power and influence were wielded to achieve more power and influence. Lets not for one second forget that their have been many powerful women throughout history. 

Just because a powerful women's role may not be defined exactly the same as the powerful mans role does not mean that women were any less powerful. That argument only holds if you use traditional male titles and roles to define who was in power. Even using that argument there have been many women in time that were rich, influential and rulers in title or role. 

It is also true there were men that were poor and incapable. Whether you call them, slaves, indentured servants or share croppers the state of affairs for many people male female, white , black or any version there of has been determined by many factors outside of gender. 

Men and women's roles were defined by what needed to be done and who at that time was most capable of doing it. Once those roles have been established and the systems, cultures or institutions make those constructs into traditions, laws or norms it takes time to change them. 

Women are not better than men. Men are not better than women. We are different, we bring different talents and capabilities to the table. We are humans. Society reflects what is and what was and what may come to pass. With that said there will always be inequality. Should it be left alone. No but time and attention and individual drive are the true engines of change. Blaming one gender or the other is an exercise in futility.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Vorlon said:


> I due find the "Women as Chattel" theme a bit tired and smacks of a victim mentality. The whole women as chattel is a form of revisionist history. Before you lose your mind I agree women have been treated as chattel at times in history. But please look past the last few 100 years or so before jumping on me. Also realize that some have been treated that way while at the very same time some have been the some of the most powerful people on earth.


The last 100 years or so turned out the way the did precisely *because* of women who developed feminist theory and fought for change. Before that, and even well into the 19th century, women were not allowed to vote or hold property.

So maybe you are happy with whatever status quo and think everyone should just suck up whatever injustices are doled out to them. I personally have great gratitude for these early feminists and the world of possibilities they created for me and other women. 

Is the spelling of "woman" a game changer? No. But the careful analysis of social structures most certainly was. And just to be clear, this analysis has nothing to do with blaming one gender for the problems of history. It's about recognizing that one gender is actually equally human, and equally deserving of the rights and benefits of our society.


----------



## Vorlon (Sep 13, 2012)

always_alone said:


> The last 100 years or so turned out the way the did precisely *because* of women who developed feminist theory and fought for change. Before that, and even well into the 19th century, women were not allowed to vote or hold property.


Again the statement above is a generalization: "Before that, and even well into the 19th century, women were not allowed to vote or hold property". Many people believe this statement as though it were gospel. It is not. 

Queen Elizabeth I own property and ruled an empire. 

Bess of Hardwick was very wealthy and owned a number of estates in England. Chatsworth House for example. The original Tudor mansion was built in the 1560s by Bess of Hardwick. 

You can back into history and many cultures and find women in power. From the Greek and Roman times. There were even women Pharaohs in Egypt. Just Google: Top 10 Most Powerful Women in History. Queen Victoria was listed as the most powerful women on earth as her empire ruled around the globe. Oh I think she owned some property... 

This is what I meant that you can find facts to support any argument. I do not dispute that there were times in which women did not have the same rights as men. I just get tired of the one liners that are obviously false and self-serving but taken as fact.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

Vorlon said:


> Again the statement above is a generalization: "Before that, and even well into the 19th century, women were not allowed to vote or hold property". Many people believe this statement as though it were gospel. It is not.
> 
> Queen Elizabeth I own property and ruled an empire.
> 
> ...


Vorlon, these examples you cite are exceptions to the rule. They in no way demonstrate that women have been treated as equal to men.

Most of the women you mention are QUEENS. They were the top 1% of their times. Most of the women on that top ten list inherited their power because there was no male heir (Elizabeth and Victoria, for example), their husband died and they ruled in his place, or they were acting as regent for an underage male heir.

You go back in history and many cultures and find women in power? The number of women in power pales in comparison to the number of men in power. That's why there's a top-ten list. Because there are so few of them.

And nobility and royalty are hardly representative of the struggles of women in the 99% of their time.

Oh, and you know how Bess of Hardwick got her money and power? Her third husband died and left her a sh!tload of money. Hardly a role model for a modern woman.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> Vorlon, these examples you cite are exceptions to the rule. They in no way demonstrate that women have been treated as equal to men.
> 
> Most of the women you mention are QUEENS. They were the top 1% of their times. Most of the women on that top ten list inherited their power because there was no male heir (Elizabeth and Victoria, for example), their husband died and they ruled in his place, or they were acting as regent for an underage male heir.


Not only that, but technically speaking those Queens do not actually own most of that property. It belongs to the state. 

How Much Is Queen Elizabeth Worth? - Forbes


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Not only that, but technically speaking those Queens do not actually own most of that property. It belongs to the state.
> 
> How Much Is Queen Elizabeth Worth? - Forbes


That is RIGHT!!! I forgot about that little detail.


----------



## MidlifeWife (Jul 2, 2012)

Hi I am a proud feminist, in the humanist sense. More than twenty years ago while in college, I recall the alternative spelling being something of a fad, then it faded. I rarely see it today except used sarcastically by men's rights activists. I would just ignore it, the alternative spelling doesn't really do anything to help women achieve equal pay or improve understanding of the issues that impact women specifically.


----------



## Vorlon (Sep 13, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> Vorlon, these examples you cite are exceptions to the rule. They in no way demonstrate that women have been treated as equal to men.
> 
> Most of the women you mention are QUEENS. They were the top 1% of their times. Most of the women on that top ten list inherited their power because there was no male heir (Elizabeth and Victoria, for example), their husband died and they ruled in his place, or they were acting as regent for an underage male heir.
> 
> ...



I was not saying they were treated equal to men. I was disputing the blanket statement often quoted that women could not vote or hold property. 

How the women achieved their power is irrelevant to the point. Since men in power often inherited or married to get it as well. And yes those women were in many cases the top 1% but their male counter part was also in the top 1%. So they were both of the same class and achieved their power in a similar way. 

Men took power through leading armies, leading Coups and many other ways. This does not lessen what women accomplished only that they didn't happen to do the same way as men did throughout history. I do believe Cleopatra had killed her siblings to take the throne. Not unlike many men did. 

Remember we are not taking about what is fair in our time but what happened and what was the standards of the day. This is why I used the term revisionist history. Viewing the past thorough our ideas of what was right and wrong today. 

Even in those days in which it was much more difficult for a women to gain the same type of power and influence as men it still happened. They were exceptional women who used the tools at their disposal. Who do you think ran the big houses or even the small ones when the men were off at war, down the mine or in the fields. Times have changed but I think you do women a disservice by simply stating they could not vote or own property implying they had lesser value. As though that is the only way a women can have value. Why judge a women's worth like you judge a mans. 

For most of human history, 90% or more of the men and women in the world were concerned with basic survival. The work was divided by what needed to be done and who could do it best. Manual labor was the predominate way to earn a living and provide for a family. Men in general were stronger and more capable to perform the hard manual labor that was required. War, Farming, Sailing, Mining, etc Men nor women had the choices we enjoy today. This was the status quo for much of history. 

I agree things have changed and since I have two daughters and two sons I'm glad they have the choices they do.


----------



## Vorlon (Sep 13, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> That is RIGHT!!! I forgot about that little detail.


Yes much of Queen Elisabeth the II property is owned by the state. But that was not the case for Elisabeth the I or even Queen Victoria or many others on the Top 10 list I mentioned.

And thank you. You actually proved my other point that you can finds facts to support any argument.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Vorlon said:


> Even in those days in which it was much more difficult for a women to gain the same type of power and influence as men it still happened. They were exceptional women who used the tools at their disposal. Who do you think ran the big houses or even the small ones when the men were off at war, down the mine or in the fields. Times have changed but I think you do women a disservice by simply stating they could not vote or own property implying they had lesser value. As though that is the only way a women can have value. Why judge a women's worth like you judge a mans.


No one is judging a woman's worth here. They are observing that through vast chunks of human history, women have not been accorded the same rights and privileges as men. Not only could they not own property, the *were* property, and so were not free, not equal, not autonomous or self-directing. Pointing to a few examples of women who rose to positions of power does not at all alter that fact.

Now, you could come back and point out that there were also a lot of men who were property as well, and you would be right. But what happened with that? Oh, right, civil war, mass protests, underground railroads, and an international declaration of human rights that declares that we all, man, woman, black, white, have the *same* basic rights to live our lives freely and with self-determination.

There is nothing revisionist about this history. This is what happened, and I call it progress.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

I've been thinking about it, and it occurs to me that this thread is a perfect case example of the value of doing something as simple and seemingly silly as changing the spelling of women.

While many are quick to dismiss it as a sign of illiteracy or a waste of time, it did absolutely spark a conversation, an opportunity to discuss the real issues behind the ideology.

That in itself is pretty awesome!


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

BlueWoman said:


> Nothing ironic about it at all. The Berkeley Ph.D. candidate has more time to notice the disparity between her and her male counterparts. As well as the intellectual training to notice it. There is a reason that severely misogynistic cultures ban women from education. Educated people are much more likely to realize the injustices of the world.
> 
> The migrant worker probably little formal education, in addition her husband is also oppressed. Her reality that being a woman is that in addition to economic unfairness that her husband also suffers from, she's much more likely to be sexually assaulted.


I can see the irony escaped you. The hypothetical woman in my example is more wealthy than 99.9% of the people, including men, in the world. She can't accept her charmed position in life, so she tries to suffer vicariously through women abused by the Taliban. It's simply the guilt of privilege.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

always_alone said:


> The last 100 years or so turned out the way the did precisely *because* of women who developed feminist theory and fought for change. Before that, and even well into the 19th century, women were not allowed to vote or hold property.


Not exactly.

When you complain that (Western/American) women weren't allowed to own property, what you really mean is that married women weren't allowed to own property. Since single women could, the notion that the patriarchy schemed to keep women down is unconvincing. A more reasonable explanation is that the society was Christian, which viewed married couples as "one flesh" and recognized husbands as the head of the household and owner of all assets. The notion of a married couple with separate checking accounts would never have occurred to 18th century Americans.

And the timing of those laws being changed, in the 18th and early to mid 19th centuries predate the widespread organization of women agitating for increased legal rights. It was the men in power who changed the laws, which again fails to support the notion of the evil patriarchy.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

MidlifeWife said:


> I would just ignore it, the alternative spelling doesn't really do anything to help women achieve equal pay or improve understanding of the issues that impact women specifically.


But it does help to distract people from examining the pay gap myth. Better to discuss the spelling of a word than to try to convince people that a female cashier earning less than a male engineer is because of sexism.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I can see the irony escaped you. The hypothetical woman in my example is more wealthy than 99.9% of the people, including men, in the world. She can't accept her charmed position in life, so she tries to suffer vicariously through women abused by the Taliban. It's simply the guilt of privilege.


Ph.D. candidates aren't necessarily wealthy. Most of the people I know in Ph.D. programs are broke and overworked, and job prospects for Ph.D.s aren't anywhere near as good as they were 20 yrs ago.

$30k/yr is a *generous *grad school stipend, and most schools don't offer that much. That doesn't sound like the 0.01% to me.

ETA: And apparently, the grad student stipend at Berkeley is $28,205 (the national average is $27,735):
Salary: Graduate Student in Berkeley, CA | Glassdoor


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

FeministInPink said:


> Ph.D. candidates aren't necessarily wealthy. Most of the people I know in Ph.D. programs are broke and overworked, and job prospects for Ph.D.s aren't anywhere near as good as they were 20 yrs ago.
> 
> $30k/yr is a *generous *grad school stipend, and most schools don't offer that much. That doesn't sound like the 0.01% to me.


My hypothetical was a "Berkeley *trust-fund* PhD candidate." Did you miss the part about the trust fund, or are you intentionally ignoring it to argue that students at elite universities can legitimately claim the mantle of the oppressed masses?


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> My hypothetical was a "Berkeley *trust-fund* PhD candidate." Did you miss the part about the trust fund, or are you intentionally ignoring it to argue that students at elite universities can legitimately claim the mantle of the oppressed masses?


I did miss the trust-fund part, because I was looking at your post above at 11:32, where you were quoting BlueWoman. Sorry for that.

But MOST PhD candidates aren't trust-fund babies, and not all students at elite universities are wealthy. So, YES, students at elite universities CAN legitimately claim the mantle of the oppressed masses. Not all of them, certainly... but certainly SOME of them can. Or, if the students are white, male, and wealthy, they can certainly take up the mantle and fight on behalf of the oppressed... the oppressed rarely have a voice, and when they do make their voice heard, it is frequently dismissed by those in power.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

FeministInPink said:


> I did miss the trust-fund part, because I was looking at your post above at 11:32, where you were quoting BlueWoman. Sorry for that.
> 
> But MOST PhD candidates aren't trust-fund babies, and not all students at elite universities are wealthy. So, YES, students at elite universities CAN legitimately claim the mantle of the oppressed masses. Not all of them, certainly... but certainly SOME of them can. Or, if the students are white, male, and wealthy, they can certainly take up the mantle and fight on behalf of the oppressed... the oppressed rarely have a voice, and when they do make their voice heard, it is frequently dismissed by those in power.


I think you're looking at the students incorrectly. Granted students don't make much money. But the point of getting a degree isn't really to earn money while you're getting the degree. It's to earn money after you've earned the degree.

The median salary for Berkeley graduates with at least 10 years of experience is $102k. And that's only looking at bachelor's degrees. Students who earn advanced degrees would earn more. So, I'm skeptical of students at elite universities claiming to be oppressed.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> When you complain that (Western/American) women weren't allowed to own property, what you really mean is that married women weren't allowed to own property. Since single women could, the notion that the patriarchy schemed to keep women down is unconvincing. A more reasonable explanation is that the society was Christian, which viewed married couples as "one flesh" and recognized husbands as the head of the household and owner of all assets. The notion of a married couple with separate checking accounts would never have occurred to 18th century Americans.
> 
> And the timing of those laws being changed, in the 18th and early to mid 19th centuries predate the widespread organization of women agitating for increased legal rights. It was the men in power who changed the laws, which again fails to support the notion of the evil patriarchy.


You are here referring to the doctrine of coverture, the stripping of a woman's legal, financial, and other rights of autonomy and self-determination upon marriage. A doctrine that basically states that women are the chattel of their husbands.

Under this doctrine, a single woman wouldn't be chattel. Unless, of course, she was young, in which case she would be under the control of her father. Or she was a slave, in which case, she would be owned by her master. Or she was poor, in which case she was a ward of the state. 

And since women of that era lacked opportunity for education, employment and other features of self-determination, she was very, very, very likely to be in one of the above categories.

You are right to point out that the laws regarding property, legal status, marriage, etc., are not uniform across cultures or over time, but certain patterns around subjugating women to men have recurred in many different times and places.

And I still fail to see any reason why people should not fight against their subjugation. The doctrine of coverture essentially meant that a woman, once married, was completely and utterly trapped in that situation, no matter how badly she was treated.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> My hypothetical was a "Berkeley *trust-fund* PhD candidate." Did you miss the part about the trust fund, or are you intentionally ignoring it to argue that students at elite universities can legitimately claim the mantle of the oppressed masses?


I also fail to see why it is such a huge problem for you that someone with privilege should speak out on behalf of someone that does not. 

We should just keep kicking those that don't have privilege, until they finally figure out a way to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Fozzy said:


> I consider my wife a Wo-Mine



As a feminist.... That's adorable!


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

always_alone said:


> I also fail to see why it is such a huge problem for you that someone with privilege should speak out on behalf of someone that does not.
> 
> We should just keep kicking those that don't have privilege, until they finally figure out a way to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?


You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that privilege and oppression don't exist. I'm acknowledging the hypocrisy of a privileged woman claiming to be oppressed because some other women, in different places or different times, were oppressed.

A privileged woman who claims to be oppressed isn't fighting against oppression. She is weakening the fight against it. She is making it easier for those in power to dismiss legitimate grievances.

Women who can't get an education are oppressed. Women who have no economic prospects are oppressed. Rich women who complain about "microagressions" and insist on incorrectly spelling words related to sex are NOT oppressed.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I think you're looking at the students incorrectly. Granted students don't make much money. But the point of getting a degree isn't really to earn money while you're getting the degree. It's to earn money after you've earned the degree.
> 
> The median salary for Berkeley graduates with at least 10 years of experience is $102k. And that's only looking at bachelor's degrees. Students who earn advanced degrees would earn more. So, I'm skeptical of students at elite universities claiming to be oppressed.


Your original post said a PhD *candidate*, which means current student. You did NOT say a graduate with 10 yrs of post-graduation professional experience. And the same study that you're citing lists the salary for Berkeley grads 5 yrs out at half that number. Students with advanced degrees don't always earn more. In most cases, PhDs prepare students for one thing: a career in academia. and as more universities are relying on adjuncts and the full-time jobs are disappearing, a PhD is not the golden ticket it used to be.

And what do you know about any one individual student's life experience? Nothing, really. You don't know what each student's background is, or what kind of adversity they may have had to fight against to get to where they are. You're generalizing and assuming that all students at elite universities come from the same pot, and that's far from the truth. And someone who attended an elite university can still be oppressed.

I know a graduate of one of these elite institutions, who was a Rhodes scholar and is a US Army veteran, and he still gets racially profiled. He gets pulled aside at airports for "random" TSA checks all the time, and that sort of thing. Why? Because he's black. Hmmm.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> I can see the irony escaped you. The hypothetical woman in my example is more wealthy than 99.9% of the people, including men, in the world. She can't accept her charmed position in life, so she tries to suffer vicariously through women abused by the Taliban. It's simply the guilt of privilege.


Maybe what she is really doing is helping to keep the fight for women like those who are oppressed by the Taliban and other similar societies are round the world.

A person with money and some semblance of power can do a lot for those who are not allowed to speak a work in self defense, much less leave their house without a bag over their head and bodies.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> A person with money and some semblance of power can do a lot for those who are not allowed to speak a work in self defense, much less leave their house without *a bag over their head and bodies*.


Wow, that is a great description, Ele. Had not thought of it that way before.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

FeministInPink said:


> Your original post said a PhD *candidate*, which means current student. You did NOT say a graduate with 10 yrs of post-graduation professional experience.


True. But your line of argument seems to assume that students go to school in order to be well paid while they're going to school. Since that almost never happens, almost no students have that line of thinking.

What students actually think is that they're foregoing the immediate income they could be earning in order to earn a degree that will allow them to earn more money after they graduate. So, looking at the income of current Berkeley students is invalid. Looking at the income of Berkeley graduates is valid.



> Students with advanced degrees don't always earn more.


That's true. But, as my signature states, I'm speaking in generalities. People with graduate degrees generally earn more than people without. The fact that some exceptions exist doesn't negate the general rule.



> And what do you know about any one individual student's life experience? Nothing, really.


That's true. But if you're arguing that a female PhD candidate at Berkeley, who has a trust fund, is just as likely to be oppressed as a woman living in modern Afghanistan, or ancient Mongolia, then you're simply choosing to be argumentative rather than serious.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Maybe what she is really doing is helping to keep the fight for women like those who are oppressed by the Taliban and other similar societies are round the world.


By trying to change the spelling of a word? Interesting strategy.

Also, as I have already stated, claiming to be oppressed when one clearly isn't just makes it easier to dismiss claims of oppression without examination. It's the feminist who cried wolf.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

FeministInPink said:


> But MOST PhD candidates aren't trust-fund babies, and not all students at elite universities are wealthy. So, YES, students at elite universities CAN legitimately claim the mantle of the oppressed masses. Not all of them, certainly... but certainly SOME of them can. Or, if the students are white, male, and wealthy, they can certainly take up the mantle and fight on behalf of the oppressed... the oppressed rarely have a voice, and when they do make their voice heard, it is frequently dismissed by those in power.


Education is no longer the bastion of the rich and privileged, and includes an increasingly wide demographic, people from all walks of life. Anyone assuming that just because someone is in an institution of higher learning that they are rich, white, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, is merely demonstrating their ignorance about what is really going on. People who are drawn to gender studies programs are very often people who are attempting to theorize and find solutions for what they have experienced in their lives.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

always_alone said:


> Education is no longer the bastion of the rich and privileged, and includes an increasingly wide demographic, people from all walks of life. Anyone assuming that just because someone is in an institution of higher learning that they are rich, white, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, is merely demonstrating their ignorance about what is really going on. People who are drawn to gender studies programs are very often people who are attempting to theorize and find solutions for what they have experienced in their lives.


That's a good point. Ignorance is sad. And education is helpful.

In that spirit, I would like to educate people about median earnings by education level according to the BLS.
No high school diploma has median earnings of $23k.
High school graduates earn a median $33k per year.
Those with associate degrees have median earnings of $40k.
A bachelor's degree means $55k median earnings.
A master's degree means $66k median earnings.
Professional degrees mean $87k median earnings.
Doctoral degrees earn median salaries of $81k per year.

Now, does the fact that Bill Gates, with only a high school diploma, earns many times more than most people with advance degrees mean that the above statistics aren't true? Of course not. That would just be ignorant.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

The latest line of argument brings up an interesting question for me.

Since not every single woman in the world is oppressed, can the argument that women, in general, are oppressed be valid? It's an interesting paradox, no?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> That's a good point. Ignorance is sad. And education is helpful.
> 
> In that spirit, I would like to educate people about median earnings by education level according to the BLS.
> No high school diploma has median earnings of $23k.
> ...


So? What's your point? :scratchhead:


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

always_alone said:


> So? What's your point? :scratchhead:


That trying to argue that my hypothetical example of a doctoral candidate at an elite university with a trust fund is oppressed by claiming that not every single doctoral candidate in the world is privileged is nothing more than argumentative navel gazing.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> The latest line of argument brings up an interesting question for me.
> 
> Since not every single woman in the world is oppressed, can the argument that women, in general, are oppressed be valid? It's an interesting paradox, no?


While I would certainly agree that wealth is truly a signal of privilege as opposed to oppression, it just simply isn't the case that the only valid issue with respect to women's rights is economics.

Other issues that are also feminist: 
Reproductive rights and bodily autonomy
Objectification and body image
violence against women and victim blaming
etc.

Of course, a number these issues also affect men, which is why we're now seeing a lot of women's studies departments expand into gender studies.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> That trying to argue that my hypothetical example of a doctoral candidate at an elite university with a trust fund is oppressed by claiming that not every single doctoral candidate in the world is privileged is nothing more than argumentative navel gazing.


So, instead, you are going to reject all of feminism and all feminist causes as completely illegitimate because there happened to be one feminist who was a Berkeley trust fund baby, and you've decided that she isn't sufficiently oppressed? 

And that isn't argumentative navel gazing?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

always_alone said:


> So, instead, you are going to reject all of feminism and all feminist causes as completely illegitimate because there happened to be one feminist who was a Berkeley trust fund baby, and you've decided that she isn't sufficiently oppressed?
> 
> And that isn't argumentative navel gazing?


I'm not rejecting all of feminism and all feminists as illegitimate. I'm rejecting the belief that a woman with nearly every advantage in life that is possible is still oppressed because of her chromosomes. That's the kind of navel gazing that I find objectionable.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

always_alone said:


> While I would certainly agree that wealth is truly a signal of privilege as opposed to oppression, it just simply isn't the case that the only valid issue with respect to women's rights is economics.
> 
> Other issues that are also feminist:
> Reproductive rights and bodily autonomy
> ...


Yes, but economics tends to incorporate many other issues. And it isn't subjective.

Arguing in favor of abortion rights requires one to accept the notion that an unborn child isn't alive. And that's impossible to establish. Objectification, body image, and victim blaming are similarly vague and resistant to scrutiny.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Arguing in favor of abortion rights requires one to accept the notion that an unborn child isn't alive. And that's impossible to establish.


No, it doesn't. It requires one to accept the notion that a woman's body is her own.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> No, it doesn't. It requires one to accept the notion that a woman's body is her own.


If an unborn child is alive, then you're arguing that a woman's right to her body allows her to kill a child. That's morally repugnant.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Sure, I'll see ya in hell!


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure, I'll see ya in hell!


Wait a minute. I'm not in favor of killing anybody.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Right, you're just in favor of casting stones.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Garro said:


> So on another forum I visit there is a feminist that ALWAYS uses alternative spellings of woman/men such as "womyn" instead of "woman" or "Womin" I've even seen her spell person as "persyn".
> 
> Now, granted, I am a grammar Nazi so it hurts for me to read things like that as-is but I was wondering what the Womyn oops..I mean Women here feel about it? Do you do it, or know a Womin that does?



I'm a hubby of 15+ years, so this is my take on this.

There is a correct way to spell words. We all learned this graduating from high school and college, university and trades schools.

A grown adult woman, that is spelling these words like this is not professional, looks and sounds very illiterate and uneducated.

Words don't bother me. I don't care if someone says, there's a manhole cover, or that ship is a she, or woman, and the list goes on and on. These are just words after all.

I too am somewhat tighter on my grammar because I learned this from my college days and its stuck to this day.


If women feel they're not being treated equally to men, then do something positive, and constructive about it. I find it hard to believe that in today's modern western countries that women are still complaining about this or that. Go to a Muslim country or 3rd world country or India, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc. We know women aren't treated as equals there, so do something about it over there. Quit whining and complaining about trivial things over here like words.......really?!


I would chose not to have an abortion. My choice. As a God fearing man, abortion is wrong and murder, taking away the life of an unborn child. Would you like it if I decided to kill you off for some reason? No. We do have moral free will and everyone does have the right to have an abortion or not to have one. I don't agree or support that but everyone has the right to decide their own lives.

The day women can get pregnant without a man and sperm, is the day having an abortion is 100% their choice. As it stands today, it is both and mans and woman's decision together.


When you are married, you are not your own anymore. That means the hubby's body now belongs to his wife and the wife's body now belongs to her hubby.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

If I were single and ran into a woman like that, I'd be very grateful! That would be enough for me to stay far away from any possible entanglement.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, you're just in favor of casting stones.


So people who don't support abortion aren't good Christians? I think somebody needs some remedial Sunday school covering the Sixth Commandment.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lol...yeah, that's gonna happen.

You're free to believe whatever you want, dude. Just keep your laws off my body.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Lol...yeah, that's gonna happen.
> 
> You're free to believe whatever you want, dude. Just keep your laws off my body.


What I find curious is the political stance that your right to your body trumps your child's right to his body.

Now, if you believe the child isn't alive, then I understand your position. But if you believe that the child is alive, but you still have the right to murder him, then your position is morally repugnant. It is just as repugnant as the belief that a husband or father is justified in honor killing his wife/daughter.

And, as I said, science can't definitively establish that an unborn child isn't alive. So opinions on the issue are nothing more than opinions.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

You can take it up with the supreme court.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> You can take it up with the supreme court.


The same Supreme Court that has issued contradictory opinions over its entire history? Exactly when does one know that the justices have reached moral infallibility? I'm guessing it's when their decision matches your own beliefs.

Was the Dredd Scott decision the morally correct decision? Was the separate but equal doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson morally correct? Or was the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which overturned Plessy, correct?

Exactly how many biologists are on the Supreme Court? I believe that answer is zero. So, how do 9 lawyers deserve the distinction of deciding a moral and scientific question for millions of people?


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

How did thread turn into an abortion debate? 

Let's go back to the topic in hand. 
I disagree with the notion that this fictional trust fund Ph.D. candidate isn't oppressed. She's not as oppressed as women in Saudia Arabia for instance...but that doesn't actually change the fact that oppression still exists. 

This fictional woman can still be raped, she can **** shamed. She can't walk through a park or on the streets at night with out increasing the risk of being attacked. And if she is attacked at night, she is likely to be blamed. 

If she gets angry by something she is still likely to be told that she is over reacting or being sensitive. 

I mean, let's just take Hilary Clinton for instance. I think we can all agree that she is one of the least oppressed women in the world. And yet, people find it appropriate to use derogatory gender statements towards her...publicly. This is never done for male candidates. 

I mean let's just look at me...I am well educated white woman in the United States. 
I have a Master's degree, and make less than the mean that BT quoted for Master's educated people. 
I work in the public sector so at least I know I am making about the same as what the men make. But if I worked in the private sector I could count on making less then my male peers.

I have been sexually assaulted to many times to count. No I'm not talking about rape (mostly) I am talking about the day to day interactions. 
I've had my tits grabbed, my ass grabbed (and one guy even punched me in the stomach when I called him on it), as a teenager I was cornered on the bus by a man. I got rid of him by threatening to scream. But really, society has taught me not to make a scene, and that was once used against me in my early 20's to be coerced into having sex even though I said a firm "no." 

Am I traumatized by this? Not any more than any woman reading this. Because that is just what it's like to be a privileged woman in the U.S.. 

It's even worse if you are uneducated or a minority. 

Nope, not all men are oppressors. But all women have been oppressed.

Oh..and here's another form of depression. Telling me that I'm not oppressed. Turning a blind eye to the oppression is just another form.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

BlueWoman said:


> I mean, let's just take Hilary Clinton for instance. I think we can all agree that she is one of the least oppressed women in the world. And yet, people find it appropriate to use derogatory gender statements towards her...publicly. This is never done for male candidates.


Perhaps not about sex. But look at Obama. He's pilloried by his unsophisticated opponents for numerous things unrelated to job performance. It's just what one party does to the other. Sarah Palin faced sexism from liberals when she ran for vice president.



> I work in the public sector so at least I know I am making about the same as what the men make. But if I worked in the private sector I could count on making less then my male peers.


Not really. Common sense tells us that, if private employers could save significantly on labor costs by hiring an all-female workforce, they would do so. The pay gap myth is explained by the choices of employees. Women value vacation time more than men, so they're more likely to accept a lower salary in exchange for more time off. That kind of thing.



> But really, society has taught me not to make a scene, and that was once used against me in my early 20's to be coerced into having sex even though I said a firm "no."


That's sad. But we can move toward making the world safer for women without devolving into portraying women as emotionally fragile children incapable of dealing with life.



> Nope, not all men are oppressors. But all women have been oppressed.


Yeah, you lost me here. By whatever standard you're using to convince yourself that all women are oppressed, you can easily use the same standard to establish that all men are oppressed. And when all people are oppressed, then oppression ceases to exist.



> Oh..and here's another form of depression. Telling me that I'm not oppressed. Turning a blind eye to the oppression is just another form.


Well, that's certainly convenient. Can I also cite disagreement on the internet as a way that I'm oppressed?


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

BlueWoman said:


> How did thread turn into an abortion debate?
> 
> Let's go back to the topic in hand.
> I disagree with the notion that this fictional trust fund Ph.D. candidate isn't oppressed. She's not as oppressed as women in Saudia Arabia for instance...but that doesn't actually change the fact that oppression still exists.
> ...


^^^ :iagree::iagree::iagree:

Every woman I know has experienced something on this list, many on a day-to-day basis--even the most privileged of women.

Every woman.


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

> Perhaps not about sex. But look at Obama. He's pilloried by his unsophisticated opponents for numerous things unrelated to job performance. It's just what one party does to the other. Sarah Palin faced sexism from liberals when she ran for vice president.


Yep. Obama has definitely faced a great deal of racism. The existence of racism does not negate the existence of sexism.
And for Sarah Palin...absolutely she faced sexism as well. That just proves my point. 


> Not really. Common sense tells us that, if private employers could save significantly on labor costs by hiring an all-female workforce, they would do so. The pay gap myth is explained by the choices of employees. Women value vacation time more than men, so they're more likely to accept a lower salary in exchange for more time off. That kind of thing.


While there is something to be said that women make different choices which can explain some discrepancy. It doesn't explain difference in pay for the exact same job with the exact same benefits. And common sense really has nothing to do with misogyny and sexism. 



> That's sad. But we can move toward making the world safer for women without devolving into portraying women as emotionally fragile children incapable of dealing with life.


I don't think recognizing that woman are oppressed is the same thing as thinking they are emotionally fragile children. 



> Yeah, you lost me here.


Why doesn't that surprise me? I get it. Admitting that world isn't fair and that you got a better deal than me is probably uncomfortable. If you accept that, then you might have to examine how you participate in the status quo. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of being quiet just because it makes you uncomfortable and confused. 



> By whatever standard you're using to convince yourself that all women are oppressed, you can easily use the same standard to establish that all men are oppressed.


1. Not standard. Standards. There are lots of ways to be oppressed. 
2. Really when was the last time you made less money simply because you were a man? How many times have you been sexually assaulted? How often are you afraid of being sexually assaulted? Have you ever been ignored at the car dealership, because you didn't have a vagina? 


I don't really care how people spell woman/womyn. Language and spelling is fluid. That's why every year Webster adds new words. 

But conversations like this really remind me how pervasive misogyny is.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

BlueWoman said:


> I have been sexually assaulted to many times to count. No I'm not talking about rape (mostly) I am talking about the day to day interactions.
> I've had my tits grabbed, my ass grabbed...
> Am I traumatized by this? Not any more than any woman reading this. Because that is just what it's like to be a privileged woman in the U.S...
> 
> Nope, not all men are oppressors. But all women have been oppressed.


My wife "developed" early into a young lady and by the time she was 13 years old, she had already been sexually assaulted. She's very "built" so over the years she too has experienced what you've described.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

My oldest daughter was date-raped, and unfortunately didn't report it. She didn't even tell us until months afterwards. It took a long road of counseling before she was emotionally okay.

I still struggle with thoughts of killing the bastard.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

BlueWoman said:


> Yep. Obama has definitely faced a great deal of racism. The existence of racism does not negate the existence of sexism.
> And for Sarah Palin...absolutely she faced sexism as well. That just proves my point.


If your point is that prejudices exist and most people, perhaps all people, face them, then I agree. But the oppression isn't so great that these people haven't accomplished a great deal.



> While there is something to be said that women make different choices which can explain some discrepancy. It doesn't explain difference in pay for the exact same job with the exact same benefits. And common sense really has nothing to do with misogyny and sexism.


Actually, choices explain almost all of the difference in pay. The 23% pay gap figure that is most frequently cited includes all women against all men. It ignores the fact that men more frequently have higher paying jobs, like engineer, work longer hours, and accept fewer benefits, than women do. When men and women who have the same job, experience, hours, and everything else, as men, the pay gap practically disappears.

And common sense certainly isn't related to prejudice. But it is related to economics. And there's no company out there with more than a handful of employees that would willingly waste money on employing men versus women.



> I don't think recognizing that woman are oppressed is the same thing as thinking they are emotionally fragile children.


It depends on what one defines as oppression. If we're talking about not having access to education, no. If we're talking about micro-aggressions toward wealthy women, yes.



> Why doesn't that surprise me? I get it. Admitting that world isn't fair and that you got a better deal than me is probably uncomfortable. If you accept that, then you might have to examine how you participate in the status quo. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of being quiet just because it makes you uncomfortable and confused.


That's cute. To be fair, I have no idea whether the circumstances of my birth were luckier than yours, or not. And neither do you. To simply assume that, because you lack a Y chromosome, you've been mistreated by God is simply lazy thinking and wallowing in victim-hood.



> 1. Not standard. Standards. There are lots of ways to be oppressed.


Sure. There are so many ways to be oppressed that both sexes, and every nationality, culture, creed, religion, and lifestyle can be oppressed. Are we all having fun being victims yet?



> 2. Really when was the last time you made less money simply because you were a man?


I've already established that sex factors very little in wages.


> How many times have you been sexually assaulted?


By the legal definition of rape? Never. By your expanded definition of being groped, leered at, or made to feel uncomfortable? A fair number.



> But conversations like this really remind me how pervasive misogyny is.


Not to mention misandry and victim politics. It really is unfortunate.


----------



## MountainRunner (Dec 30, 2014)

GTdad said:


> My oldest daughter was date-raped, and unfortunately didn't report it. She didn't even tell us until months afterwards. It took a long road of counseling before she was emotionally okay.
> 
> *I still struggle with thoughts of killing the bastard.*


To be sure. You're a stronger man than I, I'll give you that my friend.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

These threads can go on for days and days like this....

So for any woman thinking they can get through to a man who holds these views, there's really no point. And all it does is give (a very small number of) men a chance to voice their misogyny...do we need more of that?

I'm all for ass kicking sisters, but ... everytime this type of thread comes up, we get no where except more battered.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

MountainRunner said:


> To be sure. You're a stronger man than I, I'll give you that my friend.


It's off-topic I imagine, but it feels "good" to talk about it: I still have kids at home, so I tried to plan it so I wouldn't get caught.

I'll tell you though, that kind of thinking puts you in a dark dark place that's hard to get out of.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> These threads can go on for days and days like this....
> 
> So for any woman thinking they can get through to a man who holds these views, there's really no point. And all it does is give (a very small number of) men a chance to voice their misogyny...do we need more of that?
> 
> I'm all for ass kicking sisters, but ... everytime this type of thread comes up, we get no where except more battered.


Is there a point there, other than that science and economics are misogynistic? :scratchhead:


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

GTdad said:


> It's off-topic I imagine, but it feels "good" to talk about it: I still have kids at home, so I tried to plan it so I wouldn't get caught.
> 
> I'll tell you though, that kind of thinking puts you in a dark dark place that's hard to get out of.


I sympathize for you. I hope you've mostly moved past the dark thoughts. But, let me know if you need a getaway driver.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

BlueWoman said:


> How did thread turn into an abortion debate?


Every thread talking about this type of subject gets turned into an abortion and/or rape thread. This on is well on it's way.

The threads are started for the pursose of entagonizing people.

You will not change the minds of those who believe that feminism is and women's rights are the core of all that is wrong with our society. It does not matter what you way. There will be a quick comeback that twists facts. Issues like rape and abortion are raised to move the topic off of women's rights. 

You are wasting your 'breath' here.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Every thread talking about this type of subject gets turned into an abortion and/or rape thread. This on is well on it's way.
> 
> The threads are started for the pursose of entagonizing people.
> 
> ...


Since I've become the most frequent debater on the thread, I assume a good bit of your thread is directed at me. So I'll correct you accordingly.

For the record, I didn't bring up rape, abortion, or the pay gap in order to move the topic off of anything. In fact, I didn't bring them up at all. I responded to others bringing those subjects up in a way that obviously isn't feminist-approved.

Also, I don't believe that feminism and/or women's rights are at the core of what is wrong with society. I simply rejected the practice of 21st century feminist slacktivism where first world women navel gaze about how oppressed they are because of sexist grammar and micro-aggressions.

If having a different religious belief than a feminist makes me a misogynist, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Although I feel obligated to point out that dismissing the religious beliefs of billions of people as misogynistic isn't really the best way to win friends and influence people. But maybe that's not what feminism is about. Maybe feminism has devolved to the point where it's about anger and oppressing dissent. That would explain a lot.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

(yawn....)


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

BronzeTorpedo said:


> Since I've become the most frequent debater on the thread, I assume a good bit of your thread is directed at me. So I'll correct you accordingly. .


Not everything is about you. There are many posters on this thread.


BronzeTorpedo said:


> For the record, I didn't bring up rape, abortion, or the pay gap in order to move the topic off of anything. In fact, I didn't bring them up at all. I responded to others bringing those subjects up in a way that obviously isn't feminist-approved.


Now where did I say that you brought those up?



BronzeTorpedo said:


> Also, I don't believe that feminism and/or women's rights are at the core of what is wrong with society. I simply rejected the practice of 21st century feminist slacktivism where first world women navel gaze about how oppressed they are because of sexist grammar and micro-aggressions.
> 
> 
> If having a different religious belief than a feminist makes me a misogynist, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Although I feel obligated to point out that dismissing the religious beliefs of billions of people as misogynistic isn't really the best way to win friends and influence people. But maybe that's not what feminism is about. Maybe feminism has devolved to the point where it's about anger and oppressing dissent. That would explain a lot.


The idea of a conversation is to exchange ideas, not shout the other person down and then to claim victimhood when the others in the conversation dare to disagree with you and/or choose to withdraw. Calling yourself a misogynist and trying to make it sound like others have is disingenuous to put it mildly.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

GTdad said:


> It's off-topic I imagine, but it feels "good" to talk about it: I still have kids at home, so I tried to plan it so I wouldn't get caught.
> 
> I'll tell you though, that kind of thinking puts you in a dark dark place that's hard to get out of.


Yes, agreed. It is a dark, dark place, and this is one reason why it's so important to channel the negativity into something positive: like, say, speaking out against a culture that would prefer to rug-sweep these problems.

Your daughter's reaction is very very common, for example, because women are taught that speaking out will only result in not being believed and/or being humiliated for "asking for it" then crying foul.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MountainRunner said:


> My wife "developed" early into a young lady and by the time she was 13 years old, she had already been sexually assaulted. She's very "built" so over the years she too has experienced what you've described.


Being "built" is irrelevant. It started for me when I was 9.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> (yawn....)


This micro-agression will not stand, man.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Not everything is about you. There are many posters on this thread.


Fair enough. I'll play the game. Without naming names, I'll simply say that some of the moderators on this thread are having trouble raising serious points.



> Now where did I say that you brought those up?


You stated, "Issues like rape and abortion are raised to move the topic off of women's rights." The fact is, always alone raised those issues. And I doubt she did so to move the topic off of women's rights. So, if you knew who raised the issues, you were wrong as to her motivation. If you believed that I raised them, you were wrong both as to the identity of the person who raised the issues, and my motivation. Take your pick.



> The idea of a conversation is to exchange ideas, not shout the other person down and then to claim victimhood when the others in the conversation dare to disagree with you and/or choose to withdraw.


I couldn't agree more. The fact that you haven't explicitly stated that I have done the above, coupled with the fact that I haven't done it, leads me to believe that you're talking about somebody else. So, the people who can't acknowledge dissent and run from debate should definitely stop.



> Calling yourself a misogynist and trying to make it sound like others have is disingenuous to put it mildly.


To be fair, Faithful Wife called me, and apparently whomever else disagrees with her, misogynists. So, is it disingenuous to respond to personal attacks?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)




----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

As the song goes, "You say it best when you say nothing at all."


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)




----------



## Alrighty then (Apr 29, 2015)

I think they are investing energy into something angry and negative and that is not someone I want to be around so I move along comfortable with my decision to keep looking for others to spend time with without a shred of doubt about my decision


----------



## BronzeTorpedo (Dec 17, 2014)

Here's a good one.


----------

