# Is feminism misunderstood?



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I don't have a lot of time to write this but I wanted to throw it out there while it was fresh in my mind. 

_Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending 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 advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]_

Why/when has the word turned into man hating, selfish women who are bad spouses?

I feel like there should be a different word for the negative ideas some people label as feminist because it just confuses things and makes a group of people with good intentions look bad. 

For the ladies
Do you consider yourself a feminist?


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't have a lot of time to write this but I wanted to throw it out there while it was fresh in my mind.
> 
> _Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending 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 advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]_
> 
> *Why/when has the word turned into man hating, selfish women who are bad spouses?*
> 
> I feel like there should be a different word for the negative ideas some people label as feminist because it just confuses things and makes a group of people with good intentions look bad.
> 
> For the ladies
> Do you consider yourself a feminist?


Much like other social movements, there are those, often a small minority of members in the movement who twist the ideals to the extreme, and are very vocal about it. The "vocal minority" if you will.

They often do not reflect the majority view of the movement, but because their behavior is so extreme, they are the ones who get the attention, and the movement becomes attached to the behaviors and views of the extremists, with the end result of lowering the credibility of the movement and group.

This is nothing new at all. Some recent examples from the United States are the NRA, liberalism, Westboro Baptist Church, the Tea Party...


----------



## Almostrecovered

it has a lot to do with the polarization of politics and how opposing sides will often resort to name calling and labeling to generate an emotional response rather than engaging in rational and thoughtful debate to generate a logical response


----------



## Mr.Fisty

I am a male feminist, and believe both sexes should be treated the same. In politics, work, education, society, court, and within family structure. There are certain feminist that I don't like, and unfortunately, some women whom call themselves follow. I forgot her name, but a feminist blogger and her followers believes that a woman has a right to choose her sperm donor, and she has the right to choose what man she wants to raise that child. She wants to ban paternity testing. There are certain things in society that are more leniant towards women. Like family court, if a man and woman got into a physical altercation, he is more likely to face charges, in criminal court, women are punished less, women have an right to abortion, and men don't get a say if they are a father or not. If he doesn't, then he should be able to sign his rights away. A woman can give a child up for adoption. I would be happy, if everyone in society were treated the same. Not just women, but all racial groups, and gays, lesbians, and transgendered people, also all religious and non-religious groups. I forgot about social standing too.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> Much like other social movements, there are those, often a small minority of members in the movement who twist the ideals to the extreme, and are very vocal about it. The "vocal minority" if you will.
> 
> They often do not reflect the majority view of the movement, but because their behavior is so extreme, they are the ones who get the attention, and the movement becomes attached to the behaviors and views of the extremists, with the end result of lowering the credibility of the movement and group.
> 
> This is nothing new at all. Some recent examples from the United States are the NRA, liberalism, Westboro Baptist Church, the Tea Party...


I agree, and some groups are able to separate themselves for the bad apples easier than others. I've been seeing more and more anti-"feminism" around lately, it seems to be everywhere. Maybe I just didn't notice it as much before.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I am in agreement with Samyeagars Logic ...I also feel everything Mr.Fisty laid out was very sound...and reasonable....

I am a woman who feels MEN Have *every right *to have a paternity test -if his name is going on that paper to support for the next 18 yrs.. at the very least a man has the right to know his blood is running through the veins of that baby....how any woman would fight this boggles my mind.. and I would question her motives.

Some Good questions / Debates online to hear opposing viewpoints for various thoughts on Feminism... these are taken from "Debate.org" where it has the page split to read the *FOR* Vs * against *... I could list 100 more but I think I will stop...pick your poison & read how others feel...



> Do you think that if the name was changed from Feminism to Gender Equality people would quit confusing it with male hating?
> 
> Are women taking feminism too far?
> 
> Are feminists ruining feminism?
> 
> Has feminism failed working-class women?
> 
> Have feminists emasculated men? |
> 
> Is feminism sexist?.... Is Western feminism a sexist ideology?|
> 
> Is the idea of feminism sexist in that it, unfairly, gives female issues much higher priority than male issues?
> 
> Feminism: Does feminism address the right issues for women?
> 
> Do we need a new word for Feminism? |
> 
> Do men need feminism?  .... Should all men be feminists?
> 
> Is feminism good for women AND men?
> 
> Do you think feminism is hurting men? (Chivalry is not a concept introduced by feminism.)
> 
> Does feminism make chivalry obsolete?
> 
> Don't You Think "Feminism" is Another Excuse For Women To Try To Be Sexist Towards Men?
> 
> Do you think feminists have played a role in the moral destruction if America?
> 
> Is feminism wrong?
> 
> Has feminism destroyed the family?
> 
> Is feminism still relevant?


----------



## soccermom2three

No I don't think feminism is misunderstood but I think feminism misunderstands that men and women are different. Physically, mentally and emotionally.


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am in agreement with Samyeagars Logic ...I also feel everything Mr.Fisty laid out was very sound...and reasonable....
> 
> I am a woman who feels *MEN Have every right to have a paternity test -*if his name is going on that paper to support for the next 18 yrs.. at the very least a man has the right to know his blood is running through the veins of that baby....how any woman would fight this boggles my mind.. and I would question her motives.
> 
> Some Good questions / Debates online to hear opposing viewpoints for various thoughts on Feminism... these are taken from "Debate.org" where it has the page split to read the *FOR* Vs * against *... I could list 100 more but I think I will stop...pick your poison & read how others feel...


Tangent here...but my thoughts are that a positive paternity test be legally required before a man can be listed as the father on a birth certificate.


----------



## Anon Pink

I am a feminist. 

Yes, there are some ideas within the feminist community that are not palatable to most. Feminists believe that marginalizing dialogue because it is disagreed with is tantamount to doing to women what patriarchal societies have done to all women, so they continue to engage with the fringe thinkers.

Think of it as the GOP not backing away from the idiot law makers who are pushing personhood bills in various state legislatures. Highly unpalatable idea to most within the GOP but they do not back away from supporting ideas which fit their basic tenant of being anti choice.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> *Tangent here...but my thoughts are that a positive paternity test be legally required before a man can be listed as the father on a birth certificate*.


I agree with this and should had stated it such.. MY BAD.. the most trusting giving men are more likely to be the ones who get taken ...and end up raising another's child....this is one of the deepest betrayals ever. 

I watched a 20/20 yrs ago..just never forgot it... my blood was boiling.. this H NEVER suspected ... ends up 2 of his 3 kids was to another man.... only because of a rare helath issue (I forget) in one of the kids did this come to light... with the Fathers blood/ dna being tested....he couldn't do anything about this.. his name was on those Birth certificates and the state doesn't care, so long as someone is responsible... while her lover gets off scott free...

Just imagining being in HIS shoes... this should never EVER happen.. they give how many blood tests to these babies when they are born, but not this one.. I just don't understand it....


----------



## Miss Taken

I struggle with labels. Once you label yourself anything people will have preconceived notions about what you stand for. I tend to be in the middle of the road on most issues. So I don't call myself a feminist but I have some feminist values. On the other hand, I don't call myself a traditionalist (is that such a term) but some of my beliefs/choices come from old fashioned values. Wouldn't say I'm a hypocrite just full of contrast. 

Anywho, I do think that feminism has become the other "F" word because as stated above, there are extremists in any group, they tend to be vocal... I'd add and *LOUD*. I have heard and read things under the shroud of feminism that I just think are perverse or misandrist and turn my stomach as the mother of sons. Still, point me to any cause or movement and I will find you a few noisy nut-jobs. Muslims have their jihandists, Christians have their Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz and like them, animal lovers have their animal-killing PETA vegans etc.

However, there are also more reasoned voices out there who are fighting for the things that I think feminism...heck, anyone who cares about humans in general SHOULD fight for. Things like education for women and girls in third-world or traditionally patriarchal countries, the ability to use birth control, putting an end to FGM, equal pay for equal work etc. For those truly fighting for equality I stand behind them 100%, not the wackadoos with bad agendas.


----------



## Fozzy

Same reason Occupy Wall Street is represented by the guy pooping on a cop car and the NRA is represented by the Michigan Militia.

Eventually the crazies show up and ruin it for everybody.


----------



## Fozzy

Almostrecovered said:


> it has a lot to do with the polarization of politics and how opposing sides will often resort to name calling and labeling to generate an emotional response rather than engaging in rational and thoughtful debate to generate a logical response


Help me out here--I can't find the punchline.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Too bad that it is not the reasonable people whose voices are heard. This is how the misconception happens. People who are extreme, making it out more than it should be. It is usually the few that twist the ideals for which it originally stood for. I think that I do prefer the gender equality tag more. It makes it more ambivalent, more inclusive.


----------



## ocotillo

The problem with all human movements regardless of whether they are political, social, or religious is that the organizations that spring up around them eventually acquire a life of their own.

*ALL* human organizations eventually attack and destroy the ideals upon which they were founded.

I know that sounds horribly pessimistic. There are far too many historical examples though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree, and some groups are able to separate themselves for the bad apples easier than others. I've been seeing more and more anti-"feminism" around lately, it seems to be everywhere. Maybe I just didn't notice it as much before.


I only see anti-feminism here. I had no idea there was so much of it until I came here.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
wow - almost everyone on this thread is completely reasonable.

In addition to what has already been mentioned, I think that sometimes "equality" is not as easy to define as people wish. There are some tough questions (where I don't have a simple opinion):

There are statistically significant differences in physical abilities for men and women - should there be different physical tests for the military or emergency services?

In remote military operations should women share restrooms and showers with men? (before you say yes - picture the awkwardness son all sides of a naked women showering with a bunch of naked 20-year-olds)

In industries that have traditionally had a "crude" culture - oil rig workers for example - should the culture change when women join?

If there is a large gender imbalance in an industry, should the entrance requirements be adjusted to try to compensate?



In my workplace I do everything I can think of to treat women and men equally. Even then it can be tricky: Imagine a reception for a conference. There are a dozen men, and one woman, each standing alone. Who do you walk up to and start talking? This is normal business networking - but can also look like you are hitting on the woman if you walk up to her. Its not simple.


----------



## ocotillo

A NOW representative was playfully asked by a local Phoenix radio talk show host if she thought there should an equivalent to, Bring Your Daughter To Work Day for little boys. 

Her exact words were, 

"No. Learning what it's like to be excluded is the best lesson for the little bastards."​
My jaw was in my lap. Anti-feminism is on the rise, but in some respects, it is a self inflicted wound.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Tangent here...but my thoughts are that a positive paternity test be legally required before a man can be listed as the father on a birth certificate.


IF it is legally required, then the government will need to pay for it. Is this what you want your taxes to go for?


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> A NOW representative was playfully asked by a local Phoenix radio talk show host if she thought there should an equivalent to, Bring Your Daughter To Work Day for little boys.
> 
> Her exact words were,
> 
> "No. Learning what it's like to be excluded is the best lesson for the little bastards."​
> My jaw was in my lap. Anti-feminism is on the rise, but in some respects, it is a self inflicted wound.


So let's see. The entire idea of women having equal rights deserved to be rejected/attacked because one stupid, very stupide, woman mad a profoundly stupid, rude remark?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh c'mon now Octillo...shall we now start to recount the horrible, evil, cruel and violent things various men have said about women over the years and how our jaws dropped?


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> There are statistically significant differences in physical abilities for men and women - should there be different physical tests for the military or emergency services?


The tests should fit the job and should be the same test for anyone who wants to fill the job.
If a person is a clerk typist in the Army, male or female, they are not required to carry an 85 lb pack and their weapon. But someone in a combat MOS is. If the tests for combat MOSs is too hard for 95% of the women, so be it. The job dictates what’s needed.


richardsharpe said:


> In remote military operations should women share restrooms and showers with men? (before you say yes - picture the awkwardness son all sides of a naked women showering with a bunch of naked 20-year-olds)


There can be separate accommodations for men and women. It’s not a big deal.


richardsharpe said:


> In industries that have traditionally had a "crude" culture - oil rig workers for example - should the culture change when women join?


No, the culture does not need to change. Not all women are delicate flowers who wither at the utterance of foul language. Some are raunchier then the average man. Let women who want to work in this environment work in it as long as they can handle it physically.


richardsharpe said:


> If there is a large gender imbalance in an industry, should the entrance requirements be adjusted to try to compensate?


It depends on the reason for the imbalance. If it’s just that it’s preferred by one gender or the other then leave it be. If it’s because people on one gendered are discouraged or outright blocked from joining that industry, yes, something can be done to rectify that.




richardsharpe said:


> In my workplace I do everything I can think of to treat women and men equally. Even then it can be tricky: Imagine a reception for a conference. There are a dozen men, and one woman, each standing alone. Who do you walk up to and start talking? This is normal business networking - but can also look like you are hitting on the woman if you walk up to her. Its not simple.


Now that’s nonsense. It’s a business environment. Talk to whomever you want. You can draw more people into the conversation if you want. I’ve seen this used very often to exclude women.

Also, if this is the case, then I guess gay men had better only talk to women in these circumstance, right?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Miss Taken said:


> I struggle with labels. Once you label yourself anything people will have preconceived notions about what you stand for. I tend to be in the middle of the road on most issues. So I don't call myself a feminist but I have some feminist values. On the other hand, I don't call myself a traditionalist (is that such a term) but some of my beliefs/choices come from old fashioned values. Wouldn't say I'm a hypocrite just full of contrast.
> 
> Anywho, I do think that feminism has become the other "F" word because as stated above, there are extremists in any group, they tend to be vocal... I'd add and *LOUD*. I have heard and read things under the shroud of feminism that I just think are perverse or misandrist and turn my stomach as the mother of sons. Still, point me to any cause or movement and I will find you a few noisy nut-jobs. Muslims have their jihandists, Christians have their Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz and like them, animal lovers have their animal-killing PETA vegans etc.
> 
> However, there are also more reasoned voices out there who are fighting for the things that I think feminism...heck, anyone who cares about humans in general SHOULD fight for. Things like education for women and girls in third-world or traditionally patriarchal countries, the ability to use birth control, putting an end to FGM, equal pay for equal work etc. For those truly fighting for equality I stand behind them 100%, not the wackadoos with bad agendas.


Explained very well Miss Taken....







... I hope you are not embarrassed by the likes of me, a self proclaimed older fashioned Traditionalist likes your post...I call myself a conservative sometimes too...(but I like porn so that kinda makes me a little screwed up) 

On another thread days ago, another poster, Independentgirl was using the word "*Traditional"* / *Older fashioned*.. in a very UGLY way...she associated those terms with her controlling Mother / RACISTS parents... 

Now I found THAT offensive...as when I use such words, ugliness / hate / rigid control is the furthest thing from my mind...I feel the warmth of My Grandmother (a stable in my younger life)... the example of long lasting marriages, courtship, men respecting women, 2 working together, good neighbors.. a slower less materialistic society... 

So truly.. when talking with others, on this forum.. depending on where one is coming from...or how they have associated such words with their personal experiences....well.. it can cause some misunderstandings... then on top of all of this.. we all have differing beliefs, values...how we envision the ideal marriage.. or life plan... 

Many today readily admit "who needs Marriage...it's a dying institution.... it's just a piece of paper"- I think it would be statistically accurate for a Feminist to say this more so than a Traditionalist .. am I wrong ?

I wonder how many women who stay at Home, enjoying the mothering role.. simple as it may be...(wtih a man who prefers she be in the home) would call themselves Feminists?? .... do we see any articles on this?? I haven't... but I've read plenty who give this attitude.. "It's not the 1940's anymore....thhhannnkkk GOD!"... as if anything from that time could've had any redeeming value.. .where I can still gleam some good. 

I left this on another post earlier..if i am going to take a Label, it's gonna be this one...



> *Simplyamorous said*: I will call myself an Egalitarian...I find it less offensive and less likely to cause division...
> 
> I support equal opportunities / representation of genders. I oppose discrimination ...I would not support sexism or anything that could reasonably be described as the denigration of one gender by another.
> 
> Yet I feel we have differences which need to be mutually understood & respected..that we have far more in common by virtue of our shared humanity & this should be celebrated.
> 
> Going by the dictionary definition ...
> *feminism * = “*doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women*.”
> 
> The same dictionary also gives the following definition of an *egalitarian:* “*of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.*”
> 
> These 2 positions may not appear to be all that different. Seems almost the same...so why aren't more women adopting this label then...since they disagree with the radicals anyway ??
> 
> Now some may feel "Egalitarians are against traditional gender roles.”..so I have read ....goodness.. I guess I have an easier time trying to defend an Egalitarian mindset over a feminist one...


----------



## hookares

Now that I am single I have grown to appreciate women who like to push the feminist movement. It makes it easier for me to walk away from any kind of mistaken relationship before I can end up on the Dr. "Feel" show listening to the complaints.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> So let's see. The entire idea of women having equal rights deserved to be rejected/attacked because one stupid, very stupide, woman mad a profoundly stupid, rude remark?


_Reductio ad absurdum_

Not at all, EleGirl. This goes straight back to my observation about human movements. (Which is actually not mine; It was made by people like Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) soon after WWII.)

People that gravitate to the upper echelons of political, social and religious movements and become movers and shakers within them tend to be unbalanced. Sad, but true. And then the entire movement gets judged by what they do and say.

I understand that this was just one person who was probably having a very bad day. On a human level that's forgivable. But you can't say things like that while you are wearing the mantle of spokesperson for your organization. People will remember it. It will leave a bad taste in their mouths for all time to come.

This is not a singular example. That male feminists were driven out of the movement is documented and two that I'm aware of have written books about it.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> IF it is legally required, then the government will need to pay for it. Is this what you want your taxes to go for?


Why would the government need to pay for it? Pretty much every other legal document where proof of identity is required to be listed on it, it is the responsibility of the person on it.

And if the government opted to pay for it, sure, I'd be all for taxes paying for it.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Why would the government need to pay for it? Pretty much every other legal document where proof of identity is required to be listed on it, it is the responsibility of the person on it.
> 
> And if the government opted to pay for it, sure, I'd be all for taxes paying for it.


For proof of identity we go to a notary who looks at our ID and then notarizes that our id agrees that we are the person indicated and the person signing.

A DNA test cost money. A lot of people already have their child's birth paid on the government's dime. So now the gov will also be forking up the $$ to prove paternity.


----------



## ConanHub

I have found the term and differing motivations behind it very confusing. I pretty much ignore the term and try to listen to ideas.

Is there an opposite of feminism?

I personally find the term a bit polarizing. I don't like being so separated from half the human race.

Is there a masculism equivalent? I like understanding differences in the sexes but we are not separate.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ConanHub said:


> Is there an opposite of feminism?


Yes.. the term is 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.

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



> A movement which began in the 90's over concerns with men's rights. Masculists believe in equality for men in areas where they are currently not receiving equal rights or are unfairly treated and stereotyped. Masculists also believe women can be just as guilty of stereotyping men and discriminating them based purely on sex, as men are of women (See: Misandrist/ Misandry). The movement has grown rapidly in recent years with many women and indeed feminists agreeing with some or all of its core principles.
> 
> Masculists argue men are negatively portrayed in the media and rubbish certain radical feminist claims that 'the majority of men have the potential to be rapists' or the portrayal that men are violent and are always the aggressors in conflicts and that women are victims and that any violence from women is a result of male abuse. They state that depictions of violence towards men in the media is seen as humorous, yet is taken more seriously when the abuse is directed at women.
> 
> They also address other issues regarding men’s rights in areas where they are discriminated such as child custody, health expenditure, insurance costs, spousal abuse perpetrated against males by females and rape of males by females both not being taken seriously, male genital mutilation (circumcision) being socially accepted in many countries as opposed to female genital mutilation and other concerns such as suicide rates amongst men, education and employment and further criticisms of the media such as lack of positive reinforcement and role-models for young boys in the media, while presentation of positive female figures is a large aspect of much of the media.


----------



## Fozzy

ocotillo said:


> The problem with all human movements regardless of whether they are political, social, or religious is that the organizations that spring up around them eventually acquire a life of their own.
> 
> *ALL* human organizations eventually attack and destroy the ideals upon which they were founded.
> 
> I know that sounds horribly pessimistic. There are far too many historical examples though.


The Shriners. amirite?


----------



## techmom

I consider myself a feminist. However, there are men, especially on tam, who have had bad experiences with women and don't see anything wrong with how things were before all of this feminism. Most of the time, these men blame the society at large for their problems. These men tend to pick the wrong women for the wrong reasons.

I say, don't blame all women because the women who you are attracted to tend to be selfish, lazy and unappreciative of you. Same thing with women who constantly seem to hook up with abusive men. I know some IRL, it is like watching train wreck after train wreck. Some of these women tend to be angry at men, but they shouldn't be.

The most unfortunate thing is when these two types meet.


----------



## Personal

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't have a lot of time to write this but I wanted to throw it out there while it was fresh in my mind.
> 
> _Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending 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 advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]_
> 
> Why/when has the word turned into man hating, selfish women who are bad spouses?
> 
> I feel like there should be a different word for the negative ideas some people label as feminist because it just confuses things and makes a group of people with good intentions look bad.
> 
> For the ladies
> Do you consider yourself a feminist?


Although not a lady, I can relate that my wife was a politically active feminist collective organiser through the 1990's.

My wife also has a sizeable library of feminist literature amongst other collections as well. Which I suppose contrasts quite starkly with my sizeable library of military history literature amongst other collections.

Today my wife is no longer involved in any feminist activity politically, yet she still considers herself a feminist, yet that doesn't mean she agrees or has always agreed with everything that is published or promulgated by other feminists.

As to the idea that feminists are man hating, selfish women who are bad spouses. All I can relate is that in my experience I have found that the feminist I married loves man, isn't selfish and is a great spouse.

I will also add that some of her feminist friends also seem to have some very happy marriages.

As to why/when? I think it's fair to say such opinion has been expressed throughout the existence of feminism and the suffragette movement.


----------



## ConanHub

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. the term is 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.
> 
> Masculism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thank you!


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening elegirl
I think some of these are tough - and interesting:

Often the physical requirements were designed more as a "marker" for fitness than a real requirements. Also sometimes the job requirements were designed for men - an ammo box might be designed to be a weight that a fit man can comfortably move. While a fighter plane ****pit is larger than needed for the average female pilot.


The mix of socializing and gender at work IS tough. I've seen a number of complaints here from both men and women about their partners having lunch with opposite gender coworkers. Personally I invite everyone, male or female - but for some people it is a big issue. 





EleGirl said:


> The tests should fit the job and should be the same test for anyone who wants to fill the job.
> If a person is a clerk typist in the Army, male or female, they are not required to carry an 85 lb pack and their weapon. But someone in a combat MOS is. If the tests for combat MOSs is too hard for 95% of the women, so be it. The job dictates what’s needed.
> 
> There can be separate accommodations for men and women. It’s not a big deal.
> 
> No, the culture does not need to change. Not all women are delicate flowers who wither at the utterance of foul language. Some are raunchier then the average man. Let women who want to work in this environment work in it as long as they can handle it physically.
> 
> It depends on the reason for the imbalance. If it’s just that it’s preferred by one gender or the other then leave it be. If it’s because people on one gendered are discouraged or outright blocked from joining that industry, yes, something can be done to rectify that.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that’s nonsense. It’s a business environment. Talk to whomever you want. You can draw more people into the conversation if you want. I’ve seen this used very often to exclude women.
> 
> Also, if this is the case, then I guess gay men had better only talk to women in these circumstance, right?


----------



## ocotillo

Fozzy said:


> The Shriners. amirite?


I don't know anything about Shriners, Freemasons, Illuminati or space aliens. 

What I had in mind is mainstream stuff that is easily documentable. 

As a simple example, there were a whole slew of Protestant denominations that sprang up in the U.S. during the 19th century that soundly condemned Catholicism because of the _ex cathedra_ authority of the Pope. Almost every single one of them eventually established governing bodies of their own with every bit as much authority over the rank and file. 

There was a famous speech in 1947 by a member of British Parliament about this phenomenon. 

"We may see this process at work in many fields. Let us take one or two by way of illustration. In the field of religion, a prophet, an inspired man, will see a vision of truth..... Upon what his disciples understand of the prophet's message, an organization, a church will be built....Before long, the principal concern of the church will be *to sustain itself as an organization*. To this end, any departure from the creed must be controverted and, if necessary, suppressed as heresy. In a few score or a few hundred years what was conceived as a vehicle of a new and higher truth has become a prison for the souls of men. And men are murdering each other for the love of God. The thing has become its opposite." (Emphasis mine)

Political and social movements work exactly the same way: 

"Similar illustrations could be drawn from all fields of life. But these two will suffice to demonstrate the truth with which I am here concerned. It is that, the idea having given birth to the organization, the organization develops a self-interest which has no connection with and becomes inimical to, the idea with which it began. "​


----------



## Faithful Wife

Personal said:


> Although not a lady, I can relate that my wife was a politically active feminist collective organiser through the 1990's.
> 
> My wife also has a sizeable library of feminist literature amongst other collections as well. Which I suppose contrasts quite starkly with my sizeable library of military history literature amongst other collections.
> 
> Today my wife is no longer involved in any feminist activity politically, yet she still considers herself a feminist, yet that doesn't mean she agrees or has always agreed with everything that is published or promulgated by other feminists.
> 
> As to the idea that feminists are man hating, selfish women who are bad spouses. All I can relate is that in my experience I have found that the feminist I married loves man, isn't selfish and is a great spouse.
> 
> I will also add that some of her feminist friends also seem to have some very happy marriages.
> 
> As to why/when? I think it's fair to say such opinion has been expressed throughout the existence of feminism and the suffragette movement.


Personal, do you think Australia is more or less progressive in feminist terms than other countries? I am curious. The only knowledge I have of that part of your culture comes from my one friend who lived there for a couple of years, and you and Lyris.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConanHub said:


> I have found the term and differing motivations behind it very confusing. I pretty much ignore the term and try to listen to ideas.
> 
> Is there an opposite of feminism?
> 
> I personally find the term a bit polarizing. I don't like being so separated from half the human race.
> 
> Is there a masculism equivalent? I like understanding differences in the sexes but we are not separate.


Sadly, I do not think masculism is the word you are looking for. That is what the MRAholes call themsevles. I'm pretty sure you aren't wired that way.

A better word might be egalitarian. 

One of the jabs I've heard from anti-feminists (and others) is that they feel feminists either think women are superior, OR they think that "men and women should be exactly the same". I've never known any feminist who believed either of these things, yet the jabs continue from the peanut gallery.

However, egalitarian should not be confused with thinking men and women should be exactly the same, either. Equal does not equal "same". It means all humans should have equal rights.

Egalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## unbelievable

Like a few other otherwise rational ideas, feminism has been hijacked by radicals steeped in Marxism. They seem to be more interested in furthering the politics of the Left than they are in elevating women in general. Not sure when the transfer took place but they were firmly in bed with the Left by the time Bill Clinton took office and was accused of numerous offenses against women...including rape. Can you imagine a Republican White House having staff designated to deal with "Bimbo Eruptions"? How sexist is that? Did Slick Willy get chastised by feminists? Hardly. Has Palin or Rice received lots of support from feminists? Your team aligned itself with a very specific political ideology and lots it's original message and it's original credibility.


----------



## unbelievable

Old school feminism placed a great deal of emphasis on personal responsibility. A woman can work with that and succeed. The newer version being taught portrays women as victims and men as the oppressors. That message actually encourages feelings of helplessness and outrage and the theme is that deliverance can only be achieved through political victory for your team and the destruction of the opposition. The simple fact is that women can and do succeed every day in this country. Laws don't change opinions but performance does.


----------



## Buddy400

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> _Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending 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 advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]_


I agree with all three of those principles.

Almost everybody does.

However, many more controversial things are said by people calling themselves feminists. 

If feminists want feminism to have a more positive image, they need to call out the radicals and focus on the goals identified above. 

There has been a lot of coverage lately about young college women not identifying as feminist, so it's not just some "male rage" thing.


----------



## Personal

richardsharpe said:


> There are statistically significant differences in physical abilities for men and women - should there be different physical tests for the military or emergency services?
> 
> In remote military operations should women share restrooms and showers with men? (before you say yes - picture the awkwardness son all sides of a naked women showering with a bunch of naked 20-year-olds)





EleGirl said:


> The tests should fit the job and should be the same test for anyone who wants to fill the job.
> If a person is a clerk typist in the Army, male or female, they are not required to carry an 85 lb pack and their weapon. But someone in a combat MOS is. If the tests for combat MOSs is too hard for 95% of the women, so be it. The job dictates what’s needed.
> 
> There can be separate accommodations for men and women. It’s not a big deal.
> 
> No, the culture does not need to change. Not all women are delicate flowers who wither at the utterance of foul language. Some are raunchier then the average man. Let women who want to work in this environment work in it as long as they can handle it physically.


In early 2004 I recall being on a training exercise with my Army unit. When I had to drag a female Intelligence Officer who was an exercise PW, up and down reentrants and rocky hills at a fast pace for a number of kilometres at night in the dark. While she was blind folded, cable tied around her wrists, and towed by a toggle rope. At the pace we were moving it was difficult enough for me and my shins while I was afforded the luxury of using the latest Gen 3 monocular night vision device to see where I was going.

She really got smashed on that walk, and was cut and bruised by rocks and tree alike, yet despite being asked if she would like to stop (No Duff). She made it clear inclusive of expletives that she would go to the end. Those of us who were ex infantry were very impressed by her stamina, strength, resolve and resilience.

When I was in Light Infantry and even Mechanised Infantry it was not uncommon for me to regularly carry between 55kg (121lb) and 65kg (143lb) worth of equipment inclusive of rations, shelter, entrenching tool, water, ammunition, pyrotechnics, radio and or batteries, armour plus rifle or machine gun (depending on my role) and sometimes pistol as well. This also sometimes saw me loaded with things like the 84mm MDFSW (think 15kg anti armour weapon), all carried on foot over long distances. Sure we would sometimes get helicopter rides etc, but that ride almost always meant a long walk afterwards.

That said, there are lots of men in the Army who don't handle such before mentioned loads and aren't required to be able to demonstrate such strength in any of the duties they perform. Except for being an instructor for recruit training until I went to Intelligence I had little experience working with women in the army. I now consider myself fortunate to have worked with some exceptionally gifted, and very clever women with tremendous physical abilities.

If I could do what I did as a 55kg 5'3" tall man, I've no doubt there are some women who can do it as well.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> If feminists want feminism to have a more positive image, they need to call out the radicals and focus on the goals identified above.


They do. Women who actually have those radical views are rare. 

I've seen/heard exactly 0 women who actually have those views yet in every argument there will be the story of some feminist who hated men, never worked and took all their money and all that. The stories get spread, embellished, etc and they get tied into feminism when really she was a lazy woman who happened to also identify as feminist. If she was also a vegetarian we wouldn't blame that. 

Saying you believe in equal rights/opportunities for women but aren't a feminist is the same as saying I believe every woman should have a legal choice to have an abortion.... but I'm not pro-choice. Those people are bad. 

I've seen those college girl pics. Most of them just don't understand what feminism means, others have valid points that are actually addressed by feminism ("I don't need feminism because I have the right to vote" :scratchhead and some are just strange.


----------



## Buddy400

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I've seen/heard exactly 0 women who actually have those views yet in every argument there will be the story of some feminist who hated men, never worked and took all their money and all that. The stories get spread, embellished, etc and they get tied into feminism when really she was a lazy woman who happened to also identify as feminist.


I've heard lots of radical feminists saying things that I find anti-male and offensive.

I've heard exactly 0 stories about women who never worked, took all the man's money and it was blamed on her being a feminist (the last thing I'd expect from a feminist would be for her to not work and take all my money).

I read/see things from a viewpoint that says men are under attack in today's culture. You, no doubt, read/see things from a viewpoint where women are under attack in today's culture. Everything that supports our view is seen as proof we're right and anything that goes against it is ignored. It's confirmation bias. I'd would be nice if we could have in depth conversations about these things and try to gain a better understanding of each others perspective. I try to do that, really. In person, it's occasionally possible. But, on the internet it would be a miracle.


----------



## FrenchFry

Buddy400 said:


> I've heard exactly 0 stories about women who never worked, took all the man's money and it was blamed on her being a feminist (the last thing I'd expect from a feminist would be for her to not work and take all my money).


There is a thread in General Relationships which is pretty much essentially this.


----------



## Personal

unbelievable said:


> Like a few other otherwise rational ideas, feminism has been hijacked by radicals steeped in Marxism. They seem to be more interested in furthering the politics of the Left than they are in elevating women in general.


My wife experienced this in the 1990's, although she tends to (not always) lean left politically, she was far from impressed by a particular marxist group that was always trying to influence the agenda of the collective she belonged to. Since they were bent on furthering their own political ends with little to no regard for women's issues at all.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I read a lot about men being treated unfairly, mainly in divorce situations. I fully support change in that area and feel badly for men who get hurt by the system. 

But keep in mind that many of these systems (female custody, alimony) were set up because women were seen as SAH, don't work, can't support themselves and men were not seen as being nurturing figures. The system is already changing because of the changes made to allow women the opportunities to support themselves.
IMO child custody should be as equal as possible and alimony/child support is dependent on individual circumstance (like a couple who chooses a SAHP)

FTR
Feminists have spoken out against viewing men as uncaring or a lesser parent, you can google the oppositions to phrases like "be a man" or picture of their sons with a new phrase "like a boy" which was prompted by the "like a girl" video for example.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> Personal, do you think Australia is more or less progressive in feminist terms than other countries? I am curious. The only knowledge I have of that part of your culture comes from my one friend who lived there for a couple of years, and you and Lyris.


I don't know.

Historically Australian women had the vote before the United States and or Britain although New Zealand beat Australia to bragging rights for women's suffrage.

Probably the best way to explain it, is to say where most Australians live, there is a lot that is in common with the more liberal American states and or cities. Australia politically tends to be split down the middle and is more wedded to socialist ideals like Britain and or Canada compared with the United States. That said, I don't think Australia is always as egalitarian or class unconscious as it likes to claim.

Yet we have our own fair share of violence against women and attitudes towards women that are less than stellar as well.

Growing up here in the 70's and 80's I never felt a push for or against feminism at school, in the community or within my family. I don't think a lot of people spend much time dwelling on it.

That said, except for my father who is rather meek, his side of the family has generations of lots of successful and strong women & men (there are plenty of books about some of them in the English speaking world as well). So whenever we did family events, it was the norm that women were equal to men as it had evidently always been.


----------



## unbelievable

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> They do. Women who actually have those radical views are rare.
> 
> I'm sure you're right, but whenever the media wants to get a feminist's viewpoint, they trot out NOW or someone from their homely stable of radicals. Controversy sells and reasonableness doesn't. The end result is the popular perception that feminists are radicals. The DNC encourages this false perception by accusing Republicans of some fictitious war on women. The unmistakable (and blatantly and predictably false) message is that Democrats are defenders of women. In reality, they are defenders of Democrat Liberal politicians. Everyone else, male or female, will get ridiculed, vilified, tossed under the bus, dismissed as a whacko or a bimbo, or whatever.


----------



## Faithful Wife

oh dear lord...


----------



## AliceA

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Why/when has the word turned into man hating, selfish women who are bad spouses?
> 
> I feel like there should be a different word for the negative ideas some people label as feminist because it just confuses things and makes a group of people with good intentions look bad.
> 
> For the ladies
> Do you consider yourself a feminist?


I do consider myself a feminist because I enjoy the privileges that many great people struggled to provide for future generations such as myself, and not just women but men also. I honour their commitment to a better society where men and women are treated as equals and given the same opportunities in life. I am not a real feminist in that I haven't achieved anything for the cause, I haven't changed laws for the better or done anything of note, but I think it's important to remember our history, and if you don't know it, to find out.

People have mentioned they prefer egalitarianism, which I agree is a great view to have, however, they forget that when they spit on word 'feminist' in the process (which isn't required), they are spitting on the memory of the people that made it possible to speak of egalitarianism and not be laughed out of the room.

The right to education they take for granted, the right to earn equal pay they take for granted, the right to vote they take for granted. Many people now think that it's all a load of crap because they haven't lived with what the men and women they disrespect struggled to overcome.

Anyway, it all comes down to knowing your history imo. People who use the word 'feminist' as if it's a dirty word don't know our history, don't care about our history, and are not in the same league with the people who made it history.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> For proof of identity we go to a notary who looks at our ID and then notarizes that our id agrees that we are the person indicated and the person signing.
> 
> A DNA test cost money. A lot of people already have their child's birth paid on the government's dime. So now the gov will also be forking up the $$ to prove paternity.


Paternity testing is quick and cheap, sometimes it's as simple as comparing blood types, so yeah, I'd be fine with the government picking up the tab for it. I also imagine there would be plenty of private organizations that would help with any costs for those of low income.

Again, we do require proof of identity on just about every other legal document, and I feel a birth certificate should be no different. Proof of paternity before his name can be put on the certificate.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> Again, we do require proof of identity on just about every other legal document, and I feel a birth certificate should be no different. Proof of paternity before his name can be put on the certificate.


IMO it should be available as an option for everyone at the hospital. They should tell you this option when you are there.
If you choose not to you sign it understanding you are waiving your right and accepting the child as yours. The test should also be available to them anytime if they change their mind. 
I think all men should get the test but I don't like laws that take away choice and personal responsibility. 

Plus, if a man tries to get away with not paying child support for his new child, it puts the responsibility on HIM to prove paternity if he wants to deny it vs. the Mother to prove he is. It could cause issues and time delays for women already fighting for support IMO. 

FTR- my birth certificate is all BS because I was adopted. They changed it to say that my adoptive Mother was in X town, X hospital giving birth to her #X child on that day. Even backdated all the signatures to look real. I also smirk a bit when I need to get to give all this information to get a replacement card and I see and sign all the legal fine print about how true it's supposed to be - with risk of prosecution -


----------



## Wolf1974

Feminism as an ideal is a good thing and full engrained in our culture. I fully support equal pay for equal performance and glad to see that my daughters will have the opportunities they will have. 

Anything of extreme as other have pointed out are no good. The feminazis who are anti men in general are really not feminists as it was defined. they are just man haters who latched on to the ideal and perverted it as so many have throughout history.

I have never lived in another country with the exception of turkey when I was in the service so I can't speak to how other cultures are. But in America we love to discriminate. Black, white, gay straight male or female it's hard to imagine anyone who hasn't been looked down upon or passed over because of thier gender or skin color and it honestly all sucks.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> IMO it should be available as an option for everyone at the hospital. They should tell you this option when you are there.
> If you choose not to you sign it understanding you are waiving your right and accepting the child as yours. The test should also be available to them anytime if they change their mind.
> *I think all men should get the test but I don't like laws that take away choice and personal responsibility.*
> 
> Plus, if a man tries to get away with not paying child support for his new child, it puts the responsibility on HIM to prove paternity if he wants to deny it vs. the Mother to prove he is. It could cause issues and time delays for women already fighting for support IMO.
> 
> FTR- my birth certificate is all BS because I was adopted. They changed it to say that my adoptive Mother was in X town, X hospital giving birth to her #X child on that day. Even backdated all the signatures to look real. I also smirk a bit when I need to get to give all this information to get a replacement card and I see and sign all the legal fine print about how true it's supposed to be - with risk of prosecution -


I don't think it should be mandated that ALL births have paternity tests, only the ones where a father is listed on the birth certificate. If you don't want the test, fine, no problems, but you can't be listed on the document. If his name is going to be on the document, accurate proof of identity should be required.

If the mother is going to pursue child support against a man who is not the proven and listed father, the burden should be on her to prove the mans "guilt" as opposed to the man having to prove his "innocence"

If the testing is mandated and done immediately upon birth, that would help eliminate emotional and support complications further down the line.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I would have no problem with what you are proposing sam...the only trouble is there are many births where the daddy is no where near the hospital at the time...if the test is required for the birth certificate they'd have to wait to locate the daddy and take the test first. Still not a big deal, just saying that he's not always right there to submit to such a test. And I don't see how you could get a man to take it who refused and what would happen in that case? There are some daddys who don't want to be the daddy or on the birth cert.


----------



## Miss Taken

Also rapes. Rare but it does happen and when it does, what then? (Re: DNA/Birth Certs).


----------



## MysticTeenager

soccermom2three said:


> No I don't think feminism is misunderstood but I think feminism misunderstands that men and women are different. Physically, mentally and emotionally.


amen. 

I think men can never be like women and women can never be like en. Our bodies work different and we just are not the same. 

I believe in gender roles. While I believe some women can do what men do, not all. And vice versa. I dont want to compete with men to prove I can do the same thing as them. I dont want to be the same as a man which is what I feel like feminism is. A bunch of women competing with men to prove to men that they can do the same. 

I'm not saying men are better than women. But we are different. And I embrace that.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> I would have no problem with what you are proposing sam...the only trouble is there are many births where the daddy is no where near the hospital at the time...if the test is required for the birth certificate they'd have to wait to locate the daddy and take the test first. Still not a big deal, just saying that he's not always right there to submit to such a test. And I don't see how you could get a man to take it who refused and what would happen in that case? There are some daddys who don't want to be the daddy or on the birth cert.


For sure there are plenty of situations where the man is not present at the time of birth, and other arrangements would have to be made for the test before he could be listed.

In the case of refusal, court ordered tests are certainly not unheard of, and chances are, if the situation comes down to having to get the court order, things aren't going well anyway, so better to get it out of the way as soon as possible. In those types of cases, it often comes down to he said/she said, and this would just shift the default assumption of paternity, to actually having to prove paternity. Innocent until proven guilty as opposed to guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> I don't think it should be mandated that ALL births have paternity tests, only the ones where a father is listed on the birth certificate. If you don't want the test, fine, no problems, but you can't be listed on the document. If his name is going to be on the document, accurate proof of identity should be required.


There are no other legal documents that require proof via DNA test. They sign agreeing that the information is true and accurate. I would be legally parentless if DNA tests were required. It would complicate all adoptions, surrogacy situations, etc. All those have forms to sign saying you agree you are this child's parent and take legal responsibility. There's no reason why a typical couple shouldn't be able to choose to do the same thing. 

I do agree that the test should be a standard option at time of birth. If they refuse it and sign knowing the risks and responsibilities, that's their choice. I just think making it a law to _require _it is going too far. 

Laws that help the few often can hurt other groups of people. The court doesn't see this as a man vs woman thing. It's a man vs. child thing. To assume the child's father has no responsibility until the mother can prove his "guilt" harms the child. That's why the courts side with the child in these cases and put it on the father to prove his "innocence"


----------



## Fozzy

samyeagar said:


> Paternity testing is quick and cheap, sometimes it's as simple as comparing blood types, so yeah, I'd be fine with the government picking up the tab for it. I also imagine there would be plenty of private organizations that would help with any costs for those of low income.
> 
> Again, we do require proof of identity on just about every other legal document, and I feel a birth certificate should be no different. Proof of paternity before his name can be put on the certificate.


1) Wife has an affair--gets pregnant. Reconciles with husband. Husband wants to be the childs father, but can't be put on the birth certificate because he can't pass a paternity test. Now the child has to deal with that on their birth cert forever.

2) Wife has an affair--gets pregnant. Husband blissfully unaware until Maury Povich trots in to the clerks office with an announcement. Marriage ends. (this may not be a bad thing)

3) Wife gets raped--gets pregnant, elects to keep the child. Husband can't be put on the birth cert......

While I agree on the surface with some of the ideas behind mandatory paternity, I think you have to really look to account for unintended consequences before mandating anything.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also adoption...or if the father is deceased (died after conception, before birth)...or even if there is a court ordered test, the father could run forever and never be nailed down to take the test...there are a lot of problems...

The idea itself you are proposing is fine by me. It won't ever happen though.


----------



## samyeagar

Miss Taken said:


> Also rapes. Rare but it does happen and when it does, what then? (Re: DNA/Birth Certs).


How would mandatory testing change that situation? Would the rapist be listed now anyway, based solely on the woman's word? She would have to prove the rapist is the biological father.

Again, I am not suggesting mandatory testing for every birth, just that there needs to be accurate identity before a man can be listed as the father on the birth cert.


----------



## Faithful Wife

In the US what birth doesn't have a birth certificate?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MysticTeenager said:


> amen.
> 
> I think men can never be like women and women can never be like en. Our bodies work different and we just are not the same.
> 
> I believe in gender roles. While I believe some women can do what men do, not all. And vice versa. I dont want to compete with men to prove I can do the same thing as them. I dont want to be the same as a man which is what I feel like feminism is. A bunch of women competing with men to prove to men that they can do the same.
> 
> I'm not saying men are better than women. But we are different. And I embrace that.


No, feminism is not wanting to be a man. It's wanting to have the same opportunities as a man would and the choice if you want it. If a woman wants to, and is qualified to, be in the military- should she be allowed the opportunity? 

Feminists can choose to be homemakers, pilots, politicians, school teachers. They can be the breadwinner or choose a traditional gender role lifestyle or anything in between. 
It's about making the options available to women, not forcing them into them, not thinking they should all choose the same one. 
If a woman doesn't want to vote, she can choose not to. If a woman wants to vote, she can because of the work done in our past to equal out gender rights. 
But just because you choose not to doesn't mean it's not important to fight for the right of others to have their own choice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anyone who thinks feminism is about women wanting to be "just like men" is so far out of touch with feminism that there's no use discussing it with them. You wouldn't be discussing actual feminism, you'd just be discussing that person's made up ideas.


----------



## samyeagar

Fozzy said:


> 1) Wife has an affair--gets pregnant. Reconciles with husband. Husband wants to be the childs father, but can't be put on the birth certificate because he can't pass a paternity test. Now the child has to deal with that on their birth cert forever.
> 
> *Nothing at all saying he still can't be the father. Just not falsely listed on a legal document.*
> 
> 2) Wife has an affair--gets pregnant. Husband blissfully unaware until Maury Povich trots in to the clerks office with an announcement. Marriage ends. (this may not be a bad thing)
> 
> *Trip to the Maury show would have been eliminated with testing at birth, well before the child was old enough to understand what was going on, and having to go through all of that mess.*
> 
> 3) Wife gets raped--gets pregnant, elects to keep the child. Husband can't be put on the birth cert......
> 
> *Again, nothing at all saying he can't be the father and raise the child as his own. Just not falsely listed on a legal document.*
> 
> While I agree on the surface with some of the ideas behind mandatory paternity, I think you have to really look to account for unintended consequences before mandating anything.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> Again, I am not suggesting mandatory testing for every birth, just that there needs to be accurate identity before a man can be listed as the father on the birth cert.


So despite the fact that my adoptive father signed the form agreeing he was my father, when he left my Mother years later he would have no obligation for child support or proof of fatherhood because he's not genetically related to me?


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> In the US what birth doesn't have a birth certificate?


Ones that aren't reported, but I suspect there aren't very many.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

and what of situations where a couple had conception issues and used egg and/or sperm donation? Again, not the parent by DNA but signing agreeing that it is your child. Without that option there ae too many situations that it does more harm than good.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So despite the fact that my adoptive father signed the form agreeing he was my father, when he left my Mother years later he would have no obligation for child support or proof of fatherhood because he's not genetically related to me?


There is a fundamental difference between adoption and a birth within a relationship. In the adoption, there is obviously NO shared parentage, nor assumption thereof, so that is a given up front. Both parents are agreeing to be the parents up front in signing the adoption forms.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> *There are no other legal documents that require proof via DNA test.* They sign agreeing that the information is true and accurate. I would be legally parentless if DNA tests were required. It would complicate all adoptions, surrogacy situations, etc. All those have forms to sign saying you agree you are this child's parent and take legal responsibility. There's no reason why a typical couple shouldn't be able to choose to do the same thing.
> 
> I do agree that the test should be a standard option at time of birth. If they refuse it and sign knowing the risks and responsibilities, that's their choice. I just think making it a law to _require _it is going too far.
> 
> Laws that help the few often can hurt other groups of people. The court doesn't see this as a man vs woman thing. It's a man vs. child thing. To assume the child's father has no responsibility until the mother can prove his "guilt" harms the child. That's why the courts side with the child in these cases and put it on the father to prove his "innocence"


The entire basis of the birth certificate IS DNA.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> The entire basis of the birth certificate IS DNA.


But it's not. I know that every time I have to lie to get my replacement copy. There is nowhere on the BC that suggests adoption. My Mother and Father signed a document saying they were someplace they never were doing something they didn't do. It is an allowed, falsified legal document, and it is common in situations like mine. 

It is saying that these are my parents, not that these people match my DNA. DNA had nothing to do with it.


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But it's not. I know that every time I have to lie to get my replacement copy. There is nowhere on the BC that suggests adoption. My Mother and Father signed a document saying they were someplace they never were doing something they didn't do. It is an allowed, falsified legal document, and it is common in situations like mine.
> 
> It is saying that these are my parents, not that these people match my DNA. DNA had nothing to do with it.


I have a falsified legal document in this regard as well, except it is my father who is the listed and biological father, and it was my birth mother that was changed.

The purpose of certificates of live birth, among other things was to track genealogy. Before the technology existed to determine parentage, it was assumed based on word of mouth, and relationship status. Now that the technology exists, there are all kinds of benefits to accuracy ranging from geneaology, to medical, to support.

In cases of adoption, invitro, and so on, there are other supporting documents regarding the situation in the event that anything needs to be sorted out later.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

breeze said:


> People have mentioned they prefer egalitarianism, which I agree is a great view to have, however, they forget that when they spit on word 'feminist' in the process (which isn't required), they are spitting on the memory of the people that made it possible to speak of egalitarianism and not be laughed out of the room.
> 
> The right to education they take for granted, the right to earn equal pay they take for granted, the right to vote they take for granted. Many people now think that it's all a load of crap because they haven't lived with what the men and women they disrespect struggled to overcome.
> 
> Anyway, it all comes down to knowing your history imo. People who use the word 'feminist' as if it's a dirty word don't know our history, don't care about our history, and are not in the same league with the people who made it history.


So some of us aren't in the same league as other females who proudly take up the feminist badge... or you think we SPIT on it just because we would hesitate to label ourselves as such...I see your post as shaming ...it's really no different than how I OFTEN feel when I read feminist articles who seem to spit on the more traditional roles some of us still choose to take in married life.. it's almost like we are not appreciative for all that has been done for us.. 

I think a college course would have to be given to understand Feminism and all it's off shoots...and internal disagreements: radical feminism, cultural feminism, liberal feminism, antiporn feminism, pro-sex feminism, third-wave feminism... 

Here's more of a list and I've seen longer ones yet...

A short introduction to feminist movements, currents and ideologies : Feminism

I'm certainly not well versed...I have never been one to separate men & women, I like GOOD people.. doesn't matter what gender they are, I like kind people, doesn't matter what gender they are, I like people with integrity, I would fight against anything where there was suffering, my conscience would feel that was inherently wrong..isn't this true for all of us ? (or should be).... 

I seen this quote on an article I read.. I can agree with this ...



> " I disagree with much in the feminism movement, but I consider myself a believer in feminism for one reason:
> 
> I want justice for everyone, and there is still much injustice done to women because they are women."...


Does this make me completely unreasonable. It's all about choice isn't it.. I just happen to prefer a less divisive term...So many here seem to agree that the Radicals are wrong/ have gone too far... but I see less arguing AGAINST THEM over trying to put others down for not caring for the label.. why is this?? Shouldn't true good hearted feminists want to REDEEM the term, those who love men too?




> *SlowlyGoingCrazy said:* No, feminism is not wanting to be a man. It's wanting to have the same opportunities as a man would and the choice if you want it. If a woman wants to, and is qualified to, be in the military- should she be allowed the opportunity?
> 
> Feminists can choose to be homemakers, pilots, politicians, school teachers. They can be the breadwinner or choose a traditional gender role lifestyle or anything in between.
> It's about making the options available to women, not forcing them into them, not thinking they should all choose the same one.
> If a woman doesn't want to vote, she can choose not to. If a woman wants to vote, she can because of the work done in our past to equal out gender rights.
> But just because you choose not to doesn't mean it's not important to fight for the right of others to have their own choice.


I can agree with all of what you just said... but I really DON'T want my only daughter DRAFTED -just like all our sons could be.. but because of feminism... this will likely be a new plan in the future.. after all, why should our daughters have special privileges ? 

*On the paternity tests*.. I don't really care if it's mandatory so much... I'm not one who wants to cost the Government any more $$ ...I just feel STRONGLY that every Father has the right to have this test....the problem is.. it can cause emotional turmoil, the wife / GF being appalled that he DIDN'T TRUST HER & opted for the TEST... she might never let him live it down.....I've seen women's posts saying JUST THAT on a thread with this subject here at TAM... it's like the man can't win one way or another.. like he deserves to be shamed ...How dare him.. he didn't trust her...

I just don't feel a man should have to deal with this hassle...mandatory tests would alleviate that...but on another note...they could make it a PRIVACY thing between the man & hospital..


----------



## SpinDaddy

As the father of a beautiful, gifted and talented daughter I have come to understand “feminism” as the notion that she should have an equitable and fair opportunity to realize all her dreams and potential.

Notice I did not say equal. 

As the father of a handsome, gifted and talented son, as well, I have also come to understand that “boys are different than girls”.

Equity, equality and equal. Entirely different concepts.


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> So some of us aren't in the same league as other females who proudly take up the feminist badge... or you think we SPIT on it just because we would hesitate to label ourselves as such...I see your post as shaming ...it's really no different than how I OFTEN feel when I read feminist articles who seem to spit on the more traditional roles some of us still choose to take in married life.. it's almost like we are not appreciative for all that has been done for us..
> 
> I think a college course would have to be given to understand Feminism and all it's off shoots...and internal disagreements: radical feminism, cultural feminism, liberal feminism, antiporn feminism, pro-sex feminism, third-wave feminism...
> 
> Here's more of a list and I've seen longer ones yet...
> 
> A short introduction to feminist movements, currents and ideologies : Feminism
> 
> I'm certainly not well versed...I have never been one to separate men & women, I like GOOD people.. doesn't matter what gender they are, I like kind people, doesn't matter what gender they are, I like people with integrity, I would fight against anything where there was suffering, my conscience would feel that was inherently wrong..isn't this true for all of us ? (or should be)....
> 
> I seen this quote on an article I read.. I can agree with this ...
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make me completely unreasonable. It's all about choice isn't it.. I just happen to prefer a less divisive term...So many here seem to agree that the Radicals are wrong/ have gone too far... but I see less arguing AGAINST THEM over trying to put others down for not caring for the label.. why is this?? Shouldn't true good hearted feminists want to REDEEM the term, those who love men too?
> 
> 
> I can agree with all of what you just said... but I really DON'T want my only daughter DRAFTED -just like all our sons could be.. but because of feminism... this will likely be a new plan in the future.. after all, why should our daughters have special privileges ?
> 
> *On the paternity tests*.. I don't really care if it's mandatory so much... I'm not one who wants to cost the Government any more $$ ...I just feel STRONGLY that every Father has the right to have this test....the problem is.. it can cause emotional turmoil, the wife / GF being appalled that he DIDN'T TRUST HER & opted for the TEST... she might never let him live it down.....I've seen women's posts saying JUST THAT on a thread with this subject here at TAM... it's like the man can't win one way or another.. like he deserves to be shamed ...How dare him.. he didn't trust her...
> 
> I just don't feel a man should have to deal with this hassle...mandatory tests would alleviate that...but on another note...they could make it a PRIVACY thing between the man & hospital..


Many states birth and parentage laws are still based in some of the very stereotypes, social assumptions, and generalizations we frequently discuss here. Women are not as sexual as men, they have lower drives than men, they only have sex when they are in love, are wired for monogamy...all that kind of stuff led to the assumptions that women wouldn't and couldn't cheat. They were faithful, therefore it was, and by law in many states still is assumed that any child born within a marriage, and the husband is MANDATED to be listed, unless the mother PROVES he isn't.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

samyeagar said:


> In cases of adoption, invitro, and so on, there are other supporting documents regarding the situation in the event that anything needs to be sorted out later.


For some people in those situations, adoption or invitro, the birth certificate is important to them. They don't want to feel like less of a parent and it's a symbol for them. It would be taking away that right from some men in the process. Rights shouldn't force people into doing something they don't want to do. They should give the option to people who want them. 

If the test is _offered _as a standard at time of birth and the parents sign waiving their right to it, they should be allowed to have their name on the certificate. There's too many variables to make it mandatory IMO. 

Although I do agree the father should be able to request it privately, it's his medical care and should stay be between him and the Dr.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

SimplyAmorous said:


> So some of us aren't in the same league as other females who proudly take up the feminist badge... or you think we SPIT on it just because we would hesitate to label ourselves as such...I see your post as shaming ...it's really no different than how I OFTEN feel when I read feminist articles who seem to spit on the more traditional roles some of us still choose to take in married life.. it's almost like we are not appreciative for all that has been done for us..


IMO the fact that you can CHOOSE a traditional marriage instead of having one forced on you is one of the many benefits of feminism. I respect every woman's choice and I am proud that work was done to give her one. 

But some people say they didn't need feminism because they don't care to take advantage of the rights given to them is ignoring the fact that just having that choice *is *a right given to them. 

So if you are thankful that you or your daughters gets to decide for themselves what role and pick a traditional home if that's what suits them best they want to have then yes, feminism should be appreciated for that. 

and I don't agree with drafts for either gender. I don't want my son or my daughter forced into military. Again, I'm all about choices and giving the options to people to take if they choose it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> *Many states birth and parentage laws are still based in some of the very stereotypes, social assumptions, and generalizations we frequently discuss here. Women are not as sexual as men, they have lower drives than men, they only have sex when they are in love, are wired for monogamy...all that kind of stuff led to the assumptions that women wouldn't and couldn't cheat. * They were faithful, therefore it was, and by law in many states still is assumed that any child born within a marriage, and the husband is MANDATED to be listed, unless the mother PROVES he isn't.


Well I FIT some of those stereotypes, generalizations (not the disliking of sex but a man's commitment, his LOVE, I so wanted monogamy & nothing but).. but it's a very different world.. what are the statistics of cheating today ... married/ single, I wonder how much of a difference it even makes ... how many have sex on the 1st date even.. maybe 50% of all couples.. hell. who needs a date at all [email protected]#

Times have changed.... Men need to protect themselves.. 



> *SlowlyGoingCrazy said*: *So if you are thankful that you or your daughters gets to decide for themselves what role and pick a traditional home if that's what suits them best they want to have then yes, feminism should be appreciated for that*.


 I appreciate.. I appreciate.. as I would anyone who brings the end to oppression...I also appreciate the Founding Fathers and the separation of Church & State, I appreciate Jonas Salk for the Polio vaccine... I appreciate many past Social activists/ groups for what they fought for...but I still abhor Radical feminists....

And still...why aren't my questions answered here.. you all are more concerned that a woman calls herself a feminist (and probably men too) more than speaking against the Radical aspects of it.. What do you really expect me to do when I read articles , books written by feminists that mock my way of thinking.. smile ? I think they go too far in many areas.. where they shouldn't be metteling at all.. has little to do with choice, but opinion, they want to sway the minds & intellects of many. 

Ok ...so reading some articles, trying to find those who actually embrace the lowly stay at Home Mother. Oh I found one here...' Breaking News: You Can Be A Feminist And A Stay-At-Home Mom

You just gotta appreciate the 1st response under this article.... by another feminist ..who feels laying down your financial power to even your Husband is CHILLING... One who stands behind the DREAM...and lives it ... She is, after all, a good feminist... 



> I find the idea of feminist stay at home moms a little confusing. I am not quite buying it. Millions of women across the globe have no financial power, which equates to no choices and essentially no power of any kind. With regards to stay at home mom feminists, I understand there is a difference because the women are choosing to lay down their economic power, at least temporarily, but they are still putting it down, which* I personally find spine chilling.*
> 
> I would never do it, I consider myself a feminist, and I question this whole idea of anything goes feminism. Women need to think hard and long about sacrificing their careers, even temporarily, as it often times leaves them and their children much worse of in the long run from a financial perspective.
> 
> Some will be able to care for their children at home today but will unfortunately end up living with their children as elderly women because they did not make their own financial independence a priority.


And I can tell you SlowlyGoingCrazy...I've been MET with this attitude a # of times on this forum on SAHM threads.. and what did it do.. It TRAMPLED ME.. It makes you feel like you are betraying your children, leaving them OPEN to living like paupers for depending on a man!... like "What is wrong with you" and heaven forbid if I even uttered that I felt it was MORE important for our sons to get a college education over my daughter.. Oh that is blasphemy to a feminist.. 

Until I came to this forum, I have never been met with this sort of disdain for my lifestyle... 

Faithful Wife says she's never seen so much anti-feminism until she came here...wow are we from different sides of the track !.... But true, I am from a smaller more conservative, churchy town..Amish Dutch even live in our county.. I have greatly enjoyed my life in this smaller town.. and I don't care for big city anything.. . 

So can you see MY CONFLICT.. . O*h I LIKE the way YOU look at it, describe it*..







..... and the author of this article.... but sorry. when you got all these feminists running around with God know what sorta attitude, or agenda... 

If I even did acknowledge the term and embrace it .. I would also feel the need to add a disclaimer ..."Please don't associate me with that bunch over there!"... Better yet...I could just call myself a "Traditional Proverbs 31 feminist".. that might get some odd looks.. 

Ya see..it's not like too many feminists will use someone like myself for their poster child, or even an example to uphold...surely you would agree?


----------



## samyeagar

I think the root of feminist attacking of other women, is that they can't wrap their minds around the fact that a woman would willingly choose to live as you do because they can't imagine themselves living that way. Since they can't imagine it, there must be something else at play forcing you into it, either consciously or sub consciously. Essentially, they are playing the victim card on your behalf, suggesting that you are not strong enough to make your own decisions, to be responsible for yourself.

It essentially boils down to small and close mindedness, which isn't that one of the commonalities of any radical wing of any social movement? The irony being, they will be the first to profess how openminded they are, and it's everyone else who is closed minded.


----------



## Runs like Dog

No, no it's not. It's pretty much what you think it sounds like.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Mommywars are with every choice you make, mainly because we put so much pressure on ourselves to be perfect you NEED your own choice to be the best one. People feel attacked for their own choices and defend it and attack others. 
SAHM vs working mom
formula vs. breast
CIO vs. co-sleeping
spanking vs. not
circumcision vs not
It never ends. Mothers who live traditional roles are no more targets than Mothers who don't. Both get attacked for their choices.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree, and some groups are able to separate themselves for the bad apples easier than others. I've been seeing more and more anti-"feminism" around lately, it seems to be everywhere. Maybe I just didn't notice it as much before.


There are a couple of factors to this:

One, some of the bad apples are running the feminist barrel.

Addendum to one: more 'mainstream' feminists have heretofore refused to call the bad apples, bad apples. This implies a tacit acceptance of what they are saying and doing.

Two: there seems to be less action from Feminists to raise pay, actually work hard to stop things like honor killings, dowries, female suppression overseas, and a lot more heated rhetoric about 'positive consent' laws which changes male female dynamics substantially...and not for the better.

Three: Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin. Feminism *as a unified movement* lost all it's credibility by a) defending the sexual harasser in chief in contrast to their espoused vows and b) indulging in absolutely HORRID hypocriticy at how they attacked a fellow woman...just because they disagreed with her politics. The language they used about her and HOW they attacked her was appalling. 

So the movement in general (not specific Feminists in particular) look more like political shills for one party and not a movement for women in general.

This is self inflicted brand damage.

People who defend it always point to the rainbow and lollipop portions of the ideology. They ignore the negatives.

So it is not Misunderstood. It is understood all to well.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No, feminism is not wanting to be a man. It's wanting to have the same opportunities as a man would and the choice if you want it. If a woman wants to, and is qualified to, be in the military- should she be allowed the opportunity?
> 
> Feminists can choose to be homemakers, pilots, politicians, school teachers. They can be the breadwinner or choose a traditional gender role lifestyle or anything in between.
> It's about making the options available to women, not forcing them into them, not thinking they should all choose the same one.
> If a woman doesn't want to vote, she can choose not to. If a woman wants to vote, she can because of the work done in our past to equal out gender rights.
> But just because you choose not to doesn't mean it's not important to fight for the right of others to have their own choice.


Is this advocacy? If I want to know what feminism is, I listen to people who call themselves feminists. ALL of them.

Instead, I am being told what I am allowed to call feminism...in a very narrow and non-controversial way.

Sorry, that doesn't fly.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> There are a couple of factors to this:
> 
> One, some of the bad apples are running the feminist barrel.
> 
> Addendum to one: more 'mainstream' feminists have heretofore refused to call the bad apples, bad apples. This implies a tacit acceptance of what they are saying and doing.
> 
> Two: there seems to be less action from Feminists to raise pay, actually work hard to stop things like honor killings, dowries, female suppression overseas, and a lot more heated rhetoric about 'positive consent' laws which changes male female dynamics substantially...and not for the better.
> 
> Three: Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin. Feminism *as a unified movement* lost all it's credibility by a) defending the sexual harasser in chief in contrast to their espoused vows and b) indulging in absolutely HORRID hypocriticy at how they attacked a fellow woman...just because they disagreed with her politics. The language they used about her and HOW they attacked her was appalling.
> 
> So the movement in general (not specific Feminists in particular) look more like political shills for one party and not a movement for women in general.
> 
> This is self inflicted brand damage.
> 
> People who defend it always point to the rainbow and lollipop portions of the ideology. They ignore the negatives.
> 
> So it is not Misunderstood. It is understood all to well.


There are feminists in all countries around the world, not just your country. Just because some groups in your area were speaking about Sarah Palin doesn't mean that's what feminism is. 

Some pro-life members shoot abortion doctors, is that what the pro-life movement is about?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> Is this advocacy? If I want to know what feminism is, I listen to people who call themselves feminists. ALL of them.
> 
> Instead, I am being told what I am allowed to call feminism...in a very narrow and non-controversial way.
> 
> Sorry, that doesn't fly.


If I want to know about Christianity, should I listen to the Westbro baptist church or an organization that promotes less radical thinking? 

Should I just decide that all Christians must be "God hates f*gs" extremists and write off everything that the church ACTUALLY promotes because of a few @ssholes?


----------



## samyeagar

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If I want to know about Christianity, should I listen to the Westbro baptist church or an organization that promotes less radical thinking?
> 
> Should I just decide that all Christians must be "God hates f*gs" extremists and write off everything that the church ACTUALLY promotes because of a few @ssholes?


Now we are getting dangerously close to the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Feminism should be just about gender equality. That is it, no more and no less. It should be the empowerment of women to be seen as equal to men. No one should get special privilege, whether men or women. The rest is just noise, and should be ignored.


----------



## AliceA

So the argument is that because some people who have labelled themselves as feminists and had extreme views, that they've successfully created a different meaning for it.

The same could then be said of any religion out there then I guess, if we follow this logic. In many cases it has. All people who follow a certain religion which has extremists, and all do, is therefore defined by the extremists.

Everyone is hated for something. Trying to fight against all the hate feels pointless. Men using 'feminist' as a way to insult a woman and ignore an argument she has made is not a new thing. Women supporting them in doing so is not a new thing. I bet there were women cheering at the women being burned at the stake for being midwives. We all have our different beliefs, I get that many don't want to stand up to a person without having some sort of weapon at hand, which is what I feel 'feminism' has turned into. A weapon to use against another person to shut them up when you don't like their point of view.


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> Now we are getting dangerously close to the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.


This reminds me of those threads in Coping with Infidelity. Someone will put out a thread like 'Could you cheaters please explain what happened?"

When these people come in an attempt to have a conversation, they are attacked as wretched cheating scum by the OP.

Here, it is more gentle, but just as dismissive. "If you don't like feminism, you are wrong."

It is perfectly possible to clean house in Feminism. It is perfectly possible to call stupid statements as stupid statements.

Instead of 'one speaker does not discredit feminism', how about 'She should not BE speaking for feminism.'

But a lot of the stupidity isn't on the fringes. That is the problem. Westboro is a single church, not the Archbishop of New York, for example.

In feminism, you have a bit of the reverse problem.


----------



## samyeagar

breeze said:


> So the argument is that because some people who have labelled themselves as feminists and had extreme views, that they've successfully created a different meaning for it.
> 
> The same could then be said of any religion out there then I guess, if we follow this logic. In many cases it has. All people who follow a certain religion which has extremists, and all do, is therefore defined by the extremists.
> 
> Everyone is hated for something. Trying to fight against all the hate feels pointless. Men using 'feminist' as a way to insult a woman and ignore an argument she has made is not a new thing. Women supporting them in doing so is not a new thing. I bet there were women cheering at the women being burned at the stake for being midwives. We all have our different beliefs, I get that many don't want to stand up to a person without having some sort of weapon at hand, which is what I feel 'feminism' has turned into. *A weapon to use against another person to shut them up when you don't like their point of view*.


Yet another word, frequently misapplied, used to shame, shut down, and dismiss another, all while keeping a clean conscience. Sort of like the word misogynist...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> Instead of 'one speaker does not discredit feminism', how about 'She should not BE speaking for feminism.'


Because it's better to just ignore these groups who are typically just saying outlandish things for the attention and any given to them is just fuel to their fire. 

You hear about them more because people make a big fuss about it. It's not that there is more of them, people just don't see the drama and newsworthiness when it's not radical.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are feminists in all countries around the world, not just your country. Just because some groups in your area were speaking about Sarah Palin doesn't mean that's what feminism is.
> 
> Some pro-life members shoot abortion doctors, is that what the pro-life movement is about?


If a majority of pro life people were shooting at doctors, yes, you could make that inference.

You had a MAJORITY of feminists in America excoriating Sarah Palin in terms they would find blatantly offensive and engaging in dirty tactics they would call men on if it was applied to anyone they approved of..

LOTS of feminist writers, think tanks, journalist and politicians. Do a random google search.

So...what conclusion am I to draw from that?

What conclusion am I to draw when there are strange silences from feminist leaders about Bill Clinton or Al Gore or other Democrats indulging in actions that a CEO at any other company would get vilified for ?

I feel I can only speak about American feminism.

I hear in vast parts of the world, the feminists are less worried about 'positive consent' and 13 cents of wage disparity and more about not being beaten, not having their money stolen, being allowed to READ, not being honor slain. You know...little things. But we get a lot of ink in America about wages and any non-Democratic female politician.

Seems a misallocation of outrage to me.


----------



## MarriedDude

I don't think feminism is misunderstood...

for there to be a misunderstanding...there would have had to be, at some point, and understanding. Doesn't sound like there ever was one. When you need a movement or organization to promote what should be common sense (that we are all equally deserving of a good and safe life)...well, were just screwed. 

IMO...it's just one more flag to rally behind for whatever selfish views people have, whether they be church, political party, country, whatever. It all turns bad. 

2 wars I went to for a flag. I will never be a joiner again, true believers scare the hell out of me, and should never be allowed to be in charge of anything more important than out-house cleaning.


----------



## AliceA

samyeagar said:


> Yet another word, frequently misapplied, used to shame, shut down, and dismiss another, all while keeping a clean conscience. Sort of like the word misogynist...


Yes, any word used as a way to label someone and put them in a pigeon hole in your head, is just a way to avoid paying any attention to their point of view, to discredit them so you can avoid the possibility that someone out there might have a different point of view and still not be a quack job. We've all done it no doubt. Both of those particular words are just the ones most commonly used on this site, though I see 'feminist' used to shout someone down a lot more than 'misogynist', but that's just in the stuff I've read.

I also don't agree with all the other labels being used so liberally. Once you do the label thing, you make everything else fit, even if it doesn't, to support your theory that this person is a ... whatever.


----------



## AliceA

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if someone wants to pigeon hole me and label me as whatever it is they think feminism is as a way to discredit me in their mind. If it wasn't 'feminist', it'd be something else, '*****', '****', whatever label it is, it doesn't turn me into whatever they picture me as.

However, I do dislike it being used in this way as I hate to see people use it as a reason to ignore history and pretend it didn't happen. I see this as unwise if we want to move forward as a people, we have to learn from our past. There was a feminist movement for a reason, but all people care about are these stupid arguments about whether a woman should open a door or not. It feels like they try to make it about something it's not in order to trivialise the past. However, again, it doesn't matter what I think. I will use the word how I believe it should be used, and that's just my choice. People will try to use it like it's an insult no matter what it means, because it doesn't really matter to them what it means, only what they want it to mean in order to achieve their goal.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Personally I would talk & reason with anyone...not one to turn my back over differences...I believe we can all learn from each other & at the end of the day, we have more in common over not.. if we withhold our defenses.... 

On the Mommy Wars thing... I look up to Mom's who work, put themselves through college, my hat is off to them..... I feel what they do & contribute for their family is MUCH MORE over myself.. of course it is !.. but I don't envy them.. I have surely envied some things in my lifetime that others had..or their lifestyle.. but this was not one of them.. I prefer more time with my H / kids -I can hang with being frugal to swing it all. 

I enjoy hearing others views and why they feel as they do, believe as they do.. what makes them tick....

I'm not the type to ascribe 100% to any party...for instance... I wouldn't call myself a Republican or a Democrat....I am conservative on some things (like spending) and liberal on other things ...like free speech, I also would be against Censorship... then back to conservatism... I would be very hard on crime. and not take a liberal bleeding heart view -when people choose to do BAD things & others suffer for it. 

Then I like Jack Kevorkian, felt he was merciful even -not a monster....all in support to "DIE with Dignity"... this wouldn't go so well with some of my christian friends. 

Often I feel like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole -around others ....BECAUSE I am so independent minded...even if not financially so ...as a true feminist aims to be... Luckily I married a man who supports all my rambling BS ...he even enjoys listening to me . 

I can be as opinionated as anyone else.. I think at the end of the day I SEEK this from others* >>*







....before someone turns on me.. .. I don't feel we should try to shut each other down.. but be tolerable..

I very much appreciate that in other people... 

I TRY to see the good & Bad on both sides of any issue or cause.... I can see good & Bad in various Holy Books.. I can see good & bad in feminism.. I would also find some good in Men's Rights movement too, but to speak this out loud may offend some feminists here. ?? 

I surely understand we are all different & want different things in life, and the pursuit of happiness.. I may not understand the woman who would rather travel the world with her GF's, get married later in life & forfeit having children ..(this would not fulfill me at all).... but I celebrate her JOY in whatever makes her happy...when she is happy, those around her will be happier to be in her presence. A win/ win. 

I have changed my views over the years in a few areas by being open minded & continuing to seek , learn others perspectives....

I never even heard of the term misogynist till I came here...had to look it up ! Even I have felt others trying to silence my views here -I was told I "feed the misogynist men"...I felt that was a very ugly thing to say to me.. but ya know.. people have their views.. and she spoke it...


----------



## ocotillo

There was a boy in my state well under the age of consent who was seduced by an adult woman. The age spread made it statutory rape. This union resulted in a pregnancy and as soon as he turned 18, his rapist sued him for child support.

And recently won.

If the movers, shakers and spokespeople within feminist organizations would just show a little bit of indignation once in awhile when social injustice cuts the opposite direction in a particularly egregious way, it would be an *unbelievably* valuable coin. How else will people be convinced it's about equality?


----------



## ConanHub

She should be in jail and lose her child.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

It does seem to be a joke how many child rapists are treated if they have a vagina.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ocotillo said:


> There was a boy in my state well under the age of consent who was seduced by an adult woman. The age spread made it statutory rape. This union resulted in a pregnancy and as soon as he turned 18, his rapist sued him for child support.
> 
> And recently won.
> 
> If the movers, shakers and spokespeople within feminist organizations would just show a little bit of indignation once in awhile when social injustice cuts the opposite direction in a particularly egregious way, it would be an *unbelievably* valuable coin. How else will people be convinced it's about equality?


 That is horrible and I think almost everyone would agree with that no matter how they view feminism. IMO she shouldn't have custody of the child at all. That would leave the father and/or his parents a choice to keep the child themselves or place them. 

The problem is the courts don't see it as a him vs. her thing. It's him vs. the child and the court sides with the child. They decide that the child is best supported by 2 parents instead of 1 and the money is for that child - yes, I realize not all women use it for their child.
But like I said, she shouldn't have the child in the first place as she should be either still in jail or a registered sex offender.


----------



## GTdad

I'm getting on up there, and am a pretty traditional man. In a lot of respects, I'm a walking talking Texas stereotype. Except that I can say "nuclear".

But I sure can call myself a feminist, if for no other reason than I want my four daughters to have every opportunity to make a life for themselves, with as few closed doors and obstacles as possible. I don't believe this view takes anything away from the opportunities I hope my sons have.

I get that there are nuts on the feminist side, but it doesn't take me long to find nuts on any side. Doesn't impact my views on the matter.


----------



## ocotillo

GTdad said:


> But I sure can call myself a feminist, if for no other reason than I want my four daughters to have every opportunity to make a life for themselves, with as few closed doors and obstacles as possible.


I would wholeheartedly agree with this. I raised three daughters myself and I have no sons. My mother was a feminist in a generation before it was even "Cool" to be a feminist.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The problem is the courts don't see it as a him vs. her thing. It's him vs. the child and the court sides with the child. They decide that the child is best supported by 2 parents instead of 1 and the money is for that child - yes, I realize not all women use it for their child.
> But like I said, she shouldn't have the child in the first place as she should be either still in jail or a registered sex offender.


Um...the problem is, that it IS a him vs. her thing.

I can think of three or four cases where female teachers were given a relative slap on the wrist for the exact same offenses that men have done.

This is a horrible double standard. And while it is too much to expect the Sisterhood to use their political muscle to punish another woman (unless you are Republican), this is still a clear case of bias FOR women.

And in every such instance, if society has provided a leg up to women, they fight like hell to keep that advantage (child custody, alimony, and affirmative action are just a few examples.)

This while espousing egalitarianism.

I like this article.

Quote:



> And then there’s the sex shaming.
> 
> *This is the sort of thing that feminists are supposed to be against*. It frequently gets deployed against left-leaning feminists, and for that matter, any woman who argues that women belong in the workplace but might have trouble staying there because things are still just a teensy bit stacked against them.
> 
> A certain sort of male commenter seems to take it as a given that any woman who argues that we need further progress toward equality is a frigid, castrating she-male whose husband or boyfriend would be too spineless and weak to satisfy them sexually even if they weren’t so busy polishing their Precious Moments figurines. And though they seem to think this is so obvious as to go without saying, they don’t; they write you four-page, one-paragraph e-mails or pepper your comments section with ALL CAPS!!!
> 
> *When guys do this to them, left feminists easily recognize it for what it is: reactionary, misogynist bile spewed by angry people who couldn’t think of an actual argument. So why does Erin Gloria Ryan feel free to deploy it against a woman with whom she disagrees?* Why didn’t her colleagues at Jezebel take her aside and say, “Hey, that’s not how we roll. We’re against sex shaming, remember?”
> 
> *This is not the first time I’ve run into this idea that all’s fair as long as you restrict it to conservatives*. Although the exact post seems to be lost to the mists of Internet time, I’ll never forget when a woman at a major feminist site accused me of holding the political opinions I do because -- wait for it -- I was trying to catch a man.
> .
> .
> .
> *This is the exact opposite of the way things should work. If you want to argue for a principle, you need to embody that principle consistently -- at least, if you want to convince anyone else.* Libertarians who argue that private charity can make up for government safety nets should be giving more of their income to private welfare charities than any other group. Conservatives who think that abortion should be completely illegal should not go and obtain them for their own daughters. People who oppose school choice should not send their children to private schools or relocate to an affluent suburb when they have kids. *And feminists who are against sex shaming should be outraged when it happens to people whose ideas they despise, as outraged as they certainly are when it happens to one of their own. Otherwise, people just smirk at your “principle” and see it for what it is: something between sheer tribal hypocrisy and a lie*.


 (See Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin)

You can say these people aren't feminists, or that they are marginal...but no...they write for major magazines and news organs. They are interviewed for their opinions in ways that mens rights activists are not. They TEACH young ladies. People are CHOOSING for them to represent feminism...and not just Neanderthal male news executives wanting to discredit your movement.

Feminism isn't that big a group at a leadership level. The women know each other and if they know Betty Friedman is about to bring a big bag of crazy to an interview, they can and should say 'keep it real!'

I can not discern any sense of restraint however.

And note, as people see feminism as self serving, political and hypocritical in the extreme, the feminists need to raise their voices louder to try to get more attention...and getting louder just seems to add to the crazy. So it is a vicious cycle.

Again, this is more of a movement thing, not an individual thing. But ladies, as long as you do no due diligence regarding philosophical hygiene, it will continue to dog your movement. If the brand hasn't already been ruined.

This is not what you *want* feminism to be about. It is, unfortunately, part and parcel of the movement.


----------



## CuddleBug

This is not the 1950's - 1960's, etc. anymore. We are living in the 21st century and its basically 2015.

Feminism was needed back in the day for many obvious reasons. But today, there is no need for it anymore.

Ladies today, can chose to do whatever they want in life.

- get married or stay single
- career or mother
- stay at home mom, work pt or ft
- finish high school, college, trade school, university
- doctor, teacher, lawyer, trades woman, engineer, etc.

Woman today are equals, based on their abilities and feminism is not needed anymore.

There will always be those who will try and find small issues to keep feminism going......but that can be said about all other movements. Once its served its purpose and is done, people will try and find other things to keep it going and it gets really silly.....

Focus on the world economy, how to deal with terrorism, getting us to go greener, new tech, getting along better and helping others.

And I am a traditional man but I support my wifee whatever she wants to do in life. She'd rather have a career and do something she enjoys, so I supported her and now she has an enjoyable career. I am open to having kids but only if we both want them. If she doesn't, then no kids and no problem. She supports me in the same regard as well. I consider my wifee my equal in everything, based on her abilities. Since I am the get things done type of guy and she is more talk about it and nothing gets done, I run our household.


----------



## AliceA

Yeah, most of the times that I've seen feminism come up is when someone has tried to use it as an insult. I would bet the women here who will respond that they consider themselves feminists don't actually go around carrying signs and writing to their local politician about it. They're not 'keeping it going' as such, just most women don't like being attacked with it and find it disrespectful to have it used in such a way. Just like I wouldn't spit 'soldier' at someone like it was an insult, as it'd be highly offensive to all the people who'd been soldiers to use the word like that.


----------



## heartsbeating

Emma Watson at the HeForShe Campaign 2014 - Official UN Video - YouTube

_I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, and anti-men, unattractive even.

Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one? I am from Britain and think it is right that I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and the decisions that will affect my life. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly, I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights. No country in the world can yet say that they have achieved gender equality. These rights, I consider, to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones. _


----------



## heartsbeating

CuddleBug said:


> This is not the 1950's - 1960's, etc. anymore. We are living in the 21st century and its basically 2015.
> 
> Feminism was needed back in the day for many obvious reasons. But today, there is no need for it anymore.


Cool, mission accomplished. We're all good.

Watch John Oliver explain why we need feminism, in one sentence about Miss America – Quartz


----------



## JCD

heartsbeating said:


> Cool, mission accomplished. We're all good.
> 
> Watch John Oliver explain why we need feminism, in one sentence about Miss America – Quartz


I haven't checked your link, but I have to add a little something to the sarcastic answer.

Let me take a brief tangent. The Numbers question always comes up and women always resent it. "How dare anyone make any kind of judgments about me."

See, they have this myth in their head that for a man, sex is always 100% consequence free. There are never any social repercussions. No one judges a man at all if he is a he-hore.

It has SOME truth, but nowhere near what many women believe.

And frankly, it is up to the gender in question to how women decide to respond to he-hores. If they ostracize them, I have no complaints. 

So, while you still see so much that has to be done, I would suggest that in fact, it's down to nibbling around the edges. Can you outline exactly what you still want? Sorry, but gender blind society is not going to happen. It is always a factor.

What we can do is make it a not particularly LARGE factor.


ETA:

Here is that sentence that is so critical:



> Currently, the biggest scholarship program exclusively for women in America requires you to be unmarried, with a mint condition uterus, and also rewards working knowledge of butt adhesive technology


Um...duh. We are celebrating the exceptional. We do not give full ride scholarships to men who get straight C's and work at the Gas and Gulp either.

Plus...what other group do we give a ton of money too...someone in peak physical trim...someone who entertains us...granted at a much higher risk of injury.

Celebrating the exceptional. Why are you making it out to be a bad thing? Particularly when men are being smoked in college admissions.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> Um...the problem is, that it IS a him vs. her thing.
> 
> I can think of three or four cases where female teachers were given a relative slap on the wrist for the exact same offenses that men have done.
> 
> .


I agree with you 100% female sex offenders are not given the same punishments, male victims also have struggles that are unequal. I am horrified when I see the way male sexual assault victims - and male victims of domestic violence- get treated. IMO this is an area that needs attention. 

I was talking just about child support. Child support is viewed as a benefit to the child, not the Mother. That's why a man fighting child support is not viewed as a man vs. woman thing but a man vs child thing.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree with you 100% female sex offenders are not given the same punishments, male victims also have struggles that are unequal. I am horrified when I see the way male sexual assault victims - and male victims of domestic violence- get treated. IMO this is an area that needs attention.
> 
> I was talking just about child support. Child support is viewed as a benefit to the child, not the Mother. That's why a man fighting child support is not viewed as a man vs. woman thing but a man vs child thing.


Fair enough and I totally understand and agree with you.

I am not sure if you know this, but part of the reason Samyeager is so intent on that DNA thing is that in some jurisdictions, the judges have assigned husbands child support for children they found out were not theirs (bear in mind this is a rumor I heard and have not verified it independently yet). If the man does not deny ownership while the baby is still hot from the womb (or at least about the time the birth certificate is signed), he is on the hook for 18 years+ because the state would prefer to ding the husband than pay for the child care from their own coffers.

So the only way to avoid this injustice is to have a DNA test done immediately.

Feminists, because they DO care about the baby and the wife, spend more concern on those two than the injustice done to the husband and resist these attempts. Understandable but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They are not my friends on this subject and one would think they have a better use of their time than condoning bad behavior.


----------



## Anon Pink

It is not the feminists role to go after women or a specific woman but to go after inequality that negatively affects women. That is the role of feminism.

You can decry hypocrite all you want but feminism is not the police force for the times when "it's good to have tits."

Regarding female sex abusers, times are catching up and more equal treatment is slowly coming around. This is not the venue for feminism. The inequality is not negatively affecting a woman.

Case in point:Ex-NFL cheerleader charged in rape of 15-year-old boy | New York Post


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> Fair enough and I totally understand and agree with you.
> 
> I am not sure if you know this, but part of the reason Samyeager is so intent on that DNA thing is that *in some jurisdictions, the judges have assigned husbands child support for children they found out were not theirs* (bear in mind this is a rumor I heard and have not verified it independently yet). If the man does not deny ownership while the baby is still hot from the womb (or at least about the time the birth certificate is signed), he is on the hook for 18 years+ because the state would prefer to ding the husband than pay for the child care from their own coffers.
> 
> So the only way to avoid this injustice is to have a DNA test done immediately.
> 
> Feminists, because they DO care about the baby and the wife, spend more concern on those two than the injustice done to the husband and resist these attempts. Understandable but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They are not my friends on this subject and one would think they have a better use of their time than condoning bad behavior.


Accuracy in reporting when it comes to who the biological father is.

In Florida, and other states, if a woman is married, her husband MUST be listed as the father, regardless of circumstances. In other words, even if it is known that she had an affair, and that the baby is not biologically his, the husband's name has to be listed, unless...the mother petitions to have no father listed. The husband has no recourse...it is the woman who decides for him, even if it is known he is not the bio father.


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> Accuracy in reporting when it comes to who the biological father is.
> 
> In Florida, and other states, if a woman is married, her husband MUST be listed as the father, regardless of circumstances. In other words, even if it is known that she had an affair, and that the baby is not biologically his, the husband's name has to be listed, unless...the mother petitions to have no father listed. The husband has no recourse...it is the woman who decides for him, even if it is known he is not the bio father.


That is because the husband by law is the defacto father of his wife children. I'm not saying it is fair in those few cases in which the husband knows and the wife admits he is not the father.

To do anything different would be cost prohibitive and an absolute mess.

If you doubt you are the cause of your wife's child, you have to prove you are not and you begin that process with legal separation. To stay together is admitting that you are the father.

Sam, your barking up a tree that is extremely complicated and an absolute mess to unravel in an universally applied new methodology. 

If you doubt your sperm contributed to that baby, you must leave your wife in order to contest responsibility toward that child.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> *That is because the husband by law is the defacto father of his wife children*. I'm not saying it is fair in those few cases in which the husband knows and the wife admits he is not the father.
> 
> To do anything different would be cost prohibitive and an absolute mess.
> 
> If you doubt you are the cause of your wife's child, you have to prove you are not and you begin that process with legal separation. To stay together is admitting that you are the father.
> 
> Sam, your barking up a tree that is extremely complicated and an absolute mess to unravel in an universally applied new methodology.
> 
> If you doubt your sperm contributed to that baby, you must leave your wife in order to contest responsibility toward that child.


Which is all absolutely ridiculous, and dates back to a time when women were thought to be pure as the driven snow, couldn't possibly have an affair because they don't like sex in the first place.

In absence of a required DNA test at birth, perhaps when it comes to court ordered child support, a positive DNA test is required to finalize the order. In cases where it is years down the line, the man has been raising the child as his own, and then finds out it is not biologically his, he is always free to continue to support the child of his own free will, just not ordered by the court to do so.


----------



## GTdad

Anon Pink said:


> Regarding female sex abusers, times are catching up and more equal treatment is slowly coming around. This is not the venue for feminism. The inequality is not negatively affecting a woman.
> 
> Case in point:Ex-NFL cheerleader charged in rape of 15-year-old boy | New York Post


It's been mentioned before a time or two, but it's worth pointing out again that maybe the biggest reason for the disparity in punishment is because we as a society we're pretty conflicted about it.

We can nearly all agree that male adult - female minor sexual relationships are abhorrent, even if "consensual" in the sense that a girl who can't legally consent consents nonetheless. But we aren't nearly on the same page when it comes to female adult - male minor sexual relationships, and that's largely if not mostly on men, not women.

Look at any comments section of a story on this sort of thing, usually involving teachers. If the women is even remotely attractive, you'll inevitably find a bunch of guys saying "where was SHE while I was in school". I'm guilty of feeling that way myself when I see some of the pictures of the teachers, so I'm not casting stones.

If we can't agree whether it's sexual abuse, how can we expect the criminal justice system to agree?


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> Which is all absolutely ridiculous, and dates back to a time when women were thought to be pure as the driven snow, couldn't possibly have an affair because they don't like sex in the first place.
> 
> In absence of a required DNA test at birth, perhaps when it comes to court ordered child support, a positive DNA test is required to finalize the order. In cases where it is years down the line, the man has been raising the child as his own, and then finds out it is not biologically his, he is always free to continue to support the child of his own free will, just not ordered by the court to do so.


No SAM it has nothing to do with that. Marriage laws were made to protect property and children were property if they arrive during a marriage. A married man could not fail to care for a child his wife gave birth to during their marriage, the child was considered his and the burden of paternity was placed on him to assure. Keeping his wife in his home was all that was needed to claim paternity of the resulting child. Tossing his wife out was all that was needed to deny paternity...and it still is that way.

If you doubt paternity you have to separate.


----------



## samyeagar

The assumption of paternity in a marriage is absolutely antiquated in what you describe as some of the reason, which I agree was the case then, and I also stand by it being in part due to views of women's sexuality.

Up until recently, there was no reliable way to determine paternity, so except for some extraordinary case where it was completely obvious, the only thing anyone had to go on was the woman's word. Looking at how female adulterer's were treated, of course she was going to say it was her husbands child. That was also a time when there was no such thing as court ordered child support, and she knew she and the baby would be kicked out if she admitted an affair.

Enter DNA testing. There are now ways to independently verify paternity without having to take anyone's word for it, and just as with many other areas of the US justice system, the laws haven't caught up with the times. Mandatory paternity testing, at the very least in cases where child support could be ordered, would go a long way towards equaling things out. Testing at birth would give the man the information he needs to decide if he wants to separate or not.


----------



## Anon Pink

Sam, if a man doubts paternity he merely has to formally request a paternity test. Again, the burden to assure paternity has always been with the man in question.

Who will pay for mandatory testing?


----------



## GTdad

Anon Pink said:


> Sam, if a man doubts paternity he merely has to formally request a paternity test. Again, the burden to assure paternity has always been with the man in question.
> 
> Who will pay for mandatory testing?


The same folks who pay for the mandatory HIV (and other conditions) testing in some states: the couple, their insurance company, or government assistance.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> Regarding female sex abusers, times are catching up and more equal treatment is slowly coming around. This is not the venue for feminism. The inequality is not negatively affecting a woman.


I can accept that because it is more in line with observable reality, the original ideals and goals of the movement and the meaning of the term itself.

However, the current sales pitch to get men more interested in the movement is that it is about gender equality. Period. No equivocation.

Men are told that feminism benefits them too and not just for the sake of their wives and daughters, but because traditional gender roles hurt them too. Men are told that feminism is not exclusively about women's rights anymore. Men are told that,

"Feminism is about changing the gender roles, sexual norms, and sexist practices that limit you and punish you when whenever you deviate from them."​
I'm not making this up. It can be found in sources like the magazine, _Everyday Feminism_. Even dear little Emma Watson is saying stuff very similar to this.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> Sam, if a man doubts paternity he merely has to formally request a paternity test. Again, the burden to assure paternity has always been with the man in question.
> 
> *Who will pay for mandatory testing*?


With paternity testing in the US ranging in cost from about $100 - $300, in the case of a pregnancy and birth which from beginning to end cost on the low end over $5,000, that additional cost is next to nothing.

In the case of a child support order, again, a couple hundred more dollars added to the overall cost of the proceedings, is next to nothing.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

GTdad said:


> The same folks who pay for the mandatory HIV (and other conditions) testing in some states: the couple, their insurance company, or government assistance.


I have never heard of any other mandatory testing. It is standard but there are always exemptions, waivers, or other ways to get out of it. 

No one can MAKE you do anything regarding your health and tests and no one should be able to.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ocotillo said:


> I can accept that because it is more in line with observable reality, the original ideals and goals of the movement and the meaning of the term itself.
> 
> However, the current sales pitch to get men more interested in the movement is that it is about gender equality. Period. No equivocation.
> 
> Men are told that feminism benefits them too and not just for the sake of their wives and daughters, but because traditional gender roles hurt them too. Men are told that feminism is not exclusively about women's rights anymore. Men are told that,
> 
> "Feminism is about changing the gender roles, sexual norms, and sexist practices that limit you and punish you when whenever you deviate from them."​
> I'm not making this up. It can be found in sources like the magazine, _Everyday Feminism_. Even dear little Emma Watson is saying stuff very similar to this.


What I read that to mean is more about things like how, for example, feminism has helped to make it possible to be a SAHD if a man chose to. If women weren't able to get jobs that could support a family, men HAD to step into that role. Now it is a choice between both spouses. 

There are a lot of other ways that feminism, equal rights, has helped men in the process.


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> What I read that to mean is more about things like how, for example, feminism has helped to make it possible to be a SAHD if a man chose to...


That's certainly part of it, but feminist authors have expanded upon that idea considerably. 

This is from a different article entitled, _How Most Things You Know About Feminists Are Vicious Conservative Lies_

"Given its name, most people think feminism is a female thing but feminism is actually for everyone, not just women....Over time, this has led to seeing how essentially everyone – women, men, trans, non-binary, LGBTQ, people of color, poor, etc – are mistreated and exploited in socially acceptable ways due to their social status. Frankly there’s not a single person who isn’t pushed and punished into fitting into a box by society. That’s why feminism is about liberation for everyone."​
Concern for things like race and poverty go far beyond the eradication of gender based stereotypes and the metamorphosis towards a general human rights movement (Or at least the desire to be perceived that way) is clear and unmistakable.


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> I can accept that because it is more in line with observable reality, the original ideals and goals of the movement and the meaning of the term itself.
> 
> However, the current sales pitch to get men more interested in the movement is that it is about gender equality. Period. No equivocation.
> 
> Men are told that feminism benefits them too and not just for the sake of their wives and daughters, but because traditional gender roles hurt them too. Men are told that feminism is not exclusively about women's rights anymore. Men are told that,
> 
> "Feminism is about changing the gender roles, sexual norms, and sexist practices that limit you and punish you when whenever you deviate from them."​
> I'm not making this up. It can be found in sources like the magazine, _Everyday Feminism_. Even dear little Emma Watson is saying stuff very similar to this.


Feminists do not go after racism. Feminists do not go after misandrysts. Nor do the go after poverty. Except when those people negatively affect women for the sake of being a woman.

This mission was decided very early when the suffragetts began they began with Frederick Douglas and other abolitionists. Abolition was dropped and the scope of feminist action is limited to circumstances where societal norms need to be challenged in order to affect positive change for women.

What you quoted, was exactly right and I see nothing wrong with it. It's only when we challenge gender normative thinking that we begin to see how our conditioning on gender roles affects how we treat people.


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> That's certainly part of it, but feminist authors have expanded upon that idea considerably.
> 
> This is from a different article entitled, _How Most Things You Know About Feminists Are Vicious Conservative Lies_
> 
> "Given its name, most people think feminism is a female thing but feminism is actually for everyone, not just women....Over time, this has led to seeing how essentially everyone – women, men, trans, non-binary, LGBTQ, people of color, poor, etc – are mistreated and exploited in socially acceptable ways due to their social status. Frankly there’s not a single person who isn’t pushed and punished into fitting into a box by society. That’s why feminism is about liberation for everyone."​
> Concern for things like race and poverty go far beyond the eradication of gender based stereotypes and the metamorphosis towards a general human rights movement (Or at least the desire to be perceived that way) is clear and unmistakable.



According to some feminists yes.

As I said earlier in this thread, feminism has its outliers like any other social movement. Feminists do not silence any of the outliers nor do they marginalize them, as a movement. The role of feminism is to embrace all dialogue.

While I agree that some feminists take the mission waaaaay too far, it is not my role to silence them but it is my role to disagree with them through dialogue.

Much like we are doing right now.

So yes, I take exception that some think the entire movement has gone too far. It hasn't. We know this because there are so many states that happily restrict a woman's rights to reproductive privacy and autonomy.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

samyeagar said:


> Tangent here...but my thoughts are that a positive paternity test be legally required before a man can be listed as the father on a birth certificate.


That's a great idea. It might actually deter some cheating, too! There otta be a law!


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> According to some feminists yes.
> 
> As I said earlier in this thread, feminism has its outliers like any other social movement. Feminists do not silence any of the outliers nor do they marginalize them, as a movement. The role of feminism is to embrace all dialogue.
> 
> While I agree that some feminists take the mission waaaaay too far, it is not my role to silence them but it is my role to disagree with them through dialogue.
> 
> Much like we are doing right now.
> 
> So yes, I take exception that some think the entire movement has gone too far. It hasn't. We know this because there are so many states that happily restrict a woman's rights to reproductive privacy and autonomy.


I appreciate that, but it seems to me that past a certain point, the upshot of plurality within the movement is that feminism as a whole is perceived as opportunistic. In the arena of public opinion, it can be defended using one set of precepts while at the same time it's pursued socially and politically using another.

I'm not saying this because I disagree with feminism or am against it. I'm saying this as someone who's fascinated by social movements. There _is_ a backlash building against feminism and like a cancer, it needs to be nipped in the bud rather than allowed to metastasize.


----------



## Buddy400

breeze said:


> So the argument is that because some people who have labelled themselves as feminists and had extreme views, that they've successfully created a different meaning for it.
> 
> The same could then be said of any religion out there then I guess, if we follow this logic. In many cases it has. All people who follow a certain religion which has extremists, and all do, is therefore defined by the extremists.
> 
> Everyone is hated for something. Trying to fight against all the hate feels pointless. Men using 'feminist' as a way to insult a woman and ignore an argument she has made is not a new thing. Women supporting them in doing so is not a new thing. I bet there were women cheering at the women being burned at the stake for being midwives. We all have our different beliefs, I get that many don't want to stand up to a person without having some sort of weapon at hand, which is what I feel 'feminism' has turned into. A weapon to use against another person to shut them up when you don't like their point of view.


But this happens everywhere, all the time.

Yes, lots of people get a bad impression of Christians because the look at Southern Baptists (generally quite conservative)instead of Episcopalians (generally very liberal).

People get a bad impression of Republicans because the focus all their attention on Ted Cruz.

People get a bad impression of the Tea Party because they focus on the wackos with the Obama / Hitler mustache signs.

People get a bad impression of Islam because they see the fanatics.

Why should feminism be any different.

It's often unfair. To some degree, it's up to the moderates to call out the radicals in their midst.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> It is not the feminists role to go after women or a specific woman but to go after inequality that negatively affects women. That is the role of feminism.
> 
> You can decry hypocrite all you want but feminism is not the police force for the times when "it's good to have tits."
> 
> Regarding female sex abusers, times are catching up and more equal treatment is slowly coming around. This is not the venue for feminism. The inequality is not negatively affecting a woman.
> 
> Case in point:Ex-NFL cheerleader charged in rape of 15-year-old boy | New York Post


Sorry, but a) feminists need to be consistent. Bill Clinton was the very definition of a sexual harasser. It was PAINFUL to listen to Monica's interview. She sounded like a child. Anyone who wasn't Clinton would have been CRUCIFIED! 

And you are wrong. You go on about sexual shaming and the horrible names men call women. Yet when LIBERAL men use that language, there is a deafening silence. And somehow this unconscionable offense against women is also allowed to slide when WOMEN do it to other WOMEN.

Really casts the group in a poor light when the principles are so...flexible.

So:

Rape is rape and sex harassment is sex harassment unless Feminists like you then it isn't 'rape rape' to quote Whoppie.

Conservative women are not given any protection from sexist slurs by Feminists. Even if it is a MAN (a liberal man) doing it.

Not one of you has addressed this, Anon.


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> I appreciate that, but it seems to me that past a certain point, the upshot of plurality within the movement is that feminism as a whole is perceived as opportunistic. In the arena of public opinion, it can be defended using one set of precepts while at the same time it's pursued socially and politically using another.
> 
> I'm not saying this because I disagree with feminism or am against it. I'm saying this as someone who's fascinated by social movements. There _is_ a backlash building against feminism and like a cancer, it needs to be nipped in the bud rather than allowed to metastasize.


I agree with you about the back lash. I wonder if the backlash has taken form in the uprise of social conservatism, yet I can lay the blame at the feet of outlier feminists nor the movement as a whole. 

I had a spirited debate with my feminist daughter and her wife a few months ago. I think feminists arent that worried about it, this potential backlash, but according to my daughter, marginalizing women in the movement for their outrageous ideas is as wrong as silencing ideas. 

Because I agree Octillo, some things feminists say aren't very equal and seem to be more about pay back. As far as I'm aware, feminists have never sought restitution.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> According to some feminists yes.
> 
> As I said earlier in this thread, feminism has its outliers like any other social movement. Feminists do not silence any of the outliers nor do they marginalize them, as a movement. The role of feminism is to embrace all dialogue.
> 
> While I agree that some feminists take the mission waaaaay too far, it is not my role to silence them but it is my role to disagree with them through dialogue.
> 
> Much like we are doing right now.
> 
> So yes, I take exception that some think the entire movement has gone too far. It hasn't. We know this because there are so many states that happily restrict a woman's rights to reproductive privacy and autonomy.


These 'outliers' are, as demonstrated, publishing in magazines to define your movement. They include very serious names in the organization.

The outlier, in this case, might be YOU. Just saying.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD, I'm sorry I have no idea what you are referring to with the Clinton reference and the rape references? Were they earlier in the thread because I skipped a lot of posts.


----------



## JCD

ocotillo said:


> I appreciate that, but it seems to me that past a certain point, the upshot of plurality within the movement is that feminism as a whole is perceived as opportunistic. In the arena of public opinion, it can be defended using one set of precepts while at the same time it's pursued socially and politically using another.
> 
> I'm not saying this because I disagree with feminism or am against it. I'm saying this as someone who's fascinated by social movements. There _is_ a backlash building against feminism and like a cancer, it needs to be nipped in the bud rather than allowed to metastasize.


That is an interesting characterization. I have a different theory.

This backlash deals with valid critiques within the movement itself. As Anon has amply demonstrated, they will not self police. They are inconsistent and when called on it, trot out 'wage disparity' and rape as a shield to criticism...when that is not what they are being criticized for.

You are automatically characterizing any resistance to the movement as wrong and sickening. Maybe you need to examine your preconceived notions. Maybe some of this backlash is warranted.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> JCD, I'm sorry I have no idea what you are referring to with the Clinton reference and the rape references? Were they earlier in the thread because I skipped a lot of posts.


One of my prior posts. I did not reference the 'rape rape' quote before, but it was pretty outrageous.

Feminism showed a great deal of hypocrisy and yes, were vile to Sarah Palin,who was treated abysmally by the press, the Democrats, and yes, Feminists. No one (or almost no one) in feminist circles called any of the bad actors on this.


----------



## Anon Pink

If you're looking for an apology for the way Palin was laughed at and discounted, you can look at me but don't hold your breath. The woman is a completely ignorant attention wh0re and deserves every bit of heat she gets.


----------



## Anon Pink

How does the Clinton/Lewinski scandal affect feminism?

As I've said twice already and now a third time, feminism does not silence any voice of any woman within the movement. All ideas are worthy of discussion and consideration. 

I am a feminist and would be happy to give you MY thoughts on various issues. But I don't speak for the movement and frankly, at this point, I don't think anyone does.


----------



## Fozzy

Anon Pink said:


> How does the Clinton/Lewinski scandal affect feminism?
> 
> *As I've said twice already and now a third time, feminism does not silence any voice of any woman within the movement. All ideas are worthy of discussion and consideration.*
> 
> I am a feminist and would be happy to give you MY thoughts on various issues. But I don't speak for the movement and frankly, at this point, I don't think anyone does.


I won't pretend to be a country mile from being an expert, but I remember hearing that Camille Paglia used to get a lot of heat in feminist circles for not toeing the line sometimes.


----------



## Anon Pink

Fozzy said:


> I won't pretend to be a country mile from being an expert, but I remember hearing that Camille Paglia used to get a lot of heat in feminist circles for not toeing the line sometimes.




All I can say is I wasn't involved in any of the meetings about her.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
the extremists in any movement can give the movement a bad reputation. Extremists are often vocal and the media loves extremists because they sell. 

Feminism is like other movements. I completely support ideas of equality for women. There are some interesting edge cases where reasonably people might disagree on the meaning of "equality".

There are unfortunately a small minority of feminists who don't want equality, but instead want essentially reparations for millenia of bad treatment of women. Those I disagree with as I disagree with anyone who wants reparations from people other than those who caused the harm.


----------



## NobodySpecial

unbelievable said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do. Women who actually have those radical views are rare.
> 
> I'm sure you're right, but whenever the media wants to get a feminist's viewpoint, they trot out NOW or someone from their homely stable of radicals. Controversy sells and reasonableness doesn't. The end result is the popular perception that feminists are radicals. The DNC encourages this false perception by accusing Republicans of some fictitious war on women. The unmistakable (and blatantly and predictably false) message is that Democrats are defenders of women. In reality, they are defenders of Democrat Liberal politicians. Everyone else, male or female, will get ridiculed, vilified, tossed under the bus, dismissed as a whacko or a bimbo, or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a tip. Fox News is not the entirety of "the media".
Click to expand...


----------



## NobodySpecial

MysticTeenager said:


> amen.
> 
> I think men can never be like women and women can never be like en. Our bodies work different and we just are not the same.


THIS is the single most common misunderstanding of feminism in my opinion. Feminism does not purport that we are the SAME but should be EQUAL under the law. 



> I believe in gender roles. While I believe some women can do what men do, not all.


That is entirely beside the point. Feminism fought for the right to do what they CAN do regardless of the junk between their legs.




> And vice versa. I dont want to compete with men to prove I can do the same thing as them. I dont want to be the same as a man which is what I feel like feminism is. A bunch of women competing with men to prove to men that they can do the same.
> 
> I'm not saying men are better than women. But we are different. And I embrace that.



I don't want to be the same as a man either. But I sure do like being equal in the eyes of the law. For rights such as to 

vote
get a job
go to school and get an education
operate as a legal participant in the judicial system

Crazy. I know.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I have worked as part of a dual income family. I have stayed home with the kids. I now am the sole bread winner for the family, having chosen to allow my husband to pursue his passion. 

There was a time when I would not have been able to make those choices. That was the time before the feminist movement.


----------



## Anonymous07

NobodySpecial said:


> THIS is the single most common misunderstanding of feminism in my opinion. Feminism does not purport that we are the SAME but should be EQUAL under the law.
> 
> I don't want to be the same as a man either. But I sure do like being equal in the eyes of the law. For rights such as to
> 
> vote
> get a job
> go to school and get an education
> operate as a legal participant in the judicial system
> 
> Crazy. I know.


:iagree::iagree:


----------



## hookares

99.5% of feminists are democrats.
That is all that needs to be said about them.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> One of my prior posts. I did not reference the 'rape rape' quote before, but it was pretty outrageous.
> 
> Feminism showed a great deal of hypocrisy and yes, were vile to Sarah Palin,who was treated abysmally by the press, the Democrats, and yes, Feminists. No one (or almost no one) in feminist circles called any of the bad actors on this.


I'm in a different country and was pretty young during that time, all I remember was outrage over his affair but I believe you that there was "sl*t shaming" and negative words used towards her and blaming of her when she was really more a victim in the situation.

That kind of thing still goes on and is not limited to any group of people. If feminists were caught up in the drama, their opinions reflect only their own and not the entire population of feminist people. 

Feminists are mostly just your average men and women who don't have any media voice but just believe in equal rights for women. 

They are in every country, every political party, every religion. This is not an American political party battle. 

Also- feminist does not mean that I love all women or that they can never be made fun of or told they are wrong. I saw the Sarah Palin situation from Canada and I saw some things go too far (any talk about her child ) but if someone says something stupid , people are going to talk about it.
I believe she should have equal rights and opportunities. I don't think she should be off limits just because of her gender. That would be going too far. If people can make fun of the stupid things Bush says, they can make fun of the stupid things she says. Equal.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't want to be the same as a man either. But I sure do like being equal in the eyes of the law. For rights such as to
> 
> vote
> get a job
> go to school and get an education
> operate as a legal participant in the judicial system
> 
> Crazy. I know.


Yeh, because all the anti-feminists here are saying that you shouldn't be able to do any of these things.

And then there's Fox News as the evil villain. Only you misspelled it. You have to spell it "Faux News" to win.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> Yeh, because all the anti-feminists here are saying that you shouldn't be able to do any of these things.


Do you believe in equal rights for women? 

Because "_A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women_"

Forget about the radicals, you don't have to agree with everything a feminist has every said to be one. 
So are you anti- supporting the rights and equality of women? 
or just anti-what some feminists and the media have created that is radical and non productive?


----------



## EleGirl

Anon Pink said:


> How does the Clinton/Lewinski scandal affect feminism?
> 
> As I've said twice already and now a third time, feminism does not silence any voice of any woman within the movement. All ideas are worthy of discussion and consideration.
> 
> I am a feminist and would be happy to give you MY thoughts on various issues. *But I don't speak for the movement and frankly, at this point, I don't think anyone does*.


This is the major point that some/most seem to ignore. There is no person or organization that represent "feminism" or all women who consider themselves "feminists". 

Sure there are women who say and do outrageous things. They are mostly looking for attention. And they do not represent feminism. They only represent themself.

Its disingenuous to look at what the fringe says/does and proclaim that it represents feminism.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Sorry, but a) feminists need to be consistent. Bill Clinton was the very definition of a sexual harasser. It was PAINFUL to listen to Monica's interview. She sounded like a child. Anyone who wasn't Clinton would have been CRUCIFIED!
> 
> And you are wrong. You go on about sexual shaming and the horrible names men call women. Yet when LIBERAL men use that language, there is a deafening silence. And somehow this unconscionable offense against women is also allowed to slide when WOMEN do it to other WOMEN.
> 
> Really casts the group in a poor light when the principles are so...flexible.
> 
> So:
> 
> Rape is rape and sex harassment is sex harassment unless Feminists like you then it isn't 'rape rape' to quote Whoppie.
> 
> Conservative women are not given any protection from sexist slurs by Feminists. Even if it is a MAN (a liberal man) doing it.
> 
> Not one of you has addressed this, Anon.


You seem to think that there is one group or person who leads all feminists. Please do tell us who she is or who this group is.

Almost every woman I know is a feminist in that they believe in equal rights for women. None of them do the things you describe here.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> These 'outliers' are, as demonstrated, publishing in magazines to define your movement. *They include very serious names in the organization*.
> 
> The outlier, in this case, might be YOU. Just saying.


What organization is THE ORGANIZATION?

As far as I know, it does not exist.


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> I have worked as part of a dual income family. I have stayed home with the kids. I now am the sole bread winner for the family, having chosen to allow my husband to pursue his passion.
> 
> There was a time when I would not have been able to make those choices. That was the time before the feminist movement.


I ended having to support my children on my own. Thank goodness that by the time this happened, feminism was making headway and I have been able to get a good education and a very good paying job. Otherwise I would have had the same fate all most women in the past... if they did not have a man to support them and their children to were cast aside into abject poverty.


----------



## Fozzy

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Feminists are mostly just your average men and women who don't have any media voice but just believe in equal rights for women.
> 
> They are in every country, every political party, every religion. This is not an American political party battle.


As a somewhat distracted, libertarian leaning vaudeville bear, I agree.

:smthumbup:


----------



## Anon Pink

Damn Vaudevillian bears.... Always looking for the chuckle in everything.


----------



## Buddy400

A lot of the disagreement here seems to be of the of the Humpty-Dumpty sort: "When I Use a Word, It Means Just What I Choose It to mean, Neither More nor Less".

So what does "feminism" mean? Well, some here think it means one thing and others something else. We can't just take our own meaning and impose it on everyone else. One has to acknowledge what the word means to others as well as what it means to oneself.

I could easily say "Why is 'Tea Party' getting such a bad rep?" To me what "Tea Party" means is smaller government "Taxed Enough Already". It doesn't have any social conservative meaning at all (and it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument if that's the "true" meaning or not. That's just what *I* think it means. I understand that *you* may think it means something else).

But, the whole "Tea Party" label just gets liberals frothing at the mouth. So, as much as I might feel justified in calling myself a "Tea Partier", I don't do that. The brand has been damaged, partly by radicals in the movement that don't share my definition of Tea Party goals. It doesn't matter what I think it means. I've got to acknowledge what OTHERS think it means. If I want to convince people about shrinking the size of government and I don't want people to think that I'm a racist (however unjust I think that assumption is), I'm going to have to come up with a new label. Just like Democrats redefined the meaning of "Liberal" so that today's liberals had to invent a new label for themselves (Libertarians). 

So, you can have "feminism" mean whatever you say it means, but it's naïve to not consider what it means to other people. If you want to focus on the original meaning of feminism and avoid the collateral damage inflicted by the radicals you might want to use another label. Perhaps "Equity Feminist"? 

P.S. PLEASE, PLEASE, let's not talk about the Tea Party. That's just intended as an illustration of how one label can mean different things to different people.


----------



## EleGirl

How about we use feminist to mean the original idea... Equality for women under the law.

Then we can all the outliers Radical Feminists or Femi-Nazis.


----------



## Buddy400

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Do you believe in equal rights for women?
> 
> Because "_A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women_"
> 
> Forget about the radicals, you don't have to agree with everything a feminist has every said to be one.
> So are you anti- supporting the rights and equality of women?
> or just anti-what some feminists and the media have created that is radical and non productive?


Using your definition, I would be a feminist.

I was being tongue in cheek in using the term "anti-feminist" to define those you are debating here. I don't think I've seen more than one true "anti-feminist" (using your definition) on this thread. Heck, JCD sounds like a fellow feminist (using your definition)!


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> How about we use feminist to mean the original idea... Equality for women under the law.
> 
> Then we can all the outliers Radical Feminists or Femi-Nazis.


I suspect that you are going a bit over the top for effect, but I support the general idea!


----------



## Buddy400

Sorry for clogging the thread. I just reread your post.


SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Do you believe in equal rights for women? * Yes*
> 
> Because "_A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women_"
> 
> Forget about the radicals, you don't have to agree with everything a feminist has every said to be one.
> So are you anti- supporting the rights and equality of women? *No*
> or just anti-what some feminists and the media have created that is radical and non productive? *Yes*


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> I suspect that you are going a bit over the top for effect, but I support the general idea!


Oh, I don't think I'm going over the top here. You are right that we need to have clear definitions so that others know what we are really talking about.

If we don't make a distinction between feminism (equal right under the law for women) and radical-feminism then it serves to shut down anyone who supports equal rights for women.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> THIS is the single most common misunderstanding of feminism in my opinion. Feminism does not purport that we are the SAME but should be EQUAL under the law.
> 
> 
> That is entirely beside the point. Feminism fought for the right to do what they CAN do regardless of the junk between their legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to be the same as a man either. But I sure do like being equal in the eyes of the law. For rights such as to
> 
> vote
> get a job
> go to school and get an education
> operate as a legal participant in the judicial system
> 
> Crazy. I know.


Okay.

What in that list do you lack?

Not a 'well, this one girl got fired for not putting out and her boss got fired'.

What is *institutionally* rigged in that list that you currently lack?


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Okay.
> 
> What in that list do you lack?
> 
> Not a 'well, this one girl got fired for not putting out and her boss got fired'.
> 
> What is *institutionally* rigged in that list that you currently lack?


You do know that these things were not always available to women, right? It was not that long ago either.

*vote* - By the time I was born women could vote.

*get a job *- When I was younger there were many jobs not open to women. I was told to do things like secretary, nurse, clerk typist.. that's what woman did. When I wanted to sell appliances at department store because it paid a commission, I was told that women cannot do that. That women do not have the knowledge and no one would ever buy an appliance from a woman.

In the 70’s I went to file paperwork to open a business. I was told that I needed a letter from my husband giving me permission to start a business. I asked the clerk why, since my husband did not need a note from me when he opened his business. I was told because women need supervision.

*go to school and get an education * - When I started college women could get degrees in the fine arts. But when I tried to get accepting into math, engineering and science I was told that women could not do those fields. That women just did not have the capacity. I went back to school 15 years later because by that time those colleges in the university were finally starting to open up for women.


When I started my first engineering job in the 1980's, in meetings, the male engineers would order me to make coffee. And they would even hand me papers to copy for them. As you can imagine that did not go over well.

I also had a supervisor who started yelling at me one day that he was just tired of all these women who were showing up suddenly in the 80's doing jobs that belong to men. We all just needed be home be barefoot and pregnant.

In the first decade I worked as an engineer, women were offered half of what a man with equal experience and education were offered. 

*operate as a legal participant in the judicial system * In many states women were not allowed to be lawyers until the 1970's. Women who went through law school and passed the bar were told that clients would not accept a female lawyer. They were also told that it made no sense to hire them because the women would just quite once they had children. So women with license to practice law usually only found jobs as legal secretaries.

These things are open to the younger women today only because the women before me fought and won some rights. Then my generation come in, in the 60's and 70's and really pushed to be able to do jobs and have more rights that women did not have before.

The rights that women have today are mostly new found rights. They are only a few decades old. They are fragile. Today people take them for granted. But they could slip away pretty easily. 

We often have women here on TAM talking about how they think feminism is awful. Yet these very same women have the rights that feminism gave them. They would scream bloody murder is anyone tried to take them away. Talk about hypocrisy.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> This is the major point that some/most seem to ignore. There is no person or organization that represent "feminism" or all women who consider themselves "feminists".
> 
> Sure there are women who say and do outrageous things. They are mostly looking for attention. And they do not represent feminism. They only represent themself.
> 
> Its disingenuous to look at what the fringe says/does and proclaim that it represents feminism.


I have this step mother. She is very Christian. VERY Christian.

So occasionally, some Christian gets his hand stuck in a cookie jar (or someplace warmer) and much embarrassment ensues.

Her canard is '(Charlemagne, Cromwell, Torquemada) were not REAL Christians!'

This is a BS argument and I will tell you why.

Yes, a person ONLY speaks for themselves. But they are allowed to identify whom they affiliate with.

Here is an interesting blog post (read the whole thing. Feminists are still attacking Monica badly!):



> The leaders of the feminist movement who had led the conversation during the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas controversy in 1991, the ones who had come out in force the following year in support of the women speaking out against Republican senator from Oregon and serial harasser Robert Packwood, didn't come to Lewinsky's defense when the Clinton damage control machine determined that the best course of action was to bulldoze her. The reasons from the feminist camp were technical: Lewinsky wasn't sexually harassed. She wasn't coerced. Twenty-four is old enough to make our own choices.
> 
> This is very true. *But just because someone isn't a victim doesn't mean it's okay to ridicule, humiliate and slander them* , which is what the politically-driven media machine did. In her Vanity Fair essay, Lewinsky writes that the abuse she suffered didn't happen during the affair, but in the aftermath. She might not have been too young to make decisions about her sex life, but she was, as she writes, "too young to see that I would be sacrificed for political expediency."
> 
> Lewinsky references a New York Observer article that ran a week after the scandal first broke, a sort of round-table discussion among *ten prominent New York women, many of them feminists,* about the Lewinsky scandal. In her essay, Lewinsky responds to some of the claims made by the powerful women in attendance -- women she wished had been there for her during that difficult time -- *many of whom only seemed to find it in themselves to assert that they kind of liked that Clinton was a sexual man. Their comments and insinuations about Lewinsky -- that she was an example of Clinton's "recklessness to pick the wrong women," "not that pretty," "some not-brilliant woman in the Oval Office," "father-obsessed," a doormat for giving without receiving, among others -- seem to still sting. *
> 
> But the same article reveals an interesting question that is at the heart of Lewinsky's essay: "Why did the public opinion overwhelmingly support Anita Hill, whereas Monica Lewinsky nobody has any sympathy for?" as Kaite Roiphe put it. *Francine Prose, who'd later write up the piece for the Observer, responded to that question: "I mean, I wanted Clarence Thomas out of there. You know, so I was willing to go with Anita Hill." Prose, like so many other feminist women, didn't want Clinton "out of there."*
> 
> "The chief reason for feminists’ continued support of Clinton is clear: Clinton is their guy," wrote Marjorie Williams in a 1998 article for Vanity Fair, in which she referred to Clinton's two terms as the "Gaslight Presidency," in reference to the movie which would give the name to a kind of psychological abuse that seeks destroy a victim's trust in his or her own perception or memory.
> 
> "Finally, feminists have a special responsibility to loathe the lies, implicit and explicit, with which Clinton has consistently tried to cover his tracks: feminism, at its core, is about helping women to respect what is true over what is convenient," Williams wrote. "It's bad enough that Clinton has hidden behind an endless chain of women to protect him from the consequences of his actions: from Betsey Wright, the longtime aide who contained 'bimbo eruptions' for him in 1992, to Hillary and Chelsea -- whistled home from Stanford, while classes were in session, to take part in a tender father-daughter photo op nine days after the scandal broke -- to Betty Currie, the loyal secretary who will leave the Clinton White House with a mountain of legal bills. Must he hide behind the rest of us too?"
> 
> Through Lewinsky's essay, we can see how this played out. Feminist leaders did nothing to support a young woman, or try to prevent her from becoming a scapegoat and a joke. It's been almost twenty years and short of a few bit parts on television and a few endorsement deals, Lewinsky has had little success getting employment because of her "history," and continues to be the butt of the joke. Meanwhile, the former president continues to enjoy the talk circuit, has four best-selling books, and was even invited to take the stage for Obama during his reelection campaign, with some saying that he "won" the election for Obama.


So when ONE woman says a wacky thing or does a bad thing, I blame the ONE woman.

When dozens, if not hundreds of women who all identify they same way, who are published in that movement, who are considered 'voices' in that movement all react the same way...guess what?

When you gather enough 'lone voices' all singing the same tune, it becomes a Chorus. And the Chorus sang: We will eschew our principles for this serial sexual harasser who in turn hides behind and/or destroys women, when he isn't fondling them. Because he can give us stuff (and he's sexy).

So, Anon Pink and Elegirl. You are both Americans.

AT THE TIME, did you defend or attack Bill Clinton as a sexual harasser? Did you have nasty conversations with your fellow women who were supporting him or did you swallow your bile and support him?

If you did the later, you were nowhere near alone among Feminists.

That is why this 'lone voices' thing on some of these big issues is a very silly defense.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> So when ONE woman says a wacky thing or does a bad thing, I blame the ONE woman.
> 
> When dozens, if not hundreds of women who all identify they same way, who are published in that movement, who are considered 'voices' in that movement all react the same way...guess what?
> 
> When you gather enough 'lone voices' all singing the same tune, it becomes a Chorus. And the Chorus sang: We will eschew our principles for this serial sexual harasser who in turn hides behind and/or destroys women, when he isn't fondling them. Because he can give us stuff (and he's sexy).


The largest voice for feminism are women like me, my sisters, my friends and coworkers who never get into the public lime light. We express our voice by living what feminism is… equal rights for women.



JCD said:


> So, Anon Pink and Elegirl. You are both Americans.


I find your below questions insulting. Your questions assumes that I have to answer for what other women say. They assume that I have to answer to you. But I’ll answer them because my answers make an ass out of your assumptions.



JCD said:


> AT THE TIME, did you defend or attack Bill Clinton as a sexual harasser?


At the time and now I my thoughts are the same. Bill Clinton sexually harassed many women. He should be been kicked out of office. I don’t know a woman in my real life who does not agree with this.


JCD said:


> Did you have nasty conversations with your fellow women who were supporting him or did you swallow your bile and support him?


Since I did not and do not know any women who supported him after we found out what a slime ball he is, I never had that type of conversation with any woman or man in which either they supported him or I “swallowed my bile and supported him”. Do I really sound like a person who do something like that? 

Now I had plenty of conversations with men and women in which we discussed that we did not support him and that we were astonished at the support he got from so many.



JCD said:


> If you did the later, you were nowhere near alone among Feminists.


I am also not alone in my view point among feminists.



JCD said:


> That is why this 'lone voices' thing on some of these big issues is a very silly defense.


No it’s not a silly defense. What it feels like you and many men (and some women) are trying to do is to shut up the moderate voice.


ETA: Do you realize that the women who were out there supporting him in the public light make up a tiny fraction of the women in this country? I mean less than 1%. So you are trying to put on more than 99% of the women what a very small % say.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> So when ONE woman says a wacky thing or does a bad thing, I blame the ONE woman.
> 
> When dozens, if not hundreds of women who all identify they same way, who are published in that movement, who are considered 'voices' in that movement all react the same way...guess what?
> 
> When you gather enough 'lone voices' all singing the same tune, it becomes a Chorus.


There is a loud, nutty voice coming out of the Mens’ Rights Movement. One of their main tenants is to attack feminism. They sound a lot like the things you say here to be honest.

So then I guess they are a loud Chorus that YOU need to answer for.


----------



## JCD

I erased my first answer because I while I do want to disagree with you, I do not want to be disagreeable while doing it.

As a first premise, I reject the idea that I am 'attacking' Feminism.

I can raise valid points, inconsistencies and hypocritical stances by Feminists. The question was asked 'Is Feminism misunderstood?' The OP wants to know why everyone does not automatically buy into Feminism. These points are answers to this.

Additionally, I can say 'this was harmful to how Feminism was perceived' without saying 'all Feminists are bad'. That is not what I am saying.

Second premise: You do not get to dismiss anyone you do not like as 'outliers' just because they reflect badly on Feminism. You can't hold Gloria Steinem or Monica Goldberg to your bosom when they write something you like, but then dismiss them when they write something you don't. Additionally, I will try not to cite people who are odd professors of Women's Studies departments. They be CRAZY.

The NYT, Washington Post, National Journal et al are not bastions of 'yellow journalism'. Anyone who is posted there are not torch wielding crazies and they are treated as representing some, if not many in Feminism.


These are women whose ideas you've studied, whose speeches you've heard and maybe agreed with, and whose books you may have read.

If you don't like where they are semantically trying to lead you, well, that is not my problem. That is a major problem with THIS stance:



Anon Pink said:


> As I've said twice already and now a third time,* feminism does not silence any voice of any woman within the movement*. All ideas are worthy of discussion and consideration.


That has nasty repercussions as you are discovering. You will not shut up your crazies. You will not even criticize your crazies as a larger movement.

When my political associates say crazy stupid sh!t, I tell them they are saying crazy stupid sh!t. Because it reflects badly on ME!



EleGirl said:


> The largest voice for feminism are women like me, my sisters, my friends and coworkers who never get into the public lime light. We express our voice by living what feminism is… equal rights for women.


Got to stop right here.

If you are never in the limelight, you do not have the largest voice in Feminism. People whose voices are actually HEARD have the largest voice in Feminism.




> I find your below questions insulting. Your questions assumes that I have to answer for what other women say. They assume that I have to answer to you. But I’ll answer them because my answers make an ass out of your assumptions.


Actually, I did not ask you to answer for other women. I asked you to answer for yourself. You did.



> At the time and now I my thoughts are the same. Bill Clinton sexually harassed many women. He should be been kicked out of office. I don’t know a woman in my real life who does not agree with this.


I can name a half a dozen very loud voices who felt this way.

But I am obviously communicating poorly today.

I stated that Feminism got a major black eye because the loudest voices in Feminism in the 1998 turned their back on positions they STRONGLY espoused to both defend the sitting President and turned a very blind eye toward the savaging of Monica Lewinsky. I could cite a half dozen articles discussing this very thing. I posted one. You can read it if you like. WOMEN are having conversations about how poorly those Feminists acted at the time. Are they MRA activists? Are they 'attacking' Feminism? (Some of them maybe. Not all)

This has nothing to do with you personally.

I am not even alleging that these women who let this pass or actively defended him LIKED what he was doing. How could they?

I am saying they acted hypocritically and opportunistically and sacrificed one of their own...just so they could keep Bill.

It was a loud obvious bit of work and I am nowhere near alone in saying it hurt Feminism as a _principled _movement in the eyes of many.




> Since I did not and do not know any women who supported him after we found out what a slime ball he is, I never had that type of conversation with any woman or man in which either they supported him or I “swallowed my bile and supported him”. Do I really sound like a person who do something like that?


I know who you are now. I do not know who you were then. Today's Elegirl, no, you would not change your position. To you, a slime ball is a slime ball. I apologize for the insinuation.

However, POLLS tell a different story.

Despite _everyone you know in real life_ thinking he was a slime ball, his approval ratings did NOT take any sort of hit.










So...who was approving of him? You can't cite '99% of women hating him) and have his polls look like that. So while you personally may have been disgusted, doesn't seem to have done him any harm with the other female half of the population.



> Now I had plenty of conversations with men and women in which we discussed that we did not support him and that we were astonished at the support he got from so many.


Hey, you got me! I don't understand it either. But 60% of the population were against impeachment. How many of them do you think were women? SWM were NOT the heartiest backers of Bill. It was the other gender who was the basis of his support.

As far as political opportunism and being hypocritical about supposed values, I feel the exact same way about Sarah Palin. The *way* she was attacked was beyond the pale for espoused principles of Feminists. And some (not all) Feminists spoke rather horribly about her. 

I don't have a problem with single actors, as you recall. I have a problem with the fact these people were not called on it by other Feminists. Granted, she was not 'in the movement' as Anon Pink stated.

So...women IN the movement are protected...women OUT of the movement...are...open to any kind of attack that Feminists usually think hurt how women are valued???

This also seems very unprincipled. This is a personal opinion. I am probably not alone in this assessment. 




> No it’s not a silly defense. What it feels like you and many men (and some women) are trying to do is to shut up the moderate voice.


I am not calling Feminists on ANY moderate position they hold. I am not a secret cabal trying to discredit Feminism (they don't need my help  )

This has nothing to do with wage gaps, job opportunities, education opportunities, or even abortions! It does not have to do with women's sex drives, the right to make cat calls, or campus rape. These are all moderate positions.

I am answering the question. Why don't people like (misunderstand) Feminism?

-Because in times past they have acted against their espoused principles in very public ways

-Because they have inextricably bound themselves to ONE political party in a two party system...and that automatically garners one opponents.

-Because Feminists, bound to one party, try to use their 'cloak of principled sanctity' to rip their political opponents a new one in ways they give a pass to their allies.

-Because occasionally, Feminists DO attack men or try to upset the balance so they get an advantage OVER men. And I can fairly resent such actions (See Affirmative Consent)

-Because *when they are called on their bad actions*, they try to hide behind their principles and say 'look...this big bad man is attacking wage equality and equality' instead of saying 'yeah...I can see where these actions look dicey and can alienate people or cause them to doubt the strength of our principles'.

Hope this clarifies things, if not with you, with the other readers.


----------



## NobodySpecial

If you capitalize a word, thereby making it a proper noun, are you successfully implying that it IS a proper noun? Like an organization with a governing head? Or are you being completely disingenuous?


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> Okay.
> 
> What in that list do you lack?
> 
> Not a 'well, this one girl got fired for not putting out and her boss got fired'.
> 
> What is *institutionally* rigged in that list that you currently lack?


I imagine that you know that the term feminism was not coined yesterday. It was a result of a grass roots movement by that name that I gained those freedoms. But still, if you look at the executive levels of most corporations, you will see that it remains disproportionately white male. Advancement in the military is still very difficult for women. Politics is another area where the glass ceiling is very real.

It is not institutional. It is attitudinal. Much worse.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> If you capitalize a word, thereby making it a proper noun, are you successfully implying that it IS a proper noun? Like an organization with a governing head? Or are you being completely disingenuous?


I thought that was a touch of respect but I am also random in knowing what is and is not a proper noun. If you examine my writing, you'll probably find it capitalized and not capitalized. Generally I do not capitalize the word 'feminist'.

I wish I could tell you about the 'sinister motive' but no. If you want to infer one, knock yourself out.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> I imagine that you know that the term feminism was not coined yesterday. It was a result of a grass roots movement by that name that I gained those freedoms. But still, if you look at the executive levels of most corporations, you will see that it remains disproportionately white male. Advancement in the military is still very difficult for women. Politics is another area where the glass ceiling is very real.
> 
> It is not institutional. It is attitudinal. Much worse.


Well yes. It IS an organization with a long history.

And I sort of take exception to how that fact is used. Anon Pink mentioned what the ORIGINAL PURPOSE of the feminists in Seneca Falls was a bunch of things we have mostly accomplished.

That is like saying the original purpose of Democrats was to keep the South safe, or Republicans was anti-Slavery. All three organizations have grown far beyond what they once were.

So discussing what feminism (or do you want me to capitalize it?) was then is not much more terribly relevant than discussing what President Polk's attitudes were toward the Ukraine.

As far as attitudes...there probably is more work to do...but probably not as much as you'd like to think.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> Well yes. It IS an organization with a long history.


Cool! I'd love to check out its website. Got link?


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> Cool! I'd love to check out its website. Got link?


I see you are intimately familiar with the term 'disingenuous'.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> I see you are intimately familiar with the term 'disingenuous'.


If it is an organization as you claim, then presumably they have contact information. I am asking for it.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> If it is an organization as you claim, then presumably they have contact information. I am asking for it.


Oh. This is one of those female communication things.

What you are doing is avoiding the issue of the points I made. Instead, I have a very keen sense you are seeking to marginalize and mock me. Fair enough.

But lets not forget that you are offering nothing to say about the points I made.

While I do not think they are the whole truth, I think they are truer than is comfortable for many who support feminism/Feminism (your preference)


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ No I am being completely straight up. No mockery at all. You made a claim. Back it.

I have said what I had to say. And pretty clearly.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Quote: . You can't hold Gloria Steinem or Monica Goldberg to your bosom when they write something you like, but then dismiss them when they write something you don't.

Why exactly can a person not agree with many things another says but disagree with some? 

I agree with many of the things you say, I don't agree with some of your other stuff. It's simple. 

With the political party stuff- again being from a different country I am missing most of the democrat vs. republican battles but I do have friends and some family in/from the US. They are all feminists and are not supporting the same political party (my facebook page gets crazy with debates come voting time!) Their political affiliation has nothing to do with their belief that women should be equal. 

IMO you are still trying to make this a political divide (ie. feminist is the new term for "liberals" o "socialist") when it's not. 

Or are you saying that the misunderstood feminist problem is limited to the US and democrat feminists?


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ No I am being completely straight up. No mockery at all. You made a claim. Back it.
> 
> I have said what I had to say. And pretty clearly.


No you aren't. But that's fine. You are quibbling about capitalization and exact definition of words. That is the opposite of being 'straight up'

I am sticking to what I want to talk about, which has less to do with grammar and more to do with 'why feminism is misunderstood'.


----------



## Anon Pink

Who is shutting down the crazies of the Tea Party? Who is shutting down the crazies of the GOP? Do you continue to stand behind the GOP when they have gerrymandered district after dis trick to such an extent that they literally can't loose power?

It's one thing, JCD, to take feminism to task for failing to come to the aid of Monica Lewinski but quite another to expect any feminist participating in this thread to distance themselves from the movement as a result of that failure.

So let's hear it from you JCD? Still a republican even though you've got antiabortion crusaders who force their mistresses to have abortions in your organization? Shall we throw the entire party out as a result of idiot law makers who think a uterus is magically intuitive and can "shut down" the sperm of a rapist? Do I see you walking away from your party because another law maker equates a woman's life with that of farm animals when insisting a dead fetus be carried to term?


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Quote: . You can't hold Gloria Steinem or Monica Goldberg to your bosom when they write something you like, but then dismiss them when they write something you don't.
> 
> Why exactly can a person not agree with many things another says but disagree with some?


This is fair but I need to clarify.

Let's look at the example of Miss Andrist (Cheeky example). She is a well thought of feminist. She writes books that women say touch their lives. When women speak about women's rights, they often quote her. She gives well attended speeches. She is a guest lecturer in many universities. She is hailed as a forthright, articulate paragon of the feminists. She writes opinion pieces in respected magazines and newspapers.

But then she got involved in first defending and then offering the most tepid of condemnations to the Philanderer in Chief. Laws she had been agitating for for DECADES she seemingly turned her back on.

And now SHE is characterized as an outlier???? A strange voice in the feminist wilderness? Suddenly feminism does not have any leaders or paragons?

I find this a very convenient defense. Because the story of Miss Andrist was written by a few dozen of these 'outliers' who helped nurture and guide feminism for decades both in the Bill Clinton and the Sarah Palin debacles.




> With the political party stuff- again being from a different country I am missing most of the democrat vs. republican battles but I do have friends and some family in/from the US. They are all feminists and are not supporting the same political party (my facebook page gets crazy with debates come voting time!) Their political affiliation has nothing to do with their belief that women should be equal.
> 
> IMO you are still trying to make this a political divide (ie. feminist is the new term for "liberals" o "socialist") when it's not.
> 
> Or are you saying that the misunderstood feminist problem is limited to the US and democrat feminists?


All of these 'outliers' who write all the ink about feminism are almost, to a woman, Democrats.

If you could find 5% of the 'non leadership' of feminism who were Conservative or Republicans, I would be absolutely gobsmacked. 

Now, this depends on how you define 'feminist'. Wage disparity and equal opportunity is pretty much a no brainer for everyone in America though there is some quibbling about 'agency'. (Some folks say that wage disparity has more to do with personal choices made by the women than outright discrimination)

Abortion tends to be a line in the sand. So is Affirmative Consent. But most of the feminist writers in America write to their fellow women with the absolute presumption that only one political party has anything to offer to them, including political advancement.

Which was why Sarah Palin had to be destroyed.

It really is that stark among the 'non leaders' of feminism down here. I did not 'try to make this a political divide'. It exists.


Here is an article on point to that.



> You get the idea. If feminism is about empowering women to participate in American civic and social life without regard to the ends they pursue with that power and freedom, then of course these women are feminists. The opposite of being a feminist in this sense isn't to be an anti-abortion libertarian; it is to be powerless.
> 
> But many self-described feminists today define feminism in a way that is far more ideological and includes a range of specific policy proposals. To be a feminist in this sense, you must support abortion rights through all three trimesters, favor paid family leave, back government subsidized child care, and so forth.
> 
> Which means that to be considered a feminist, you must be a liberal Democrat.
> 
> TNR is a liberal magazine, so it's no criticism to point out that Shulevitz and Traister both write as liberals. Still, I found myself most intrigued by passages in their exchange where tensions between these rival notions of feminism lurked just below the surface. In her list of feminist priorities, for example, Traister includes "elect a feminist woman president." Had she simply written "elect a woman president," this would have been a statement in keeping with the first form of feminism, which seeks to empower women without regard to ideology. It would have indicated that a victory for any woman of either party in the race for the presidency would be a triumph for feminism.
> 
> But that's not what Traister wrote. She wants to elect a feminist woman president, which means that she wants to elect not any woman, but only a liberal woman. She goes out of her way to clarify that this does not mean she thinks feminists need to support Hillary Clinton in 2016. But Elizabeth Warren (who is more liberal than Clinton on most issues) is the only other potential candidate she mentions — implying that the feminist options range from the center to the left wing of the Democratic Party.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> All of these 'outliers' who write all the ink about feminism are almost, to a woman, Democrats.
> 
> If you could find 5% of the 'non leadership' of feminism who were Conservative or Republicans, I would be absolutely gobsmacked.
> 
> *Now, this depends on how you define 'feminist'. Wage disparity and equal opportunity is pretty much a no brainer for everyone* in America though there is some quibbling about 'agency'. (Some folks say that wage disparity has more to do with personal choices made by the women than outright discrimination)
> 
> Abortion tends to be a line in the sand. So is Affirmative Consent. But most of the feminist writers in America write to their fellow women with the absolute presumption that only one political party has anything to offer to them, including political advancement.
> 
> Which was why Sarah Palin had to be destroyed.
> 
> It really is that stark among the 'non leaders' of feminism down here. I did not 'try to make this a political divide'. It exists.
> 
> 
> Here is an article on point to that.


Bolded: :rofl: For real? Not ONE republican voted for the paycheck fairness act. NOT ONE!


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> No you aren't. But that's fine. You are quibbling about capitalization and exact definition of words. That is the opposite of being 'straight up'
> 
> I am sticking to what I want to talk about, which has less to do with grammar and more to do with 'why feminism is misunderstood'.


Wow. Only on the internet can using language to communicate be offensive.


----------



## Buddy400

Anon Pink said:


> Bolded: :rofl: For real? Not ONE republican voted for the paycheck fairness act. NOT ONE!


This kind of stuff bothers me a lot. Equal pay for equal work has been the law since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a proposed law that would 1) Allow employees of a company to share pay information 2) Put more burden of proof on the employer. One can be against this law and for equal pay for equal work. Republicans are not against equal pay for equal work, they are against burdening company's with more regulations.

People really have to be careful about the names of legislation. There could be a "Good Things Happen to Good People Act" that actually creates a commission of religious leaders to award government money to good Christians. 

Could anyone opposing that act be accused of being against good things happening to good people?


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Who is shutting down the crazies of the Tea Party? Who is shutting down the crazies of the GOP? Do you continue to stand behind the GOP when they have gerrymandered district after dis trick to such an extent that they literally can't loose power?
> 
> It's one thing, JCD, to take feminism to task for failing to come to the aid of Monica Lewinski but quite another to expect any feminist participating in this thread to distance themselves from the movement as a result of that failure.
> 
> So let's hear it from you JCD? Still a republican even though you've got antiabortion crusaders who force their mistresses to have abortions in your organization? Shall we throw the entire party out as a result of idiot law makers who think a uterus is magically intuitive and can "shut down" the sperm of a rapist? Do I see you walking away from your party because another law maker equates a woman's life with that of farm animals when insisting a dead fetus be carried to term?


Point one: I never said a woman should QUIT being a feminist. I said that actions of important, influential feminists have brought discredit to the movement as was asked in the OP. I also would kind of like to hear an admission of 'yeah...we screwed the pooch back then. We were wrong, but we'll learn from that. Maybe Conservative women should be given respect too. Or we should certainly call all gender based attacks as off limits even if conducted by our allies (ESPECAILLY if conducted by your allies!)'

It is certainly healthier than saying 'the movement never makes a mistake' or refusing to call someone who says something crazy as being crazy. It is not like I am asking you to put up an op ed in the Times. It's just us here. A little humility certainly wouldn't hurt.

Point two: You can hold to the view that no voice should be stifled at all. But you then do not get to complain if the loudest and most obnoxious voices are seen to define your movement. You want diversity? Okay. But the public makes it's own conclusions (However, it seems that feminism has certainly cleaned house when it comes to Conservative women within the group. Just saying  )

Point three: The Tea Party is only the most recent example of internal knife fighting inside the Republican party. We constantly fight over ideas. The TP was a reaction to crazy Washington spending in general and specifically at Republicans who had spent the Bush years spending like Democrats. Not cool! The next housecleaning I see in feminism will be the first.

Point four: Gerrymandering is an equal opportunity sport.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Bolded: :rofl: For real? Not ONE republican voted for the paycheck fairness act. NOT ONE!


Isn't even on my radar. I'll look it up.

ETA: I read a summary.

I can see several reasons why people would oppose this bill besides 'hating women'.

There are a lot of very thorny issues here, not the least of which is when adjustments are made to wages due to education, hours, choices etc, most of the wage disparity disappears. So if that is true (or Republicans BELIEVE it is true), their votes certainly become more understandable. If that prior fact is true, this is fixing a problem which doesn't really exist.

Second, it puts the Secretary of the Labor as a plaintiff in the action. If he thinks he can attack a company for alleged disparities, he can cripple it with lawsuits. Considering how the IRS has been used recently, I can why someone would not want to give the Executive Branch any more power than he is already grabbing with both hands.

Third, this is a really bad time to try to pass this kind of law. ACA ruffled a hell of a lot of feathers.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

That article is kind of my point. Feminist is misunderstood because people are lumping it in with the fear mongering that they do liberals/socialists. 

People are clinging to rare- but loud and attention grabbing- examples of women who say something they don't agree with and turn it into "See, all feminists have to believe in third trimester abortions!!" When that never was the case in the first place. 

But still, feminism is not just an American thing.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> I agree with you about the back lash. I wonder if the backlash has taken form in the uprise of social conservatism, yet I can lay the blame at the feet of outlier feminists nor the movement as a whole.


I think a combination of things are feeding it, but here are two that stand out to me. 

In the U.S., women in the 35 and under demographic are currently earning just a tad more than men. I know there are wage disparities in many other areas, but this is still a milestone that made the cover of Time magazine. So you have a generation of younger women who are not feeling the sting of inequality in quite the same way that their mothers and grandmothers may have and there is less tolerance even among young women for some of the more acerbic rhetoric. 


That there is a malaise among young men is increasingly apparent. They are not doing as well in school as they used to and they are not graduating from college in the same numbers anymore. I would agree with anyone who points out that this is not a feminist issue because it's not. 

But at the same time, this is an unparalleled opportunity for women who identify as feminists to show the same level of empathy towards young men that feminism expects men to show towards young women. Anything less comes across as callous, hypocritical and feeds the perception that feminism is not really about equality after all. --Not to harp on the cancer metaphor, but that perception is growing rather than shrinking.


----------



## norajane

I've benefited greatly from feminism. 

I was able to go to college. I was actually expected to and encouraged to go, instead of told I didn't need to because I was a girl.

I was able to work and be offered the same benefits and starting salary as my guy friends for the same job. I wasn't passed over for jobs because I was a woman, even though I have mostly worked in male dominated industries. I wasn't limited to secretary, teacher, cleaning lady, store clerk, waitress, nurse or nanny jobs. I still experienced sexual harassment in my early years of work, before sexual harassment was a thing that feminists were successful in identifying and fighting.

I was able to open bank accounts and get credit cards all by myself. I didn't need my father or husband for that, which had been the case in prior generations.

I was able to buy property by myself. I didn't need my father or husband to co-sign, although I did have to sign every document which labeled me "spinster" while my single guy friends were only identified as "unmarried male". Illinois has since changed that antiquated designation on their property documents, so now women are also merely "unmarried woman" on their property titles. I'm sure some feminist actions had something to do with that change.

I was able to go to a Planned Parenthood clinic for my pap smears and for birth control prescriptions during grad school when I was broke and didn't have insurance.

Had I been born just 10-15 years earlier, I would not have been able to take those things for granted. I would have had to struggle and fight for those rights along with the early feminists who made it possible for me to sail through without experiencing what previous generations did.

Because we do still deal with issues of wage equality, reproductive rights, workplace benefits, glass ceilings, political representation, and objectification of women, among other things, I remain a feminist. I also believe there is a need to remain vigilant so those rights I grew up with aren't eroded or rolled back for the women being born today, so I remain a feminist. I also see that women in other nations aren't as lucky as I was to be raised here, so I remain a feminist.

I've never been part of a feminist "organization" nor have I ever spoken publicly about it, nor do I have a book or blog or even bumper stickers. I do vote for people who support my views around equal rights, and against those who don't. I do put my money where my mouth is and give money to organizations that support my views. I do start and participate in women's networking opportunities among my colleagues. I do mentoring. I do encourage the young women in my life to pursue their dreams, whatever they may be. I am a feminist.


----------



## Anon Pink

I am no more going to accept responsibility for what another feminist says that you are going to accept responsibility for what some republicans say. So on point one, stale mate.

Pint two, again stale mate. Same can be said of the tea party and any other social conservative movement. Ya'll got more than your fair share of crazy, truth be told.

Point three, as SGC points out, feminism is not an American political movement, cleaning house is not possible and world wide it is a desperately needed social movement.

You keep bringing up Clinton and Palin and I just don't get it. Are you seriously defining feminism based on these two figures? I don't get your defense of Palin. Really JCD I thought you were much smarter than that.

And between you and I, I always had the hots for Clinton. When the scandal broke, I thought...lucky girl! Can't control chick wood...


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> That article is kind of my point. Feminist is misunderstood because people are lumping it in with the fear mongering that they do liberals/socialists.
> 
> People are clinging to rare- but loud and attention grabbing- examples of women who say something they don't agree with and turn it into "See, all feminists have to believe in third trimester abortions!!" When that never was the case in the first place.
> 
> But still, feminism is not just an American thing.


He was a LIBERAL feminist. How exactly is he fearmongering about liberals and socialists? He's part of the club.

Instead, he is describing what is the de facto state as HE sees it in America. And this is not 'rare'.

As I stated, I can only comment on American feminism with even the little authority I have.

But I venture to say that a girl in Afghanistan is not to worried about 'the paycheck fairness act'. Instead, she is worried about being shot for going to school. 

Does this mean that concern has no validity on the part of American women? No. But it should certainly add some perspective.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Buddy400 said:


> A lot of the disagreement here seems to be of the of the Humpty-Dumpty sort: "When I Use a Word, It Means Just What I Choose It to mean, Neither More nor Less".
> 
> So what does "feminism" mean? Well, some here think it means one thing and others something else. We can't just take our own meaning and impose it on everyone else. One has to acknowledge what the word means to others as well as what it means to oneself.
> 
> I could easily say "Why is 'Tea Party' getting such a bad rep?" To me what "Tea Party" means is smaller government "Taxed Enough Already". It doesn't have any social conservative meaning at all (and it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument if that's the "true" meaning or not. That's just what *I* think it means. I understand that *you* may think it means something else).
> 
> But, the whole "Tea Party" label just gets liberals frothing at the mouth. So, as much as I might feel justified in calling myself a "Tea Partier", I don't do that. The brand has been damaged, partly by radicals in the movement that don't share my definition of Tea Party goals. *It doesn't matter what I think it means. I've got to acknowledge what OTHERS think it means.* If I want to convince people about shrinking the size of government and I don't want people to think that I'm a racist (however unjust I think that assumption is), I'm going to have to come up with a new label. Just like Democrats redefined the meaning of "Liberal" so that today's liberals had to invent a new label for themselves (Libertarians).
> 
> *So, you can have "feminism" mean whatever you say it means, but it's naïve to not consider what it means to other people.* If you want to focus on the original meaning of feminism and avoid the collateral damage inflicted by the radicals you might want to use another label. Perhaps "Equity Feminist"?
> 
> P.S. PLEASE, PLEASE, let's not talk about the Tea Party. That's just intended as an illustration of how one label can mean different things to different people.


I feel this is a very good example of why I wouldn't want associated with the word...because I am fully aware of how many others view it... and not exactly up to explaining all the Intricate details to why I don't want lumped in with them...then having them come back on me for being too traditonally minded ...like I NEED FIXED...haven't been enlightened enough .... it only frustrates me and I am left feeling more alienated with many of them. 

We have a Tea Party Brother in Law , who , every Holiday ... we try our best to avoid Politics... because we KNOW.. we're in for a long winded speech to why Democrats are ruining the country... and my H would be considered a Democrat (after all he works for a Union & holds a blue collar job)...even if he still agrees with many things some conservatives believe & feel.. I guess he's a "conservative Democrat"...labels labels again.. 

And I'd bet every self proclaimed feminist on this thread... you know yourself.. when you hear the term "Conservative".. 

Isn't THIS what you're thinking.....  

Tell me it isn't so.. that's the point of Buddy here...


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> I am no more going to accept responsibility for what another feminist says that you are going to accept responsibility for what some republicans say. So on point one, stale mate.


So not even an acknowledgement that the defense of Clinton looked bad?

I can certainly admit that the last government shut down looked bad for Republicans.



> Pint two, again stale mate. Same can be said of the tea party and any other social conservative movement. Ya'll got more than your fair share of crazy, truth be told.


The funny thing is, this last election proved we are keeping the craziest members from controlling the primary process. The guys shouting out crazy stuff? He didn't even get on the ballot. So no. Not agreeing there.




> Point three, as SGC points out, feminism is not an American political movement, cleaning house is not possible and world wide it is a desperately needed social movement.


What is needed in the world is pretty basic things that American feminists are taking for granted.



> You keep bringing up Clinton and Palin and I just don't get it. Are you seriously defining feminism based on these two figures? I don't get your defense of Palin. Really JCD I thought you were much smarter than that.
> 
> And between you and I, I always had the hots for Clinton. When the scandal broke, I thought...lucky girl! Can't control chick wood...


Don't have a single quibble about chick wood. The loins want what the loins want.

I am not DEFINING feminism. I am pointing out a key place where in the public perception, people could easily look askance at the movement as political and opportunistic instead of principled. Feminists had been railing about sexual harassment for years. Many theorized there could be no consensual sex between boss and subordinate. (I am putting that in the 'crazy' side of feminism and not calling them on that) They had just finished raking Clarence Thomas over the coals for far lesser offenses. They were ON RECORD.

And then silence for Bill. Because maybe they had chick wood too. The optics were terrible. Pointing this out does not define them. Their actions define them.

I am not defending Palin or her politics or ideas. I am saying that HOW she was attacked by the Left was pretty horrible and personal. You can say she is stupid. You can say she would be bad for abortion rights. You can say she is a hypocrite. But allowing (much less saying) someone to say she is a BLOW UP DOLL? A Republican cheerleader from hell? Not by Jon Stewart. But supposedly serious Democrats and Feminists. You don't see any problem with that?

I am suggesting that a feminist can (and should) take umbrage for sexist attacks like that. But she needs to take umbrage when ANY woman is attacked like that, not just fellow travelers.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Well yes. It IS an organization with a long history.
> 
> And I sort of take exception to how that fact is used. Anon Pink mentioned what the ORIGINAL PURPOSE of the feminists in Seneca Falls was a bunch of things we have mostly accomplished.
> 
> That is like saying the original purpose of Democrats was to keep the South safe, or Republicans was anti-Slavery. All three organizations have grown far beyond what they once were.
> 
> So discussing what feminism (or do you want me to capitalize it?) was then is not much more terribly relevant than discussing what President Polk's attitudes were toward the Ukraine.
> 
> As far as attitudes...there probably is more work to do...but probably not as much as you'd like to think.


There are organizations that are the Democrat Party and the Republican party. They have incorporated, they have appointed leaders, they have a tax status. There is no doubt that these are legal entities. 

I, cannot go about spouting my personal thoughts and beliefs and claim that I represent and/or define either of these organizations because I am not part of those organizations.

There is no such one organization that defines what feminism is. It's nothing more than an idea, a concept.

Women like Sarah Palin are feminists. You can bet that every Republican woman who just won a seat in Congress is a feminist. While the agree that women should have social and legal equality with men, I am sure that they do not agree with much of the nonsense put out by those you are trying to label and THE FEMINIST ORGANIZATION.

Look at me and Anon Pink. I like and respect her. But from the things she has written here I know that we do not agree on some things politically. But we are both feminists because we both believe in equal rights for women. It's ok for people to have different opinions and to express them. It's actually good for everyone. We all learn from each other. We make each other think and grow in our thoughts, beliefs and views.

It's even ok for the radical feminists to say any darn stupid thing they want to. It's good for them to raise any point of discussion they want to raise. It's also their RIGHT. You do agree with we have freedom of speech in this country, right? I hope so.

Let's look at the Men's Rights Movement. Talk about a lot of wackos who say a lot of things that make no senses. Men who are trying to paint themselves as victims because they now have to compete with women in the work force. 

But I will also agree that they do have some good points. For example men should have equal rights in custody.

The bottom line is that these men have the right to say any darn fool thing they want. Just as women, no matter who they are, have the right to say any darn fool thing they want to say.

Will you take responsibility for the stupid things that the Men's Rights Movement says? You are as responsible for what they say and I am responsible for what other women say.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> So not even an acknowledgement that the defense of Clinton looked bad?
> 
> I can certainly admit that the last government shut down looked bad for Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, this last election proved we are keeping the craziest members from controlling the primary process. The guys shouting out crazy stuff? He didn't even get on the ballot. So no. Not agreeing there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is needed in the world is pretty basic things that American feminists are taking for granted.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have a single quibble about chick wood. The loins want what the loins want.
> 
> I am not DEFINING feminism. I am pointing out a key place where in the public perception, people could easily look askance at the movement as political and opportunistic instead of principled. Feminists had been railing about sexual harassment for years. Many theorized there could be no consensual sex between boss and subordinate. (I am putting that in the 'crazy' side of feminism and not calling them on that) They had just finished raking Clarence Thomas over the coals for far lesser offenses. They were ON RECORD.
> 
> And then silence for Bill. Because maybe they had chick wood too.


You cannot compare Anita Hill with Monica Lewinski. 

For one, Anita Hill was not a willing recipient of Clarence Thomas's sexual conduct while Monica Lewinski WAS! Clinton was lying and hiding an affair, a mutual consent affair (let's just for a moment set aside the battle cry of imbalance of power, I'll get back to that in a moment.) Secondly, Thomas was about the be considered for a seat of power that cannot be revoked and would be his for life. Only the most impeccable individuals deserve that amount of public trust and any HINT of scandal should have precluded him from taking that seat! It is the way of all judges everywhere in this country. They are duty bound to recuse themselves from deciding the application of law in which their personal experience precludes them from remaining impartial. Think he's impartial? Think again! The presidency OTOH, is an elected office and finite in duration.

You are comparing apples to oranges with these two scandals and how feminists treated them.

Regarding no consentual sex within a power imbalanced dynamic. Well, setting aside my own sexual proclivities... I believe that is the mantra of corporate America as evidenced by corporate edicts and policies regarding sexual harassment. This was not the climate during the Lewinski scandal nor the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings but came out as a by product of those events.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Oh. This is one of those female communication things.
> 
> What you are doing is avoiding the issue of the points I made. Instead, I have a very keen sense you are seeking to *marginalize and mock me. * Fair enough.


You mean in the same manner as you are seeking to marginalize and mock any woman who says she's a feminist?



JCD said:


> But lets not forget that you are offering nothing to say about the points I made.
> 
> While I do not think they are the whole truth, I think they are truer than is comfortable for many who support feminism/Feminism (your preference)


There is little reason to address each of your points because no matter what we say, you will twist it.

Here on TAM I cannot even bring up with word "feminism" without getting blasted by men and some women. 

Even when I clearly define what I MEAN by feminism I attacked. I've been on TAM for a few years now. It has happened every single time one of these threads comes up. And it happens every time the word/concept is mentioned in any other thread.

It's gets more than tiresome.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> You cannot compare Anita Hill with Monica Lewinski.
> 
> For one, Anita Hill was not a willing recipient of Clarence Thomas's sexual conduct while Monica Lewinski WAS! Clinton was lying and hiding an affair, a mutual consent affair (let's just for a moment set aside the battle cry of imbalance of power, I'll get back to that in a moment.) Secondly, Thomas was about the be considered for a seat of power that cannot be revoked and would be his for life. Only the most impeccable individuals deserve that amount of public trust and any HINT of scandal should have precluded him from taking that seat! It is the way of all judges everywhere in this country. They are duty bound to recuse themselves from deciding the application of law in which their personal experience precludes them from remaining impartial. Think he's impartial? Think again! The presidency OTOH, is an elected office and finite in duration.
> 
> You are comparing apples to oranges with these two scandals and how feminists treated them.
> 
> Regarding no consentual sex within a power imbalanced dynamic. Well, setting aside my own sexual proclivities... I believe that is the mantra of corporate America as evidenced by corporate edicts and policies regarding sexual harassment. This was not the climate during the Lewinski scandal nor the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings but came out as a by product of those events.


I can and I did. But I note that you are willfully ignoring Paula Jones. Kathleen Willy too. Juanita Broderick. That last was a rape allegation. Strangely, no one wanted to lance that particular boil...First time I saw feminists so reticent about investigating rape. Oh well!

But we are just going to have to disagree. I say their stance hurt their brand. And here we have this Canadian woman asking why feminism is seen in a bad light.

Now, it has been alleged that this is all because of either Right Wing Lies or the press taking up ONLY the crazy talking points 'outliers' (who get published regularly by the NYT)

I am offering a different version. A less comfortable version. If you don't think it has merit, I can't convince you. If you do, glad I could help.

And as I noted, I am not the only person talking about this. I am not a lone opinion. You can disagree with them too if you want. I don't mind. Freedom of speech.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> This is fair but I need to clarify.
> 
> Let's look at the example of Miss Andrist (Cheeky example). She is a well thought of feminist. She writes books that women say touch their lives. When women speak about women's rights, they often quote her. She gives well attended speeches. She is a guest lecturer in many universities. She is hailed as a forthright, articulate paragon of the feminists. She writes opinion pieces in respected magazines and newspapers.


Apparently you are more into feminism than I am. I don’t read much written by any of the authors you have brought up. Why are you spending so much of your time reading and following these women?

Since you have read every word Miss Andrist has written you obviously know that every word she has ever uttered or written is offensive. Right?

I, like most women, are too busy leading our lives, working our jobs, raising our children, and on and on to spend much time on these stuff. But I guess, you have such an empty life, that you have the time to read up on all these authors. Good for you.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> I thought that was a touch of respect but I am also random in knowing what is and is not a proper noun.


Talk about being disingenuous. You have no respect for feminism and so why would you capitalize it for a touch of respect?

:scratchhead:


----------



## Anon Pink

Paula Jones!!! That was her name! God that was driving me crazy a week ago! I must be a terrible feminist.

Well yes there was a great deal of discrediting done during those years. I guess we can blame Linda Tripp for that. Or we can blame the rabid republicans for going after Clinton prematurely? They should have chosen their battle hour better? 

They don't call, the Clintons Teflon for nothing you know. White water, Tyson chicken, Lewinski et al...nothing sticks to them.

You see they mucked up the waters and we didn't ever have a clear picture, and still don't, on what Clinton was exactly guilty of, other than lying to a house subcommitte regarding "sexual relations with that woman."

Hilary hasn't got a chance in 2016. So stop worrying about. 

Look instead to Elizabeth Warren. She's going to kick ASS!


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> There are organizations that are the Democrat Party and the Republican party. They have incorporated, they have appointed leaders, they have a tax status. There is no doubt that these are legal entities.
> 
> I, cannot go about spouting my personal thoughts and beliefs and claim that I represent and/or define either of these organizations because I am not part of those organizations.
> 
> There is no such one organization that defines what feminism is. It's nothing more than an idea, a concept.
> 
> Women like Sarah Palin are feminists. You can bet that every Republican woman who just won a seat in Congress is a feminist. While the agree that women should have social and legal equality with men, I am sure that they do not agree with much of the nonsense put out by those you are trying to label and THE FEMINIST ORGANIZATION.
> 
> Look at me and Anon Pink. I like and respect her. But from the things she has written here I know that we do not agree on some things politically. But we are both feminists because we both believe in equal rights for women. It's ok for people to have different opinions and to express them. It's actually good for everyone. We all learn from each other. We make each other think and grow in our thoughts, beliefs and views.
> 
> It's even ok for the radical feminists to say any darn stupid thing they want to. It's good for them to raise any point of discussion they want to raise. It's also their RIGHT. You do agree with we have freedom of speech in this country, right? I hope so.
> 
> Let's look at the Men's Rights Movement. Talk about a lot of wackos who say a lot of things that make no senses. Men who are trying to paint themselves as victims because they now have to compete with women in the work force.
> 
> But I will also agree that they do have some good points. For example men should have equal rights in custody.
> 
> The bottom line is that these men have the right to say any darn fool thing they want. Just as women, no matter who they are, have the right to say any darn fool thing they want to say.
> 
> Will you take responsibility for the stupid things that the Men's Rights Movement says? You are as responsible for what they say and I am responsible for what other women say.


Okay. Let's start with a few questions.

The women who identify as feminists in the books and magazines. Which party do they overwhelmingly support?

These Conservative women whom you claim are feminists. Would the PRESS characterize them as feminists? Would Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan or Monica Goldberg see them as furthering what they consider the feminist agenda?

The faculty of women studies departments...do they tend to skew in any particular political direction?

All of these ladies either have or want to have influence.

Can a feminist embrace a woman who is anti abortion as a fellow feminist? Would the press? (We have seen that in action, so think carefully about that answer)


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Paula Jones!!! That was her name! God that was driving me crazy a week ago! I must be a terrible feminist.
> 
> Well yes there was a great deal of discrediting done during those years. I guess we can blame Linda Tripp for that. Or we can blame the rabid republicans for going after Clinton prematurely? They should have chosen their battle hour better?
> 
> They don't call, the Clintons Teflon for nothing you know. White water, Tyson chicken, Lewinski et al...nothing sticks to them.
> 
> You see they mucked up the waters and we didn't ever have a clear picture, and still don't, on what Clinton was exactly guilty of, other than lying to a house subcommitte regarding "sexual relations with that woman."
> 
> Hilary hasn't got a chance in 2016. So stop worrying about.
> 
> Look instead to Elizabeth Warren. She's going to kick ASS!


Still has nothing to do with feminisms lack of interest in clear water.

BUT...honestly, I don't worry about either one. This was about feminism and history.

By the way...what you did right there, blaming Republicans without reference (or interest) in Clinton's bad actions...a nice little microcosm of how feminists dealt with the issue. Don't take a look at the potential malefactor, go after his accusers.

Nicely done!


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> All of these 'outliers' who write all the ink about feminism are almost, to a woman, Democrats.
> 
> If you could find 5% of the 'non leadership' of feminism who were Conservative or Republicans, I would be absolutely gobsmacked.


This is why what you are doing here, and what so many people do, is so harmful.

By arguing as you are, you do not allow anyone to define a different voice for feminism. Anyone who says that they are feminist and these women do not represent them, you shout down as do many many others.

I am here telling you that what these women say represents only their own brand of feminism. They do not represent Feminism and that they do not represent me. But you keep telling me not only are they the only ones who define feminism, but I must believe the same as they do, and I must take responsibility for every word that they have ever uttered/written.

Why are you so insistent on telling me what I believe and who I think has the feminist message?


----------



## Mr.Fisty

JCD said:


> Okay. Let's start with a few questions.
> 
> The women who identify as feminists in the books and magazines. Which party do they overwhelmingly support?
> 
> These Conservative women whom you claim are feminists. Would the PRESS characterize them as feminists? Would Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan or Monica Goldberg see them as furthering what they consider the feminist agenda?
> 
> The faculty of women studies departments...do they tend to skew in any particular political direction?
> 
> All of these ladies either have or want to have influence.
> 
> Can a feminist embrace a woman who is anti abortion as a fellow feminist? Would the press? (We have seen that in action, so think carefully about that answer)


I think your making too big of an issue out of this. Feminism is only about equality. The rest is based on other's world view. Take religion for example, everyone believes there should be religious equality, but everyone has their own voice. Some support gay marriages, some don't. Some support abortion, some don't. After the equality part, it is just personal preference. I hear Christians call each other not Christian enough, or they call them fake. I am a feminist supporter, but I don't agree with every feminist. The core issue of feminism, I support. Equal opportunity. The other issues, such as abortion, and a woman's sexual rights, is everyone's else separate issue.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> I am not defending Palin or her politics or ideas. I am saying that HOW she was attacked by the Left was pretty horrible and personal. You can say she is stupid. You can say she would be bad for abortion rights. You can say she is a hypocrite. But allowing (much less saying) someone to say she is a BLOW UP DOLL? A Republican cheerleader from hell? Not by Jon Stewart. But supposedly serious Democrats and Feminists. You don't see any problem with that?
> 
> I am suggesting that a feminist can (and should) take umbrage for sexist attacks like that. But she needs to take umbrage when ANY woman is attacked like that, not just fellow travelers.


I agree that the attack on Palin from the left was sexist and uncalled for. I think it ridiculous that she was called out for being stupid. Yet that very same party has Biden, a complete stupid air head, as vice president.

The bit about how awful it was that she brought her children out. Well so did Obama. So did all the other candidates. What nonsense.

My basic belief about Palin is that there are some things about her that I like. There are some things that I do not like. But in the end she was not politically savvy enough to win in the attack against her. That means that she did not deserve the position she sought. She was not ready to play in the big league.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Okay. Let's start with a few questions.
> 
> The women who identify as feminists in the books and magazines. Which party do they overwhelmingly support?
> 
> These Conservative women whom you claim are feminists. Would the PRESS characterize them as feminists? Would Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan or Monica Goldberg see them as furthering what they consider the feminist agenda?
> 
> The faculty of women studies departments...do they tend to skew in any particular political direction?
> 
> All of these ladies either have or want to have influence.
> 
> Can a feminist embrace a woman who is anti abortion as a fellow feminist? Would the press? (We have seen that in action, so think carefully about that answer)


Oh good grief, you are playing into the image that the press wants you to have. As long as you and other do, a different voices for feminism are ignored and not heard. 

I do not agree with any one political party right now. I think that the democrats as way out in left field and have lost their way. I also thing that the Republicans are lost. I don't see much good in either party and do see any good candidates. Our country is screwed. Our politicians, democrat or republican, don't give a rat's ass about the country any more. They only care about how much power and wealth they personally amass. what they are doing it playing different sides of the same coin. Perhaps you have noted that the republicans in the house did not change a thing. They just make a lot of noise. They are full of hot air. That's it. In the end both parties want the same thing, power and money for themselves.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr.Fisty said:


> I think your making too big of an issue out of this. Feminism is only about equality. The rest is based on other's world view. Take religion for example, everyone believes there should be religious equality, but everyone has their own voice. Some support gay marriages, some don't. Some support abortion, some don't. After the equality part, it is just personal preference. I hear Christians call each other not Christian enough, or they call them fake. I am a feminist supporter, but I don't agree with every feminist. The core issue of feminism, I support. Equal opportunity. The other issues, such as abortion, and a woman's sexual rights, is everyone's else separate issue.


:iagree: QFT


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> It is certainly healthier than saying 'the movement never makes a mistake'


A loosely defined idea cannot make a mistake. People can make mistakes. Ideas and concepts cannot.


JCD said:


> or refusing to call someone who says something crazy as being crazy.


I and others have said many times that some people (men and women) who call themselves feminists have said some crazy things. We’ve done this. Yet you have ignored that.




JCD said:


> It is not like I am asking you to put up an op ed in the Times. It's just us here. A little humility certainly wouldn't hurt.


You really are asking us to do things like put up op eds in the Times. You say that until women who identify as feminists get loud and vocal in calling down everything that is said by anyone that we do not agree with, or anyone that we do not agree with, then we do not count.

Who are you to demand that anyone say what you want them to say? Really? Why should anyone display humility at your command? Get real. 

No woman here is required to show humility and list off the things and people that they disagree with. This is a very general, open ended discussion. It’s not like this is a legal brief, or technical paper in which ever point and counter point must be addressed. 

Also, who is the person here with the authority to make the list for the things that we much address and show humility for? It’s not you. I can tell you that. It’s not me either.


----------



## Fozzy

This thread.


----------



## EleGirl

Anon Pink said:


> Paula Jones!!! That was her name! God that was driving me crazy a week ago! I must be a terrible feminist.
> 
> Well yes there was a great deal of discrediting done during those years. I guess we can blame Linda Tripp for that. Or we can blame the rabid republicans for going after Clinton prematurely? They should have chosen their battle hour better?
> 
> They don't call, the Clintons Teflon for nothing you know. White water, Tyson chicken, Lewinski et al...nothing sticks to them.
> 
> You see they mucked up the waters and we didn't ever have a clear picture, and still don't, on what Clinton was exactly guilty of, other than lying to a house subcommitte regarding "sexual relations with that woman."


The fact is that it's very rare for any President of the United States to ever be brought up on charges no matter what he does. (Note it's HE because this country that has so many equal rights will not elect a woman president.) The Office is too important. The man becomes a symbol. That's the real issue.

Also the reason that nothing was ever done about white water is that there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

There was not enough evidence to prosecute in the sexual harassment and rape accusations either.


----------



## EleGirl

By the way, while we are talking about how horrible and how sexist a person was treated in this country.

The attacks on Hilary by the Republican party were dirty, sexist and down right mean. The were as bad as the attacks against Palin. Since I'm not a political shill for either party I can see this. 

I remember being on a right winged political forum during the elections. There were entire threads of mostly men saying not only awful thing and name calling Hillary, but saying that they would never vote for a woman as president. That they would never trust any woman in that position.

Then can we also look at the mean spirited, cruel things said about Chelsie? How can grown people attack a child in the manner she was attacked. I really Limbaugh and his audience laughing at her, saying ugly/mean things.

While I'm not a Hilary fan, the mean, sexist treatment of Hilary and Chelsie are one of the things that made me turn of Limbaugh and decide I could never be party of the Republican party.

The treatment of Palin did it for me on the Democrat Party.

If you are going to call down people for the treatment of Palin, you better be calling down your own party for the treatment of Hilary. Otherwise it's hard to take you seriously.


----------



## CuddleBug

heartsbeating said:


> Cool, mission accomplished. We're all good.
> 
> Watch John Oliver explain why we need feminism, in one sentence about Miss America – Quartz



You've completely missed my point and its right there.

*Women today can do whatever they want. No one is forcing them to enter beauty pagents!!!

If beauty pagents were so bad, like you claim, then no woman would enter them and they would shut down fast.

But many women enter them to this very day, love the attention they get, publicity, show off their attractive bodies, and even get better job prospects with sponsors.*


In democratic countries, like the US, its called democracy and you can do whatever you chose to do. The state(s) are not forcing women to enter beauty pagents as sex objects. Yet people still complain and whine that beauty pagents are really bad and feminism is needed.


Have you ever watched body building? Men, pretty much naked, just like the female beauty pagents, showing off their muscles, and doing whatever it takes to win the mr olympia. Is that sexist too? No at all. The men enter these contests because they love the attention, publicity, money they get and more job prospects with sponsors. If it was really bad, like beauty pagents, no man would enter male body building and it would shut down fast.

Today, feminism should be dead. 

This is not a woman getting a degree, same as a man, both have similar work experiences and the man gets paid more for no reason......that is when feminism is needed.

Women can chose to enter or not enter any contests they want. They are not forced to do so. And I know the ladies love to enter these competitions, and show off all their hard work getting in great shape. I know a woman who did female body building and she loved it. No one forced her to enter the competitions.


You're only young and in your prime once....


Men are not women and women are not men.

Men have abilities and aptitudes that women will never have and women have abilities and aptitudes men will never have.

You cannot force men and women to be literal equals.

It is based on our natural abilities, aptitudes and work experiences.


*As feminism starts to die off and isn't needed anymore, they will start finding minor issues and blow them up into major issues just to keep the movement going......*


My wifee knows about beauty pagents. She also knows the ladies enter them freely and its their choice to do so. Mrs.CuddleBug doesn't then get upset, that's horrible, we need more feminism!!! She knows this is not reality.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

CuddleBug said:


> Women today can do whatever they want
> 
> .....
> Today, feminism should be dead.


In many countries yes there are laws that give equal rights for women. 
There is still issues with sexism preventing or discouraging women from doing "whatever they want" 

For me personally (not the entire feminist movement) I would like to see focus on helping women around the world (like #bringbackourgirls) and more locally, working towards the end of sexism, or at least the accepted rampentness of it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

CuddleBug said:


> My wifee knows about beauty pagents. She also knows the ladies enter them freely and its their choice to do so. Mrs.CuddleBug doesn't then get upset, that's horrible, we need more feminism!!! She knows this is not reality.


Well this is another no brainer.. I am with Mrs Cuddlebug.. those women have the freedom to do any darn thing they want... to strut their stuff on stage , smile BIG and rack up the dough , sponsorships, all of it..... I don't think any less of them.. it's their life.. not something I find entertaining to watch though....

Good for them ! Why would I feel they are a victim in any way....this would never enter into my brain.....

I have to wonder if the majority of balanced feminists agree with that article -saying we need more Feminism to stop beauty pageants... Maybe this is a case where an extremist is going too far, not allowing FOR THE FREE WILL CHOICE of these women wanting to enter these pageants? 

I have friends who are very conservative about clothing & teach their daughters to always have a sleeve... no tank tops.. so much of this comes down to how we are raised.. some would not want to get on stage and walk around in a bikini.. though it doesn't bother me if a woman wants to do that.. she has that right and choice to do it.. Swim suit models.. and down the line...



> *This is not a woman getting a degree, same as a man, both have similar work experiences and the man gets paid more for no reason......that is when feminism is needed.*
> 
> Women can chose to enter or not enter any contests they want. They are not forced to do so. And I know the ladies love to enter these competitions, and show off all their hard work getting in great shape. I know a woman who did female body building and she loved it. No one forced her to enter the competitions.


:iagree:


----------



## CuddleBug

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> In many countries yes there are laws that give equal rights for women.
> There is still issues with sexism preventing or discouraging women from doing "whatever they want"
> 
> For me personally (not the entire feminist movement) I would like to see focus on helping women around the world (like #bringbackourgirls) and more locally, working towards the end of sexism, or at least the accepted rampentness of it.


 
I totally agree. 

There are not as modern and democratic countries that do treat women as second class citizens around the world. That is were feminism is needed.

But this is not a beauty pagent were the ladies chose to enter it.....that's just a really silly example.


----------



## CuddleBug

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well this is another no brainer.. I am with Mrs Cuddlebug.. those women have the freedom to do any darn thing they want... to strut their stuff on stage , smile BIG and rack up the dough , sponsorships, all of it..... I don't think any less of them.. it's their life.. not something I find entertaining to watch though....
> 
> Good for them ! Why would I feel they are a victim in any way....this would never enter into my brain.....
> 
> I have to wonder if the majority of balanced feminists agree with that article -saying we need more Feminism to stop beauty pageants... Maybe this is a case where an extremist is going too far, not allowing FOR THE FREE WILL CHOICE of these women wanting to enter these pageants?
> 
> I have friends who are very conservative about clothing & teach their daughters to always have a sleeve... no tank tops.. so much of this comes down to how we are raised.. some would not want to get on stage and walk around in a bikini.. though it doesn't bother me if a woman wants to do that.. she has that right and choice to do it.. Swim suit models.. and down the line...
> 
> :iagree:



Perfectly said.:smthumbup:

What about women entering their young daughters in beauty pagents???? That's horrible and damaging, yet women are still doing this to their daughters. 

Feminists need to put a stop to that, women to women. Not men doing this to women......


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well this is another no brainer.. I am with Mrs Cuddlebug.. those women have the freedom to do any darn thing they want... to strut their stuff on stage , smile BIG and rack up the dough , sponsorships, all of it..... I don't think any less of them.. it's their life.. not something I find entertaining to watch though....
> 
> Good for them ! Why would I feel they are a victim in any way....this would never enter into my brain.....
> 
> I have to wonder if the majority of balanced feminists agree with that article -saying we need more Feminism to stop beauty pageants... Maybe this is a case where an extremist is going too far, not allowing FOR THE FREE WILL CHOICE of these women wanting to enter these pageants?
> 
> I have friends who are very conservative about clothing & teach their daughters to always have a sleeve... no tank tops.. so much of this comes down to how we are raised.. some would not want to get on stage and walk around in a bikini.. though it doesn't bother me if a woman wants to do that.. she has that right and choice to do it.. Swim suit models.. and down the line...
> 
> :iagree:


From things I've written by those who self identify as feminist who represent organizations like NOW. They are saying that prostitution, porn star, etc are ok careers for women because women chose these. And they have that right to chose.

So if women can chose prostitution, porn star, etc. they sure can chose to do beauty contests.


----------



## EleGirl

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> In many countries yes there are laws that give equal rights for women.
> There is still issues with sexism preventing or discouraging women from doing "whatever they want"


You are right about this. Girls are still discouraged from going into the hard sciences, math and engineering. There is a very strong bias against this in our schools. Further, at the age when a girl can start to make a choice to take higher level classes in these fields, they are discouraged socially. They are told that boys don't like brainy girls. It's very pervasive. My sons and daughter talked quite a bit about this when they were in high school. 

Women in the USA who are in more ethnic type cultures tend to be seriously discouraged from doing anything except "women's" jobs, marrying and being a mother.


Another thing that still goes on is '****' shaming. Look at the posts on this forum. A man cheats and he's an SOB. But when some guy comes here and says his wife cheated, male posters on TAM will start calling her a slvt, [email protected] and other derogatory sex-shaming words uses against women. 




SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> For me personally (not the entire feminist movement) I would like to see focus on helping women around the world (like #bringbackourgirls) and more locally, working towards the end of sexism, or at least the accepted rampentness of it.


I agree.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> I think a combination of things are feeding it, but here are two that stand out to me.
> 
> In the U.S., women in the 35 and under demographic are currently earning just a tad more than men. I know there are wage disparities in many other areas, but this is still a milestone that made the cover of Time magazine. So you have a generation of younger women who are not feeling the sting of inequality in quite the same way that their mothers and grandmothers may have and there is less tolerance even among young women for some of the more acerbic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> That there is a malaise among young men is increasingly apparent. They are not doing as well in school as they used to and they are not graduating from college in the same numbers anymore. I would agree with anyone who points out that this is not a feminist issue because it's not.
> 
> But at the same time, this is an unparalleled opportunity for women who identify as feminists to show the same level of empathy towards young men that feminism expects men to show towards young women. Anything less comes across as callous, hypocritical and feeds the perception that feminism is not really about equality after all. --Not to harp on the cancer metaphor, but that perception is growing rather than shrinking.


I agree with this. While I have not seen any stats that say that younger women earn more than younger men, I have seen that young men are not doing that well these days.

My son is 25, I've seen this in him and in their friends. I'm not sure what the cause of this is but motivation is down.

Part of it might be our education system which I think is geared toward producing kids who will sit in a chair, shut up and follow directions. Boys tend to be more roughty and mature later. they don't sit still very well. Yet our elementary schools are getting rid of a lot of things like recess, swings, monkey bars... the things needed to run off that energy.

Our school systems suck. They follow the German model that was created to produce good factory workers. We don't need good factory workers. We need people who can think and innovate.

Luckily I caught on to what was going on and I let my son drop out of high school at the end of 10th grade. While that seems anti-education, it was very pro-education. The last thing he needed was to attend a school that was more interested in social engineering and drama then a real education. My stipulation to him was that he had to take the GED, which he passed with the highest score possible. then I told him that his education from there on out was his responsibility. He worked for a couple of years. Then he signed up for college. This last spring he graduated with two degrees, one in Physics and one in applied mathamatics. Now he's working on his Master's in Physics.

Had I forced him to stay in high school, I am sure he would have lost his way and might never have come back from it.

His teachers were mostly female and just did not get him. They told me that the problem with him is that he was not like the girls. The teachers told me things like the girls would go talk over the assignments with the teachers, being them to the teacher for the teacher to correct and edit BEFORE they did the final version to turn in. (WTH? Why were teachers doing this? Giving an advantage to the more social students?)

While this might seem that due to the above girls have a huge advantage, that's also not true. Girls are still discouraged by teachers, parents and society from going into the hard sciences, math and engineering.

While there maybe more girls in college now than boys, the fact is that most of those girls are getting fluff degrees in things that do not lead to higher paid degrees. 

And today like in the past, only a small percentage of people ever go to college. Most do not. It's still true that young men go into the trades that pay higher. And girls go into jobs that pay less.

IMHO, we have done a disservice to all our children.. boys and girls. The issues might be somewhat different, but the USA as a country is not putting out well education young people who can compete on the world market.

Why do you think that at our universities the classes for science, engineering and math are mostly filled with foreign students. By the time it gets to grad school the number of US born students is very low.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel this is a very good example of why I wouldn't want associated with the word...because I am fully aware of how many others view it... and not exactly up to explaining all the Intricate details to why I don't want lumped in with them...then having them come back on me for being too traditonally minded ...like I NEED FIXED...haven't been enlightened enough .... it only frustrates me and I am left feeling more alienated with many of them.
> 
> We have a Tea Party Brother in Law , who , every Holiday ... we try our best to avoid Politics... because we KNOW.. we're in for a long winded speech to why Democrats are ruining the country... and my H would be considered a Democrat (after all he works for a Union & holds a blue collar job)...even if he still agrees with many things some conservatives believe & feel.. I guess he's a "conservative Democrat"...labels labels again..
> 
> And I'd bet every self proclaimed feminist on this thread... you know yourself.. when you hear the term "Conservative"..
> 
> Isn't THIS what you're thinking.....
> 
> Tell me it isn't so.. that's the point of Buddy here...


Those last few sentences make no sense. What are you saying? What do you think self-proclaimed feminists on this thread are thinking? Once you clarify that someone can answer your questions.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> From things I've written by those who self identify as feminist who represent organizations like NOW. They are saying that prostitution, porn star, etc are ok careers for women because women chose these. And they have that right to chose.
> 
> So if women can chose prostitution, porn star, etc. they sure can chose to do beauty contests.


Well I would be in THAT camp of a Feminist then... it doesn't mean that's what I would choose to do ...but I am BIG on freedom of Speech, expression... and yes the Men's right groups too.. no matter who it is.. that doesn't mean I'll like them... like those "God hates ****" 5 point Calvanist Nut Jobs... actually I feel they go way too far... but with every freedom we stop with groups like that...something else will be lost with another group that may have GOOD intentions for helping others .. so it's a delicate line....

This will never take away the consequences , or others opinions of what we choose to do though ...that's just a part of living ...but if it's legal... they are of age.. they have that right.. 

Children all go through a phase in childhood where they want to blame someone else for their behavior.... I seen this in all of our kids...I still battle it now & then.. I have to show them this is NOT TRUE.. we can react, fight against, choose a different path... don't play victim..I want them to understand all the choices before them, be creative, ...and own their responsibility and possible repercussions...even those of us who may NOT choose to go to College like myself , get that career..so If I am left penny less and destitute.. *I can only blame myself*.. I would agree with that .. (though I feel I have covered those concerns)...

I don't know what "NOW" is.. but I have read a #of articles where women feel objectified...then in the next breath want to argue their right to dress any way they want.. the world will never be this perfect or good...no matter what organization tries to make it so.


----------



## CuddleBug

Women don't need a group like NOW, saying its okay to chose whatever career you want. Like NOW has any pull or say over the ladies.....it doesn't.

*Women have been choosing porn, prostitution, beauty pagents, etc., since the beginning of time, regardless of what NOW or other organizations might have to say.

And you know what, porn and prostitution - brothels, pay the ladies very well compared to what the men might get paid. Men do not get paid even close to the same as the ladies in these fields. Do we now need manism......lol? We are doing the same jobs but getting paid much less......not fair and lets rant and protest.*



When Mrs.CuddleBug and I first got married, I made more money than she did.

Then a major company got bought out and moved, so I lost my job, had a hard time getting full time work, went on EI.

Then I got work again and its good.

Mrs.CuddleBug also changed careers and made more. We were making the same.

Today, she now makes more than I do, because of her promotion into head office and I support her and am happy she loves her career choice. I make good money but not as much.

Together, we are now in the 6 digital salary combined club.

I had more issues of Mrs.CuddleBug making more money than myself, because I felt I wasn't being a man and taking care of business.

She didn't care about who makes more money. She wanted a good man, marriage and to be happy and thats what we have, and money is second to me now.



*If some ladies don't want to feel like sex objects.........then make the choice and don't go into beauty pagents, porn, prostitution, etc.....get a student loan and get a university education or trade or start your own business. But don't force your feelings on the matter onto the ladies who do want to be in porn, brothels, beauty pagents because they have the bodies for it. 

One woman does not speak for another, NOW or any other organization.*


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't know what "NOW" is.. .


N.O.W. is the National Organization for Women. They operate under the mistaken assumption that they are the voice for women in this country. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> but I have read a #of articles where women feel objectified...then in the next breath want to argue their right to dress any way they want.. the world will never be this perfect or good...no matter what organization tries to make it so.


Well, unless I see these articles I cannot comment.


----------



## EleGirl

CuddleBug said:


> Women don't need a group like NOW, saying its okay to chose whatever career you want. Like NOW has any pull or say over the ladies.....it doesn't.


Some women want an organization like N.O.W. It's their choice to have one. You don't get to dictate that. Nor do I.



CuddleBug said:


> Women have been choosing porn, prostitution, beauty pagents, etc., since the beginning of time, regardless of what NOW or other organizations might have to say.


Yes women have been choosing these and they have been stoned, derided and cast into the thrash heap of humanity for doing so.

NOW's point is that they believe that women should not be judged for choosing these lines of work.



CuddleBug said:


> And you know what, porn and prostitution - brothels, pay the ladies very well compared to what the men might get paid. Men do not get paid even close to the same as the ladies in these fields. Do we now need manism......lol?



We have manism... or Men's Rights Organizations. They exist and are loud about their stance.



CuddleBug said:


> We are doing the same jobs but getting paid much less......not fair and lets rant and protest.


What jobs are men doing and getting paid less than women doing the same jobs?


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous,

Could you please look at post 219 and answer my question? I'm confused.


----------



## CuddleBug

EleGirl said:


> Some women want an organization like N.O.W. It's their choice to have one. You don't get to dictate that. Nor do I.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes women have been choosing these and they have been stoned, derided and cast into the thrash heap of humanity for doing so.
> 
> NOW's point is that they believe that women should not be judged for choosing these lines of work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have manism... or Men's Rights Organizations. They exist and are loud about their stance.
> 
> 
> What jobs are men doing and getting paid less than women doing the same jobs?




The women who have a bone to pick, want organizations like NOW.


NOW doesn't blindly speak for all women and never will. Its only for those who want to be part of that organization. Mrs.CuddleBug couldn't care less about NOW and feminism or manism.


Women today in the Islamic faith are still being stoned and killed. Feminism is needed in those countries badly. Not democratic modern western countries.


I couldn't care less which fields of work the ladies chose to go into. We are adults.


Manism, Feminism, etc......were does it stop? It's getting silly....


Porn and brothels - women make way more money than men. Have you ever watched documentaries on brothels today? Porn today? The money the women make is ridiculous and the men are just there as filler.


Do I care about that? No.


Do I rant and protest, manism? No. Waste of my life and time.


Do I sell my services to ladies who are CEO's and owners, managers of big companies? Come during lunch for sex or after work for sex? No. But I've watched documentaries were the guys service the ladies doing just that.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

When feminism is about equal rights, equal pay and an equally runged ladder to boardrooms, that's pretty straightforward. 


When it's a catfight between "pornography empowers women" and "Get off that wrecking ball Miley, you slùt!", it's reduced to a non-movement that isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

That most fem-lit and media op-eds are written by uni' graduates means that the lifestyles and concerns of 60% of females are under-represented or completely ignored.

Feminism ought to be a good thing and frequently it is,, but too much in-fighting over too many 'issues' often damages its credibility for both genders.

Nobody wants to support a team if their cheerleaders and fans wear a rival clubs colours.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

Earlier this year, PBS aired a three part documentary called Makers: Women Who Make America. I found it to be one of the best films documenting the history of the feminist movement. It shows the history through interviews with leading feminists of the time, and actual media clips of the activities that were happening then.

Makers: Women Who Make America (Part 1) - YouTube
Makers: Women Who Make America (Part 2) - YouTube
Makers: Women Who Make America (Part 3) - YouTube

One of the most fascinating aspects of watching this documentary was to see how far the feminist movement has come in the U.S. since the 1950s. I hope that our daughters will say the same thing looking back on today.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Those last few sentences make no sense. What are you saying? What do you think self-proclaimed feminists on this thread are thinking? Once you clarify that someone can answer your questions.


What I was saying was... I don't think there are many *conservative *feminists out there, or they are less vocal or something about the term.. the vast majority seem LIBERAL DEMOCRATS TO ME....again labels / labels... Maybe I am wrong.. 

I tried to look up some articles ...found these titles "Is 'feminism' just another word for 'liberalism'? "..."The Liberal Democrats are a feminist party"...also some that speak conservative women want to hold the movement back.. that they can not be a Conservative.. this article says Social Problems Are Like Maths: Can Conservatives be Feminists?



> The idea of ‘conservative feminism’ is usually invoked with a sense of subversive irony. These are two terms, it is universally acknowledged, that do not normally go together. On some views this is just a matter of historical accident.
> 
> It just happens to be the case that those who have been feminists have tended to be on the left. For others, the idea is oxymoronic: any attempt to marry the two inevitably ends up watering down feminism or conservatism.


 All I know is I am *more* conservatively minded than many women on this forum.. though not in all ways obviously...I feel most do not care for me here.. ..I would fit better with a bunch of church ladies frankly...


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> What I was saying was... I don't think there are many *conservative *feminists out there, or they are less vocal or something about the term.. the vast majority seem LIBERAL DEMOCRATS TO ME....again labels / labels... Maybe I am wrong..


I can think of several reasons why you and others think that all feminists are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS:

The media has pushed this. They, along with the democrat party, are pushing only the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS support women’s rights. 
.
Then a person who is not a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT states that they are a feminist. They are shut out, by the media and by most people. Why? Because it defines their belief that all feminist are just crazy, loony LIBERAL DEMOCRATs. Look at this forum. It’s assumed that any woman who says she’s a feminist is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT and then they are attacked for it
.
The Republican Party has never had good spokes persons to get out their message about women’s rights and feminism out. They just do a very poor job of this.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I tried to look up some articles ...found these titles "Is 'feminism' just another word for 'liberalism'? "..."The Liberal Democrats are a feminist party"...also some that speak conservative women want to hold the movement back.. that they can not be a Conservative.. this article says Social Problems Are Like Maths: Can Conservatives be Feminists?


So I guess you used the wrong search string. Try searching for words that relevant terms/strings. 

“conservative feminist” … on google you will get about 13 million hits
“conservative feminism” … on google you will get over 29 million hits 

Here are just a few hits to get you started on learning that there is indeed a healthy conservative feminist movement.

Independent Women's Forum 

The Right Wing Feminist 

List of Conservative Feminism




SimplyAmorous said:


> All I know is I am *more* conservatively minded than many women on this forum.. though not in all ways obviously...I feel most do not care for me here.. ..I would fit better with a bunch of church ladies frankly...


I don’t even know that the political leaning is of most of the people who post here. I think that it covers the political spectrum pretty evenly from what I can tell. I have no idea why you think that most do not care for you. I have always thought that you are one of the most loved posters on TAM. I’m serious.

That does not mean that even you and I have not had disagreements. People can have disagreements and still like each other. Isn’t that what freedom of speech is about.

What I get tired of is being put down and attacked here because I dare to say that yes I support feminism; meaning equal rights for women.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> In many countries yes there are laws that give equal rights for women.
> There is still issues with sexism preventing or discouraging women from doing "whatever they want"
> 
> For me personally (not the entire feminist movement) I would like to see focus on helping women around the world (like #bringbackourgirls) and more locally, working towards the end of sexism, or at least the accepted rampentness of it.


This is what I have been saying as well.

It's hard to take a group seriously who is obsessing about 17 cents on the dollar (which may be debatable) when some young girl is getting her sex organs mutilated in Sub Saharan Africa.

But that would require more than writing op eds or having protest marches in trendy neighborhoods. It would require possibly getting beefier in foreign policy. It would mean taking a long look at female gains in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of the wars...and how they are being lost and worse than lost. It might also mean diverting some money from female goodies domestically to overseas.

It is not my movement. You get to define yourselves.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> I can think of several reasons why you and others think that all feminists are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS:
> 
> The media has pushed this. They, along with the democrat party, are pushing only the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS support women’s rights.
> .
> Then a person who is not a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT states that they are a feminist. They are shut out, by the media and by most people. Why? Because it defines their belief that all feminist are just crazy, loony LIBERAL DEMOCRATs. Look at this forum. It’s assumed that any woman who says she’s a feminist is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT and then they are attacked for it





.
The Republican Party has never had good spokes persons to get out their message about women’s rights and feminism out. They just do a very poor job of this.

Um...you were pushy with SA on answering questions. You never actually answered mine. I get that you WANT there to be more voices in feminism and that speaks well of you...but I asked (and you avoided answering) what the reality is today on the vast majority of spokeswomen and educators for feminism.

The reality is the 'voices' (or as I prefer, the loudmouths) DO all cleave to one party. 

And as far as dinging Republicans for not having a 'voice'...we tried...just a few years ago...I might have brought it up. EVERYONE on the Left was given license to destroy her including women whose avowed principles was to safeguard the dignity of women. Hmm.



> So I guess you used the wrong search string. Try searching for words that relevant terms/strings.
> 
> “conservative feminist” … on google you will get about 13 million hits
> “conservative feminism” … on google you will get over 29 million hits
> 
> Here are just a few hits to get you started on learning that there is indeed a healthy conservative feminist movement.
> 
> Independent Women's Forum
> 
> The Right Wing Feminist
> 
> List of Conservative Feminism


They are suppressed by the press and feminist loudmouths. 

I think that part of Ocotillo's backlash is that women such as yourself ARE tired of being marginalized and told that there is this long list of items from abortion to LGBT rights to the paycheck fairness act which are necessary to support to be a 'real feminist', or allowed to be an EFFECTIVE feminist. 





> That does not mean that even you and I have not had disagreements. People can have disagreements and still like each other. Isn’t that what freedom of speech is about.
> 
> What I get tired of is being put down and attacked here because I dare to say that yes I support feminism; meaning equal rights for women.


I hope that extends to me. I am not attacking, as I've said MANY times, the idea of equal pay for equal work or job opportunities. I have daughters and I want them to be able to support me in my old age 

I get frustrated with the dominant Left wing branch of feminism which seems to have co-opted the movement. I get frustrated that women like yourselves hand wave when OTHER voices are squelched because it does not conform to the doctrine of the loudmouths in the movement. I get frustrated when any time an abortion law is proposed *with the support of many women*, it is characterized as 'the first step toward getting shoved in a burka'...and too many women BUY this!

If you want the name 'feminism' to mean what you want it to mean, you need to get HEARD! And yeah, that means calling your 'movement' on some of this stuff! Becoming part of the backlash.

BUT...it isn't my movement.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> By the way, while we are talking about how horrible and how sexist a person was treated in this country.
> 
> The attacks on Hilary by the Republican party were dirty, sexist and down right mean. The were as bad as the attacks against Palin. Since I'm not a political shill for either party I can see this.
> 
> I remember being on a right winged political forum during the elections. There were entire threads of mostly men saying not only awful thing and name calling Hillary, but saying that they would never vote for a woman as president. That they would never trust any woman in that position.
> 
> Then can we also look at the mean spirited, cruel things said about Chelsie? How can grown people attack a child in the manner she was attacked. I really Limbaugh and his audience laughing at her, saying ugly/mean things.
> 
> While I'm not a Hilary fan, the mean, sexist treatment of Hilary and Chelsie are one of the things that made me turn of Limbaugh and decide I could never be party of the Republican party.
> 
> The treatment of Palin did it for me on the Democrat Party.
> 
> If you are going to call down people for the treatment of Palin, you better be calling down your own party for the treatment of Hilary. Otherwise it's hard to take you seriously.


One. Hands down, what people said about Chelsea are out of line. No debate.

Two: Mrs. 'Co-President' threw her hat in the ring and opened herself up. She was in no way an innocent bystander and gave as good as she got

Three: it is not a plank of the Republican party to safeguard the dignity of women and support them in all ways. It IS one of the avowed positions of feminist. So if a Republican calls Hillary a slvt, it is not a good thing but it is not a violation of their principles.

If a feminist does it to Palin, it IS a violation of their principles. This is a small but important distinction.

That being said, I agree that such comments were over the top and inappropriate. This does not mean she is immune to criticism.

I do not listen to Rush either. He is a coward trying to be a political commenter if he wants to pretend influence but hides behind the title of entertainer if he wants to duck criticism.

I think he and Sean Hannity hurt my movement more than a dozen Katrina vanden Heuvels could. Because they are idiots. And because they are rude. Thoughtlessly rude! Sean is not my favorite person...

See...if I call out my crowd, I'll call them by name. And if I agree with some of what they say, I can both support and criticize. 

It isn't that hard a concept.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Well, unless I see these articles I cannot comment.


 There was a thread here yrs ago I contributed to...I'll never find it... the female poster was ranting ... how dare men oogle her... she didn't want it ...then went on about her right to dress any darn way she pleased.. 

Now.. me.. I think that attitude is ridiculous....utterly... Men are visual creatures and if we want to expose our Rack...and wear mini skirts up to our a**... they are going to be drawn TO US in ways we may not appreciate ...... and I am one who feels depending on how women present themselves... (dressing, acting in public)...will have *an influence* on how they treat us... but I have been told that blames women ... so :wtf: 

I never seem to agree with the liberal minded feminists.. pretty much the only thing I MIGHT have in common is the ones who like a little porn.. (then I alienate all the darn church ladies!)...It's like I said.. I am all for free choice, if that's what you want to do!! 

Going by this article.. Feminists are all over the map...



> *Views on sexual objectification*:
> 
> While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist and masculist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such as Naomi Wolf find the concept of physical attractiveness itself to be problematic,[27] with some radical feminists being opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics.
> 
> John Stoltenberg goes so far as to condemn as wrongfully objectifying any sexual fantasy that involves visualization of a woman.[28]
> 
> *Radical feminists *view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the "sex class". While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue are patriarchal to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women.
> 
> Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.
> 
> Some* social conservatives* have taken up aspects of the feminist critique of sexual objectification. In their view however, the increase in the sexual objectification of both genders in Western culture is one of the negative legacies of the sexual revolution.[29][30] These critics, notably Wendy Shalit, advocate a return to pre-sexual revolution standards of sexual morality, which Shalit refers to as a "return to modesty", as an antidote to sexual objectification.[30][31]
> 
> *Other feminists *contest feminist claims about the objectification of women. Camille Paglia holds that "Turning people into sex objects is one of the specialties of our species."
> 
> In her view, objectification is closely tied to (and may even be identical with) the highest human faculties toward conceptualization and aesthetics.[32] Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy holds that the label "sex object" means nothing because inanimate objects are not sexual. She continues that women are their bodies and sexuality as well as their minds and souls.[33]


Now where would I fit in on all that ... I'm with the social conservatives ....(no surprise right!)....I just haven't found any articles written from a feminist slant that would agree with me.. is this any surprise!...I feel the sexual revolution has only heightened Objectification....but that's women's right.. I just don't agree with their complaining about it..




> *The Republican Party has never had good spokes persons to get out their message about women’s rights and feminism out. They just do a very poor job of this*.


 That's because they know there IS a great conflict ....and they have better things to do with their time over being ridiculed by the LEFT... 

I did look up Conservative Feminism too.. can I just be honest here... this is not something forethought in my mind..... reading a ton of anything about how women should be earning as much as men & all these opportunities they have today.. what does that do for me personally..... I enjoy my simple life with our 5 children left at home...living down on our Farm .... I have no desire to get out there in the work force.. all I get from reading feminist anything is.. I don't "add up".. I am NOT what SHE is.. others would feel I wasted my potential ... 

My purpose may not be as important as other hard working women out there, climbing ladders of success....but I'm OK with that...though every now & then I will start to compare myself ....though I don't feel this spells anything sinister , we all do this in varying forms now & then... 

Weeks ago.. taking our Senior son to the Big City to check out a College, he wants to take Chemical Engineering...WOW.. I/we were so impressed with this School..but I gotta admit... I felt a bit like an Amish Dutch woman walking the city streets, passing these intelligent students, seeing them study in the old Hall with the cathedral ceiling.. scattered, laughing, enjoying youth....like did I miss NOT having this experience??

A few tears on the way home..a little pity party on myself… skill-less –just a Mother to show.. My H could sense I was "down".. I always openly share.... He soothes me.. that I/we have a good life, I am Loved, our children love me...that we are here for them NOW....and really.. I do have the same vision as he.. neither of us were THAT SMART.. we joke we don't understand where our sons GET IT.. all I care to see is THEY DO WELL.. it's not about us anymore.. I know his words are true...and I rest in them... 

If I died tomorrow..I could say I lived my dreams, I was loved by a good man, I had the family I prayed for. But am I a feminist... what brand should I call myself Elegirl.. where do I REALLY FIT where my lifestyle is looked upon as something to aspire to? That is my question to anyone on this thread.. I don't expect it to be answered.... 

I only see our way of life as something going the way of the dinosaur... but I still count it a very worthy life.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> This is what I have been saying as well.
> It's hard to take a group seriously who is obsessing about 17 cents on the dollar (which may be debatable)


17 cents on the dollar is $375 a year. Enough money to pay for a bill or two.

But who's arguing over 17 cents on the dollar. When I started working, I was not even allowed to apply for a job that paid a decent wage. Then when I finally got my degree and started working as an engineer the issue was not 17 cents on the dollar. I was paid 50% of what men with equal education and wages made. If you don't think that is significant, I have no idea what to say to you.


JCD said:


> when some young girl is getting her sex organs mutilated in Sub Saharan Africa.


So American women need to shut up because women in other countries have to worse? Really? Women are not allowed seek more rights and a better life because women in 3rd world counties have it worse?

I lived in Sub Saharan Africa. I know a lot of what the people there are struggling with. I also know that they will not accept it if American and European women and men just come in and start ordering them around and telling them how to live. 

Do you really think that every American woman needs to go to Sub Saharan Africa to fight? The fact is that American and European women and likeminded men have been working with women and men in 3rd world countries for decades to end practices like FGM and child marriage. This work has to be done mostly by the people who are actually from those countries/areas. They are also working to make it so that women in these countries can support themselves. They have had some success but a lot more has to be done. It will take decades more because it’s very very hard to end customs that have existed for thousands of years.


As an American, do you think that you have the right to go to other countries and tell them how to live? How about you as a man go to these countries and tell the men to stop beating their women, to end the rape that goes on in the war torn areas? Why don’t you feel compelled to force your moral and political beliefs on those men? If not why don’t you? If you think that American women have this responsibility, why don’t American men have an equal responsibility?




JCD said:


> But that would require more than writing op eds or having protest marches in trendy neighborhoods. It would require possibly getting beefier in foreign policy. It would mean taking a long look at female gains in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of the wars...and how they are being lost and worse than lost. It might also mean diverting some money from female goodies domestically to overseas.


Why do you assume that we are not already very well versed on foreign policy and the status of women worldwide? Why do you think we are so ignorant? Why do you think that none of us are doing thing to help women elsewhere? Talk about condescending tripe.

There are many American and European feminist organizations that provide money, support, legal help and material to fight for the rights of women 3rd world countries.



JCD said:


> It is not my movement. You get to define yourselves.


:banghead:


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> 17 cents on the dollar is $375 a year. Enough money to pay for a bill or two.
> 
> But who's arguing over 17 cents on the dollar. When I started working, I was not even allowed to apply for a job that paid a decent wage. Then when I finally got my degree and started working as an engineer the issue was not 17 cents on the dollar. I was paid 50% of what men with equal education and wages made. If you don't think that is significant, I have no idea what to say to you.
> 
> So American women need to shut up because women in other countries have to worse? Really? Women are not allowed seek more rights and a better life because women in 3rd world counties have it worse?


That was then. This is now. I think it is significant and I am against such disparities.

And those disparities don't exist today...in part thanks to the votes of MEN and Republicans. 

This point seems to be frequently forgotten...or certainly underappreciated.



> I lived in Sub Saharan Africa. I know a lot of what the people there are struggling with. I also know that they will not accept it if American and European women and men just come in and start ordering them around and telling them how to live.


Nope. But what we can do, we should do. If a tenth of the outrage over abortion was put on shaming, through writing, some of these nations, it might have a significant impact. Even some small changes would be to the good.




> As an American, do you think that you have the right to go to other countries and tell them how to live? How about you as a man go to these countries and tell the men to stop beating their women, to end the rape that goes on in the war torn areas? Why don’t you feel compelled to force your moral and political beliefs on those men? If not why don’t you? If you think that American women have this responsibility, why don’t American men have an equal responsibility?


One of the points of pride I have as an American man is that American men went into Iraq and shut down the institutionalized rape rooms and torture chambers in Iraq.

I am proud that Afghani girls could, for a while, go to school without worrying about her family being shot.

These are things American men did.

I am reminded of that story about India. An Indian told a British minister 'it is our culture to burn the widow. We need to stay true to our culture."

The Brit countered (paraphrased) "you can keep your culture. OUR culture is to hang men who burn women. We are keeping true to our culture."

Suttee is no longer institutionalized in India.



> There are many American and European feminist organizations that provide money, support, legal help and material to fight for the rights of women 3rd world countries.


Good for them. I don't think most American women (or men)have a clue what the ACA does, so why should I assume they know about the trials and tribulations of Urdu women?




> :banghead:


You expressed resentment over how your movement is seen and that it should not be co-opted by the Left.

I am expressing the reality and frankly expressing the same frustration.

So the door you need to bang your head against is not mine.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Um...you were pushy with SA on answering questions. You never actually answered mine. I get that you WANT there to be more voices in feminism and that speaks well of you...but I asked (and you avoided answering) what the reality is today on the vast majority of spokeswomen and educators for feminism.


Oh, am I required to answer every single thing that you questions? I was not aware of that. Mia culpa!!!


JCD said:


> The reality is the 'voices' (or as I prefer, the loudmouths) DO all cleave to one party.


So what. They have every right to join any political party they wish. You seem hell bent on depriving these women their right to a voice.


JCD said:


> And as far as dinging Republicans for not having a 'voice'...we tried...just a few years ago...I might have brought it up. EVERYONE on the Left was given license to destroy her including women whose avowed principles was to safeguard the dignity of women. Hmm.
> They are suppressed by the press and feminist loudmouths.


I agree that the press and left leaning women were not fair, actually were down right mean. The press today is not an honorable profession. They are shills for politician parties and each party has their shills. But it still holds that the Republican Party had no clue of how to effectively stand up and address the hate and vitriol. 

And let’s not forget, the right was has been very mean and sexist towards Hillary for decades. I noticed that you chose to not address my comment about this earlier. 



JCD said:


> I think that part of Ocotillo's backlash is that women such as yourself ARE tired of being marginalized and told that there is this long list of items from abortion to LGBT rights to the paycheck fairness act which are necessary to support to be a 'real feminist', or allowed to be an EFFECTIVE feminist.


What is “Ocotillo's backlash”?

I don’t feel marginalized by other feminists no matter what political party the might subscribe to. 


JCD said:


> I hope that extends to me. I am not attacking, as I've said MANY times, the idea of equal pay for equal work or job opportunities. I have daughters and I want them to be able to support me in my old age


Women’s rights go way beyond equal pay for equal work and job opportunities.

Let me give you an example of why I think we cannot just say that all has been won and now let’s go home. 
In 2003-2006 Ontario, Canada had laws that allowed religious tribunals for family and some civil cases. So the Muslim community (men of course) started to put in place Sharia tribunals for Muslims for family disputes. Canadian (to include Muslim) women’s organization and international women’s organizations where instrumental if fighting the implementation of Sharia tribunals.

In February 2006, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General announced a change in the Arbitration Act to the effect that family dispute resolutions based on non-Canadian laws and principles, including religious principles, have no legal effect and are not enforceable by the courts.

Had women’s organizations not fought for the rights of all women, Muslim women in Canada would not be living under Sharia family law. Muslims in just about every non-Muslim country are trying to implement a dual legal system such that they can use Sharia and ignore the laws of the country where they live. This is a huge human rights and woman’s issue.


JCD said:


> I get frustrated with the dominant Left wing branch of feminism which seems to have co-opted the movement. I get frustrated that women like yourselves hand wave when OTHER voices are squelched because it does not conform to the doctrine of the loudmouths in the movement.


I’m sorry that I have had to spend the last 2.5 decades working at a very demanding job as the sole breadwinner and raising 3 children. I’m sorry that I, personally, was not able to but in the effort to fight the left wing liberal feminist loudmouths (as you call them) to the level that you think I should have. Don’t know what to say to you except, get real.

How much of your personal time to you put into fighting for political things that you believe in? 


JCD said:


> I get frustrated when any time an abortion law is proposed *with the support of many women*, it is characterized as 'the first step toward getting shoved in a burka'...and too many women BUY this!


Are you saying that you do not believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech? If that’s what some people believe, it’s their right. I don’t know why you think it’s my place or anyone else’s place to make these women shut up.
If you want to deprive them of their voice then I suggest you go and try to make them shut up. You might want to wear a helmet when you do that 


JCD said:


> If you want the name 'feminism' to mean what you want it to mean, you need to get HEARD! And yeah, that means calling your 'movement' on some of this stuff! Becoming part of the backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT...it isn't my movement.


Trying to shame me I see. Well you have been doing that for pages, so I'm not surprised.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> One. Hands down, what people said about Chelsea are out of line. No debate.
> 
> Two: Mrs. 'Co-President' threw her hat in the ring and opened herself up. She was in no way an innocent bystander and gave as good as she got


Well gee, isn’t that the same excuse that the left uses about why they attacked Palin in such a sexist, mean spirited manner?
I would not be concerned about the way that the right went after Hillary if they had kept the attacks on the political level. But a huge percentage of the attacks were sexist attacks. No one would have ever such things against a man. But since she is a woman the right felt it was ok to make sexist attacks against her.


JCD said:


> Three: it is not a plank of the Republican party to safeguard the dignity of women and support them in all ways. It IS one of the avowed positions of feminist. So if a Republican calls Hillary a slvt, it is not a good thing but it is not a violation of their principles.


I cannot believe that you just said that. You just said that the left has been saying about Republicans. Open mouth, insert foot much?

Apparently you and the Republicans do not get it. When slvt shaming and sexism I used to diminish and attack a woman, we are all listening. There is only one thing that we learn from it. Those who do it do not respect women as a whole. And then you wonder why the Republican Party has a problem with women? Women watched for years as the right used sexist attacks against Hillary. We heard Republican men say loud and clear that they would never elect any woman president. 

Sure the left attacked Palin in horrible ways to include making sexist attacks. But the right cannot claim any kind of high ground on this as they started the practice with Hillary.



JCD said:


> If a feminist does it to Palin, it IS a violation of their principles. This is a small but important distinction.


Yes, I now get it that in your principles it’s ok to slvt shame and sexually demean women. You stated that very clearly.



JCD said:


> That being said, I agree that such comments were over the top and inappropriate. This does not mean she is immune to criticism.


No political figure should be immune to criticism on their beliefs and policies. But when was the last time that you hear a male condiate slvt shamed and put down simply because they are a man? But this happens to EVERY female candidate no matter what party she’s in.


JCD said:


> I do not listen to Rush either. He is a coward trying to be a political commenter if he wants to pretend influence but hides behind the title of entertainer if he wants to duck criticism.
> 
> I think he and Sean Hannity hurt my movement more than a dozen Katrina vanden Heuvels could. Because they are idiots. And because they are rude. Thoughtlessly rude! Sean is not my favorite person...


Well I do still listen to Rush when there is no one else to listen to… .sort of a way to keep up with the ugly side of political commentary. And I can tell you the things he says are right in line with the stuff you are saying here.
Now Hannity, no, not him.



JCD said:


> See...if I call out my crowd, I'll call them by name. And if I agree with some of what they say, I can both support and criticize.


Why do you assume that I and other feminists do not call out the things said by radical feminists? You are making a huge assumption when you know nothing about what we as individuals do and don’t do.



JCD said:


> It isn't that hard a concept.


Condescending once again. Not a surprise however.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> There was a thread here yrs ago I contributed to...I'll never find it... the female poster was ranting ... how dare men oogle her... she didn't want it ...then went on about her right to dress any darn way she pleased..
> 
> Now.. me.. I think that attitude is ridiculous....utterly... Men are visual creatures and if we want to expose our Rack...and wear mini skirts up to our a**... they are going to be drawn TO US in ways we may not appreciate ...... and I am one who feels depending on how women present themselves... (dressing, acting in public)...will have *an influence* on how they treat us... but I have been told that blames women ... so :wtf:


To me it depends on what she means by oogle. If she means that the guys just look at her for a second or two, then that’s one thing. If she means that they are being rude and acting out then they are rude guys. Men can look all they want at women without being rude. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I never seem to agree with the liberal minded feminists.. pretty much the only thing I MIGHT have in common is the ones who like a little porn.. (then I alienate all the darn church ladies!)...It's like I said.. I am all for free choice, if that's what you want to do!!


OK



SimplyAmorous said:


> Going by this article.. Feminists are all over the map...


 Well you see this is what some here are not getting. There is not ONE FEMINISM. The ONLY think that all feminist agree on is that women should have rights under the law equal to those that men have. That’s it. Everything else is personal opinion to every feminist man and woman. (Yes there are feminist men.) 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Now where would I fit in on all that ... I'm with the social conservatives ....(no surprise right!)....I just haven't found any articles written from a feminist slant that would agree with me.. is this any surprise!...


I gave you links to conservative feminist organizations. I’m sure that if you took the time to check them out, you would find some that you agree with. 

I feel the sexual revolution has only heightened Objectification....but that's women's right.. I just don't agree with their complaining about it.. [/QUOTE]
“Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object, without regard to their personality or dignity.”
I think that objectification of women was much more prevalent before the women’s movement.


SimplyAmorous said:


> That's because they know there IS a great conflict ....and they have better things to do with their time over being ridiculed by the LEFT...


 So what you are saying is that the Republican Party should just blow off women and women’s concerns because there are some loud mouths on the left? Really. Maybe that approach is why so many people believe that the Republican Party does not support women’s issues. Maybe the reason that so many women have been driven from the Republican Party to the Democrat party is that the Republican party is not taking them seriously. 


SimplyAmorous said:


> I did look up Conservative Feminism too.. can I just be honest here... this is not something forethought in my mind..... reading a ton of anything about how women should be earning as much as men & all these opportunities they have today.. what does that do for me personally..... I enjoy my simple life with our 5 children left at home...living down on our Farm .... I have no desire to get out there in the work force.. all I get from reading feminist anything is.. I don't "add up".. I am NOT what SHE is.. others would feel I wasted my potential ...
> My purpose may not be as important as other hard working women out there, climbing ladders of success....but I'm OK with that...though every now & then I will start to compare myself ....though I don't feel this spells anything sinister , we all do this in varying forms now & then...


 Well if you were to actually take the time read, you would find out that women like yourself are as important as women who either chose to work outside the home or have not choice and have to work outside the home. And these women are also just as important as you and other SAHM/W’s.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Weeks ago.. taking our Senior son to the Big City to check out a College, he wants to take Chemical Engineering...WOW.. I/we were so impressed with this School..but I gotta admit... I felt a bit like an Amish Dutch woman walking the city streets, passing these intelligent students, seeing them study in the old Hall with the cathedral ceiling.. scattered, laughing, enjoying youth....like did I miss NOT having this experience??
> 
> A few tears on the way home..a little pity party on myself… skill-less –just a Mother to show.. My H could sense I was "down".. I always openly share.... He soothes me.. that I/we have a good life, I am Loved, our children love me...that we are here for them NOW....and really.. I do have the same vision as he.. neither of us were THAT SMART.. we joke we don't understand where our sons GET IT.. all I care to see is THEY DO WELL.. it's not about us anymore.. I know his words are true...and I rest in them...


Why are you beating yourself up like that? You have a good life. Better than a lot of people. Do you even realize that only about 30% of the population has a college degree?


SimplyAmorous said:


> If I died tomorrow..I could say I lived my dreams, I was loved by a good man, I had the family I prayed for. But am I a feminist... what brand should I call myself Elegirl.. where do I REALLY FIT where my lifestyle is looked upon as something to aspire to? That is my question to anyone on this thread.. I don't expect it to be answered....


Where do you fit in? Since I’ve read a lot of what you have written on TAM and think I know some things about you, I think that you believe in the basic tenant of feminism: Equal rights for women. You don’t need to fit into any box or political movement. No one is even suggesting that.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I only see our way of life as something going the way of the dinosaur... but I still count it a very worthy life.


The way families live has been changing more over the last few 2-3 centuries than it did for thousands of years before that. Men and women used to both work together at home, in their own home and on their own farms. Couples raised their children together. It took both husband and wife to feed and care for a family.

Then the industrial revolution started and men left the farm and went to work in factories. I’ve read a lot of articles writen at that time by men who believed that men going to work and leaving women alone to raise children would cause the end of civilization. This dream life that you are living is the very lifestyle that those writers believed would cause the fall of civilization. But it did not cause the fall did it? 

We you are kinda doing the same thing that those writers did… you are lamenting the changes that we have been going through for the last few decades and how they are changing the structure of family. YOur children’s lives will most likely be very different from your. Well my life has been very different than the lives of my parents’ and my grandparents.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

SimplyAmorous said:


> I enjoy my simple life with our 5 children left at home...living down on our Farm .... I have no desire to get out there in the work force.. all I get from reading feminist anything is.. I don't "add up".. I am NOT what SHE is.. others would feel I wasted my potential ...
> 
> My purpose may not be as important as other hard working women out there, climbing ladders of success....but I'm OK with that...though every now & then I will start to compare myself ....though I don't feel this spells anything sinister , we all do this in varying forms now & then...
> 
> Weeks ago.. taking our Senior son to the Big City to check out a College, he wants to take Chemical Engineering...WOW.. I/we were so impressed with this School..but I gotta admit... I felt a bit like an Amish Dutch woman walking the city streets, passing these intelligent students, seeing them study in the old Hall with the cathedral ceiling.. scattered, laughing, enjoying youth....like did I miss NOT having this experience??
> 
> A few tears on the way home..a little pity party on myself… skill-less –just a Mother to show.. My H could sense I was "down".. I always openly share.... He soothes me.. that I/we have a good life, I am Loved, our children love me...that we are here for them NOW....and really.. I do have the same vision as he.. neither of us were THAT SMART.. we joke we don't understand where our sons GET IT.. all I care to see is THEY DO WELL.. it's not about us anymore.. I know his words are true...and I rest in them...
> 
> If I died tomorrow..I could say I lived my dreams, I was loved by a good man, I had the family I prayed for. But am I a feminist... what brand should I call myself Elegirl.. where do I REALLY FIT where my lifestyle is looked upon as something to aspire to?


Ugggg - It takes a lot to get me furious but in there is evidence of the pervading evil of something that includes the worst of feminism, but collectively falls under a banner of 'neo-utter claptrap".

How fùcking dare they make SA and millions like her feel like semi-retarded, second class women and/or citizens?

This neo-ideology permeates all leading political parties and movements. Innocents are a dwindling rarity.

Notions that if you don't have a deqree you're somehow less than they are. That you're so stupid you need mouthpieces like them to speak for you and, worse, organise your entire life for you. If you disagree with them, well, that's because you're stupid, thereby proving their point (to themselves).

The social stigmatization of the working majority,, as preached, if not from ivory towers, from gated communities with faux-marble kitchen tops and gold plated taps. The very things that we're supposed to aspire to instead of REAL achievements,, like forging good relationships with partners, friends and communities, raising decent kids and getting them into college/uni'. They might not get a good job out of it but at least they'll escape the neo-bòllox shaming.

At the extreem end of neo-thinking, we end up with misguided do-gooderism,, as practiced upon the uneducated (for their own good). Kids snatched from loving parents who smoke or ask for a second medical opinion,, to be placed in the hands of real abusers that somehow slipped through the know-it-alls' vetting proceedures.

If only having a degree really was a sign of intelligence. Instead, too commonly, it's only a sign of a good education and, in practise, an effective license to inflict a self-righteous stupidity on those who are often much smarter.

Note how a 'wing' of educated chumpism is trying to get sports banned in schools cuz they make kids who aren't good at them feel bad. Similarly, the resentment of 'pretty young things', making a success of themselves while committing the crime of being uneducated.

Most of the neo-chumps weren't good at sports and typically aren't pretty. Those who are pretty get invited onto TV more often - their own ethics don't extend to themselves. Clearly, they are against the things they didn't excel at. You don't hear them calling for exams to be banned cuz the kids who struggle to pass them feel just as bad as the kids who can't do sports.

If they were genuinely intelligent,, rather than hypocritical shamers seeking to avenge the slights of a lifetime,, they'd realise that experiencing ineptitude and dealing with it is a positive thing. That being good at anything is as worthy as being good at anything else.

Instead, they promote narrow opinions and narrow goals while belittling anything positive that exists outside of their agenda.

It delights me that SA and plenty like her can take comfort in her very real achivements. What's saddening - and infuriating - is that the stigmatization she has to recognise and rise above is inflicted as much by the 'sisterhood' as it is by the patriarchy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> And those disparities don't exist today...in part thanks to the votes of MEN and Republicans.
> And those disparities don't exist today...in part thanks to the votes of MEN and Republicans.
> 
> This point seems to be frequently forgotten...or certainly underappreciated.


I think that you are wrong about this. There current studies on wages that dispute your claim.
In 2014

American women who work full time, year round are typically paid only 78 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. 

African American women are typically paid only 64 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
Hispanic women typically make only 56 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men

In 2011, women were 49.3% of the more than 14.6 million workers employed in the retail sector. But women are paid about 68.3% of the wages that men make.

Men of working full time in sales and related occupations were paid median weekly wages of $804 weekly

Women of working full time in sales and related occupations were paid median weekly wages of $549 weekly



JCD said:


> Nope. But what we can do, we should do. If a tenth of the outrage over abortion was put on shaming, through writing, some of these nations, it might have a significant impact. Even some small changes would be to the good.


Apparently you have no idea of the work that is being done in these countries and the successes that they have had.. with the help and American and European women’s rights organizations. One example is that the marriage age for girls in a lot of countries has been raised from 9 years old to 16-18. Child marriages are outlawed in every country now. Yes they still occur, but with less frequency and the adults in involved and be punished due to the laws.



JCD said:


> One of the points of pride I have as an American man is that American men went into Iraq and shut down the institutionalized rape rooms and torture chambers in Iraq.
> 
> I am proud that Afghani girls could, for a while, go to school without worrying about her family being
> shot.
> These are things American men did.


As I recall, there were American women in Iraq as well. I think you failed to mention them. I guess that their efforts did not count?

Also, are on my case for me not taking my time to fight for whatever it is you think I should be fighting… for me not getting out in the press and raising my voice to speak out against what you consider wacko women’s voices.

But I see that you have not done anything of significance on your personal time either.



JCD said:


> I am reminded of that story about India. An Indian told a British minister 'it is our culture to burn the widow. We need to stay true to our culture."
> 
> The Brit countered (paraphrased) "you can keep your culture. OUR culture is to hang men who burn women. We are keeping true to our culture."


Of course the Brits had the authority at that time to hang men who burn women. We don’t have authority in the countries that you seem to want all women to go be crusaders in. Because according to you, since we have won some rights here we have no right to anything else unless to go fight for women around the word.
That’s a lot like saying that Americans as a whole have no right to look to protect our rights under our government unless all American go and first install democracy in all 3rd world counties.


JCD said:


> You expressed resentment over how your movement is seen and that it should not be co-opted by the Left.


Feminism is not MY movement. It is a movement that belongs to all women AND men who support equal rights for women. 
I have no resentment that some women on the far left try to have a loud voice and make their views known. They are entitled to their voice and beliefs.
What does bother me are people like you who try to shame me for having the audacity to say that I believe in the basic principles of feminism. One of the major reasons that it bothers me is that this shaming and trying to shut down my voice (and voices of others) is one of the major reason that there are not more alternative voices. 



JCD said:


> I am expressing the reality and frankly expressing the same frustration.


You are also entitled to your voice and your belief.



JCD said:


> So the door you need to bang your head against is not mine.


No, I’m begging my head on your door…


----------



## EleGirl

Flying_Dutchman said:


> It delights me that SA and plenty like her can take comfort in her very real achivements. What's saddening - and infuriating - is that the stigmatization she has to recognise and rise above is inflicted as much by the 'sisterhood' as it is by the patriarchy.


What I consider REAL FEMINISM understands that the choices that SA has made are a valid as the choices that any other woman has made. The whole point of feminism is, after all, that women are equal under the law and that we have the right to chose.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

EleGirl said:


> What I consider REAL FEMINISM understands that the choices that SA has made are a valid as the choices that any other woman has made. The whole point of feminism is, after all, that women are equal under the law and that we have the right to chose.


I totally agree with you about what 'real feminism' should be.

My point is that a large amount of the most vocal feminism agrees with neither of us and plays a significant part in trying to silence the feminists with different POVs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Flying_Dutchman said:


> I totally agree with you about what 'real feminism' should be.
> 
> My point is that a large amount of the most vocal feminism agrees with neither of us and plays a significant part in trying to silence the feminists with different POVs.


I agree.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Flying_Dutchman said:


> *I totally agree with you about what 'real feminism' should be.
> 
> My point is that a large amount of the most vocal feminism agrees with neither of us and plays a significant part in trying to silence the feminists with different POVs.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


We are leaving for a Water Park soon for an overnight stay, so I won't be on here all day to check in.. but yeah.... this is how I feel.. this was the question after all.. "Is Feminism misunderstood?".... 

I don't care for MUCH of what I see, hear... I just don't belong in their circles..... I'm not trying to beat up on myself...that's the reality...I would have no desire to sit down with a bunch of self proclaimed feminists... I* feel *the way Flying Dutchman spoke in his last post. . 

I used to belong to a Mops Group for 14 yrs.. (Mothers of Preschoolers)...half of those women worked, half didn't...never once in those 14 yrs did Feminism come up...we just didn't talk like that.. (and by the way, I have always worked a little outside the home -it's just nothing I could support myself on)

I never felt like someone was trying to push me to make more of myself -IN CASE MY HUSBAND LEAVES ME... which comes up so often here..I have literally had little scuffles with women who laughs at the notion we can trust our husbands to be faithful ...like what a Joke...ha ha ha.. "I thought that once too"....

What am I supposed to do with that.. I just sound like a bragging fool to reply with "Well you don't know my husband".. but that's how I feel... damn it.. 

He could DIE, however. .I do think I have my feet on the ground. 

The basic tenants of Feminism.... of course.. I would be on board... but being honest again...

I have read anti-feminist articles too/ you tube videos (of course they are speaking against the radical more extremist views -someone needs too!)..... I find I resonate with much of what THEY SAY also... so what am I supposed to do with that.. Now I am THE ENEMY !.. I can't win.. 

No... I didn't take the time to read the articles Elegirl. you almost sound upset with me ......these arguments just don't do much for me.. it's just not my personal passion.. it's like all the other threads on Tradition... I am for the more traditionally minded man, I PREFER those types.. the majority of feminists would NOT ... 

But I can see it is a passion of yours...you care a great deal about it...focusing on the fight FOR WOMEN...

If I had to explain where I have MORE of a passion to enlighten the world...it would be to rid it of religious dogma, terror, things of that nature.. for Democracy for all the nations..Freedom of Religion....

I would read a book like this (have it on my shelf) before I would pick up a feminist book.. But I feel this , too, is fighting a similar cause.. I am more of a Free thinking type of person.. yet not a Moral Relativist... Ethics are still very important to me. 

 The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason Sam Harris:


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Flying_Dutchman said:


> I totally agree with you about what 'real feminism' should be.
> 
> My point is that a large amount of the most vocal feminism agrees with neither of us and plays a significant part in trying to silence the feminists with different POVs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



But real feminism isn't interesting, it's not drama, it's not newsworthy. Fighting with radicals only gives them more attention and more fuel to their fire. 

Think of them like forum trolls, they come on and say something horrible, everyone jumps on them and debates them, they get attention, they keep at it. The thread gets de-railed and no one is talking about the initial subject anymore. 

Or, you ignore them, they go away, you continue discussing what the thread was about in the first place.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

SimplyAmorous said:


> I used to belong to a Mops Group for 14 yrs.. (Mothers of Preschoolers)...half of those women worked, half didn't...never once in those 14 yrs did Feminism come up...we just didn't talk like that.. (and by the way, I have always worked a little outside the home -it's just nothing I could support myself on)
> 
> I never felt like someone was trying to push me to make more of myself -IN CASE MY HUSBAND LEAVES ME... which comes up so often here..I have literally had little scuffles with women who laughs at the notion we can trust our husbands to be faithful ...like what a Joke...ha ha ha.. "I thought that once too"....
> 
> [/url]


SA- since we have 1 year mat leave here I was a SAHM for a year with my second child while my first was in school. Since I had the time I could do a lot around there to help and was part of the "club". The next year when I went back to work, my job allows me lots of room to still be around for the kids at school, help around there. But I was no longer part of the club, I got dirty looks, snide comments. 

I've seen those kinds of comments you've heard before directed at SAHMs and heard all the ones about working Mothers coming at me.
IMO it's a Mommywar- the big SAHM vs. working Mother battle. It's like the breast vs. bottle war. 
I don't think it's feminists vs. SAHMs.


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But real feminism isn't interesting, it's not drama, it's not newsworthy. Fighting with radicals only gives them more attention and more fuel to their fire.


I suspect that real feminism is a term that will vary depending upon who you ask.

My oldest taught a course on gender bias in language. This course was an elective (I think) in Woman's Studies. Were the professors in this program real feminists or radicals? I doubt they would characterize themselves as the latter...


----------



## CuddleBug

If you go to the middle east countries, India, Africa, etc., you will see horrible situations of women being denied eduction, stoned for having sex before marriage, being killed for seeing another guy their parents didn't want her to see, not being able to vote and being covered up and hidden when in public.

This is when feminism is desperately needed.


In modern western countries, these aren't issues, so then what do the feminists do? Lets complain about beauty pagents.......lets complain about men actually finding us sexually attractive and checking us out when we dress seductively.......lets complain when women chose to be stay at home moms instead of having a career.....and the list goes on and on and on.

This is when feminism should be eliminated.


Women don't have to enter beauty pagents......women don't have to dress seductively......women don't have to get careers and can actually raise kids.......all choices.


Feminists want to make a real positive noticeable change? Go to Africa, Middle East, India, etc., instead of ranting, posting and not doing much......


Why are feminists still complaining in modern western countries when women today can:

- start their own business
- have a career or be a stay at home or do both
- vote
- teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, trades, etc.
- dress how ever they choose
- stay single or get married
- choose not to have kids
- do whatever they want

What a minute. That is being equal to men and under the law....why are feminists still complaining? Because they are running out of things to complain about and the movement isn't needed much anymore in modern western countries.


An analogy.

When you go fishing, you use a lure and bait. Ladies today can dress anyway they chose, be it conservative, professional, seductive or ****ty. For every choice we make, there is a consequence, be it good or bad.

Ignorance is not bliss and you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

That is a spoiled child used to getting their way no matter what and not a responsible adult.


There is an older guy at the shop from England. He had a story were he worked in a shop and all the employes in the offices were female. They were dressing seductively and some didn't even wear panties.......So when a guy went into the offices to do some repair work, the ladies all noticed and hit on him......especially when he was doing work on their computers under the desks and the ladies would spread their legs and some didn't wear panties. This older guy at my shop told me the ladies are just as bad as the guys and they love to get the attention and more. The guys never complained and went to manism groups, etc.

If our shop hired ladies, all the guys notice them, are friendly and even flirty. The ladies love the attention and they do dress seductively....high heels, open shoes, tight jeans or skirts, breasts and bum showing.......and they don't have to dress that way, all choices.

There is nothing wrong with the ladies dressing sexy, to feel good about themselves, their bodies, their hard work staying in shape, and wanting some man attention.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> No... I didn't take the time to read the articles Elegirl. you almost sound upset with me ......these arguments just don't do much for me.. it's just not my personal passion..


No, I’m not upset with you for not reading the articles. You said that you could not find anything except liberal/democrat feminist material when you did an internet search. But now you know that there are conservative feminist organization that are out there and speaking out. That was my point. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> But I can see it is a passion of yours...you care a great deal about it...focusing on the fight FOR WOMEN...


I’m passionate about a lot of things. This is only one. Just because I join and thread and discuss a topic does not meant that the topic is my focus in life. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> If I had to explain where I have MORE of a passion to enlighten the world...it would be to rid it of religious dogma, terror, things of that nature.. for Democracy for all the nations..Freedom of Religion....


These are important to me too. I’ve done a lot of work to further these issues. To me, you cannot have address these issues without addressing women’s rights at all. For example, without women’s vote there is not democracy. If half of the people cannot vote and have no say in their government, it's no a democracy. If half the people do not have equal rights, it's not democracy.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I would read a book like this (have it on my shelf) before I would pick up a feminist book.. But I feel this , too, is fighting a similar cause.. I am more of a Free thinking type of person.. yet not a Moral Relativist... Ethics are still very important to me.
> 
> The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason Sam Harris:


An interesting review of the book from Publishers Weekly

"In this sometimes simplistic and misguided book, Harris calls for the end of religious faith in the modern world. Not only does such faith lack a rational base, he argues, but even the urge for religious toleration allows a too-easy acceptance of the motives of religious fundamentalists. Religious faith, according to Harris, requires its adherents to cling irrationally to mythic stories of ideal paradisiacal worlds (heaven and hell) that provide alternatives to their own everyday worlds. Moreover, innumerable acts of violence, he argues, can be attributed to a religious faith that clings uncritically to one set of dogmas or another. Very simply, religion is a form of terrorism for Harris. Predictably, he argues that a rational and scientific view—one that relies on the power of empirical evidence to support knowledge and understanding—should replace religious faith. We no longer need gods to make laws for us when we can sensibly make them for ourselves. But Harris overstates his case by misunderstanding religious faith, as when he makes the audaciously naïve statement that "mysticism is a rational enterprise; religion is not." As William James ably demonstrated, mysticism is far from a rational enterprise, while religion might often require rationality in order to function properly. On balance, Harris's book generalizes so much about both religion and reason that it is ineffectual. "

But of course this is a topic for a different thread.


----------



## CuddleBug

My life experiences with atheists have all been negative.

They have been arrogant, condescending, angry, no respect to those of faith, know it alls, always looking at attack someones faith by looking on the surface and never what's beneath the surface.

The only way atheism will sweep the world and all faiths disappear.....

- more loving than those of faith
- more tolerant than those of faith
- never looking for a fight
- never know at alls
- never condescending
- never arrogant
- respect and learn more about others faiths than those of faith

Basically, be better than those of faith and people will see this.

But at present, major faiths are starting to find commonalities to merge into one global faith.

- Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. all into one major faith that encompasses the entire world. Atheism will be a foot note.

Major faiths, about 4+ billion people......add other non major faiths around the world......many more.......that's a lot of people.


----------



## Catherine602

Cuddle you may have met a skewered sample. The arrogant atheists are more vocal than the humble ones. So you only know of atheism from a negative standpoint. I know some atheist. they are humanist and their ethics are similar to those who believe.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Catherine602 said:


> Cuddle you may have met a skewered sample. The arrogant atheists are more vocal than the humble ones. So you only know of atheism from a negative standpoint. I know some atheist. they are humanist and their ethics are similar to those who believe.


Yah I agree with this. I certainly never ran around telling people I was an atheist when I was driving Meals on Wheels. Or delivering casseroles to new Moms. etc.


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> Yah I agree with this. I certainly never ran around telling people I was an atheist when I was driving Meals on Wheels. Or delivering casseroles to new Moms. etc.


I think that most people do not push their beliefs on others... be they atheists or religious. That's how it should be.

I also don't think that either atheists or religion are going to disappear. There seems to be a very strong need in many people to believe in something greater than themselves. Then there are those who don't need that. It's just part of the human condition.


----------



## heartsbeating

CuddleBug said:


> You've completely missed my point and its right there.
> 
> *Women today can do whatever they want. No one is forcing them to enter beauty pagents!!!
> 
> If beauty pagents were so bad, like you claim, then no woman would enter them and they would shut down fast.
> 
> But many women enter them to this very day, love the attention they get, publicity, show off their attractive bodies, and even get better job prospects with sponsors.*


You seem riled from my post and are making assumptions about my opinion '..like you claim..' 

I didn't claim anything. I did, however, post an opinion piece about why feminism is needed today. 

There's many posts here from men and women that I feel similarly to but I also feel this thread is darting all over the place and I personally don't have the energy or inclination for it.


----------



## heartsbeating

norajane said:


> I've benefited greatly from feminism.
> 
> I was able to go to college. I was actually expected to and encouraged to go, instead of told I didn't need to because I was a girl.
> 
> I was able to work and be offered the same benefits and starting salary as my guy friends for the same job. I wasn't passed over for jobs because I was a woman, even though I have mostly worked in male dominated industries. I wasn't limited to secretary, teacher, cleaning lady, store clerk, waitress, nurse or nanny jobs. I still experienced sexual harassment in my early years of work, before sexual harassment was a thing that feminists were successful in identifying and fighting.
> 
> I was able to open bank accounts and get credit cards all by myself. I didn't need my father or husband for that, which had been the case in prior generations.
> 
> I was able to buy property by myself. I didn't need my father or husband to co-sign, although I did have to sign every document which labeled me "spinster" while my single guy friends were only identified as "unmarried male". Illinois has since changed that antiquated designation on their property documents, so now women are also merely "unmarried woman" on their property titles. I'm sure some feminist actions had something to do with that change.
> 
> I was able to go to a Planned Parenthood clinic for my pap smears and for birth control prescriptions during grad school when I was broke and didn't have insurance.
> 
> Had I been born just 10-15 years earlier, I would not have been able to take those things for granted. I would have had to struggle and fight for those rights along with the early feminists who made it possible for me to sail through without experiencing what previous generations did.
> 
> Because we do still deal with issues of wage equality, reproductive rights, workplace benefits, glass ceilings, political representation, and objectification of women, among other things, I remain a feminist. I also believe there is a need to remain vigilant so those rights I grew up with aren't eroded or rolled back for the women being born today, so I remain a feminist. I also see that women in other nations aren't as lucky as I was to be raised here, so I remain a feminist.
> 
> I've never been part of a feminist "organization" nor have I ever spoken publicly about it, nor do I have a book or blog or even bumper stickers. I do vote for people who support my views around equal rights, and against those who don't. I do put my money where my mouth is and give money to organizations that support my views. I do start and participate in women's networking opportunities among my colleagues. I do mentoring. I do encourage the young women in my life to pursue their dreams, whatever they may be. I am a feminist.


I love this post.


----------



## JCD

One fact remains. Power is a zero sum game. More for me means less for you and visa versa.

Men are, for the most part, fair creatures. We don't like crooked sports. You win within the rules and so, when we are finally hit over the head enough about an unfair ruling, we have made adjustments (tradition has a drag on social change)

That being said...the fact that I may not like, say, third term abortions, affirmative consent rules, and see the paycheck fairness act as a bad law very prone to abuse does not make me or other men 'anti-women' or even anti-feminist. It means it is a bad law at least for me. And the 'leadership' which does not exist, but somehow spends the money norjane sends to them for advocacy of these things that she probably would not personally support. Just like maybe some of my money. And yet, it I am held liable for Republican/Libertarian/military donations...so does norjane.

I totally buy that Ontario thing Elegirl cited. Makes sense.

But...feminism is about changing the power dynamic between genders. That is it's basis. So just on that front, at least half the population is going to look askance because 'overreach' is not just a male failing. Even ocotillo may see a feminist program or idea and say 'this goes too far'.

Where feminism is fair, I'll support it. 

To the original question, it is totally understandable why feminism is watched skeptically...and misunderstanding has nothing to do with it. It is that only the good and fair things are cherry picked out as defining what is a much broader, diverse, and even yes, sometimes crazy organization 

Every organization has some crazy in it.


----------



## marriedman321

An issue I would have is that facts are distorted to paint a certain picture..

"1 out of 4 women have been sexually abused", or "women make less than men for the same job" etc. It greatly exaggerates or distorts statistics to make women distrustful of men.


I would be strongly in favor of women's groups going around and teaching other women not to hit their children, and to truly want to be equal. Not expecting men to bail them out, save them, use them etc. 

I actually like how divorce is in Scandinavia, Simple, easy, no alimony, little need for lawyers.. Get a divorce and be equal. A woman is not being paid forever for a job she no longer has, being a wife..Are feminists trying to end that?


----------



## JCD

Cuddle bug, I think women, in Western countries, have come to a GOOD place.

But just like a good neighborhood needs constant vigilance to keep it a good neighborhood, I can get why women are 'prickly' over what they fear may be attempts to roll back rights (that they never think that maybe a law went too far...well). They need to be vigilant to stay in a good place.

Sometimes they are over prickly. That is human. And sometimes, while I feel there is room for improvement in women's rights, they let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 'This is an unfair thing in life and so there needs to be a law to fix it' only cuts so much ice.

Are we going to have the 'dating fairness act' where the ugly, and the socially inept are gifted with dates with really hot people? There are not always fixes which don't cost more than the fix. This is another critique of how feminism is perceived, if not actually is.


----------



## JCD

I was going to use Hetty Green as an example of 'women only being a very short time from being horribly oppressed.'

But then I looked her up. She was one of the first women who 'owned her own money' and did well with it. She made her money on *Civil War bonds.*

That is a good bit of time ago.

But on the other hand, I saw Betty Draper in Mad Men, where Don controlled all the money. Fifty odd years ago. Not yesterday, but around my grandparents age.

How long do you ladies think it will be before you don't think you are one step away from a burka? That society has actually changed.


----------



## marriedman321

I also believe the initiation of force or coercion never has a good long term outcome.. It seems feminists want to use the police power of the state to pass laws to give them a certain advantage..
And since politicians just want power, it isn't really about what is right or wrong, it is more about votes and staying in power. 



I think it was in 19th century England that the "women's movement" was women fighting for the right to raise their kids from home and NOT work for a wage. Funny how things come full circle..


----------



## marriedman321

JCD said:


> I was going to use Hetty Green as an example of 'women only being a very short time from being horribly oppressed.'
> 
> But then I looked her up. She was one of the first women who 'owned her own money' and did well with it. She made her money on *Civil War bonds.*
> 
> That is a good bit of time ago.
> 
> But on the other hand, I saw Betty Draper in Mad Men, where Don controlled all the money. Fifty odd years ago. Not yesterday, but around my grandparents age.
> 
> How long do you ladies think it will be before you don't think you are one step away from a burka? That society has actually changed.


I know that when my parents married, probably in 1958, my mom had far more money saved than my father from working. She worked, saved money, made a good income etc.

Even 55-60 years ago women had no issue working , getting paid well, and saving money as long as they made good decisions..


----------



## JCD

Quick clarifications.

Hillary opened herself to political attacks, but I did not like HOW she was always attacked.

This thread is about how feminism is understood, not what you feel are the sins of the Republican Party. If feminism acts hypocritically, THAT is the subject. Not me, not Republicans. 'You do it too' is not a defense.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> I know that when my parents married, probably in 1958, my mom had far more money saved than my father from working. She worked, saved money, made a good income etc.
> 
> Even 55-60 years ago women had no issue working , getting paid well, and saving money as long as they made good decisions..


55-60 years ago women could find jobs as secretaries, waitresses, clerks, maids, nannies, etc. Very few women could find a job in a profession or trade. And very few were paid well. Most women, even women with degrees were almost always barred from professional positions.

A woman with a law degree and who had passed the bar could usually only find a job as a legal secretary. She was generally told that no client would accept a female lawyer.

There were college majors that women were not allowed to pursue a degree in.

I'm 65. when I graduated from high school it was still like that for the most part. The job ads in the news paper still had Male Help Wanted and Female Help wanted sections.

In the 1950's and 1960's, female airline flight attendants had to be between the age 21 and 28 to be hired. They also had to be single. They had to have good legs, inspected at the time of interview by the male interviewing them. They were fired at age 32 because it was claimed "that reaching 32 meant charm and grace, not to mention competence, suddenly ended.

These limitations only applied to female flight attendants.
suddenly ended.

It was not until 1970 that a federal trial court finally ruled "that neither sex nor marital status was a bona fide occupational qualification for the flight attendant occupation."


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Quick clarifications.
> 
> Hillary opened herself to political attacks, but I did not like HOW she was always attacked.
> 
> This thread is about how feminism is understood, not what you feel are the sins of the Republican Party. If feminism acts hypocritically, THAT is the subject. Not me, not Republicans. 'You do it too' is not a defense.


You are the one who brought up that Sarah Palin was unfairly attacks in a sexist manner by the left and democrat party.

Well, that brings up the fact that the right and the Republicans has a long history of doing the exact same thing. And the two easiest targets of the right's attacks to recall are the sexist attacks against both Hillary and Chelsie.

Remember that those in glass houses should not throw stones.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> I also believe the initiation of force or coercion never has a good long term outcome.. It seems feminists want to use the police power of the state to pass laws to give them a certain advantage..


Being about to get an aducatoin in the same fields of study that men can get one in is not getting an advantage. It's called equality.

No longer being paid 50% of what a male engineer is paid is not getting an advantage. This is called equality.



marriedman321 said:


> And since politicians just want power, it isn't really about what is right or wrong, it is more about votes and staying in power.


In politics and voting women do not have more power than men. Equal rights for women finally won after hundreds of years of women fighting for it because it's the morally right thing to do. Not because women have more power than men. 

We each have only one vote.





marriedman321 said:


> I think it was in 19th century England that the "women's movement" was women fighting for the right to raise their kids from home and NOT work for a wage. Funny how things come full circle..


Women fought for the right for women to live their lives as they choose. Some wish to be SAHM's some wish to work. A lot of women have no choice and have to work. But at least, now that we have the right to a good education and equal pay we are not subjected to abject poverty.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> 55-60 years ago women could find jobs as secretaries, waitresses, clerks, maids, nannies, etc. Very few women could find a job in a profession or trade. And very few were paid well. Most women, even women with degrees were almost always barred from professional positions.
> 
> A woman with a law degree and who had passed the bar could usually only find a job as a legal secretary. She was generally told that no client would accept a female lawyer.
> 
> There were college majors that women were not allowed to pursue a degree in.
> 
> I'm 65. when I graduated from high school it was still like that for the most part. The job ads in the news paper still had Male Help Wanted and Female Help wanted sections.
> 
> In the 1950's and 1960's, female airline flight attendants had to be between the age 21 and 28 to be hired. They also had to be single. They had to have good legs, inspected at the time of interview by the male interviewing them. They were fired at age 32 because it was claimed "that reaching 32 meant charm and grace, not to mention competence, suddenly ended.
> 
> These limitations only applied to female flight attendants.
> suddenly ended.
> 
> It was not until 1970 that a federal trial court finally ruled "that neither sex nor marital status was a bona fide occupational qualification for the flight attendant occupation."


Isn't the point of a revolution to end? Are we joining groups to end slavery? No, the issue is no longer there.

It just seems different with feminism.. These powerful groups will need to continue to distort facts to stay relevant, grow, and gain more power. 

Are feminists ever chastising women who get pregnant by rich men just to make money? Chastising women for taking alimony? Chastising women for false rape allegations?

Do feminists love Ann Coulter? Sarah palin? Is it more of a woman thing, or left thing?


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> I actually like how divorce is in Scandinavia, Simple, easy, no alimony, little need for lawyers.. Get a divorce and be equal. A woman is not being paid forever for a job she no longer has, being a wife..Are feminists trying to end that?


Are you also willing to pay high tax rates (40% to 57%) the support things like paid 18 months of parental leave for both parents, gov subsidized child care, government run health system and free health care, rent controls, wage controls, etc.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> Are you also willing to pay high tax rates (40% to 57%) the support things like paid 18 months of parental leave for both parents, gov subsidized child care, government run health system and free health care, rent controls, wage controls, etc.


So for example, if Robin Williams gets divorced, and pays the woman 20 million dollars at once, for some reason he should be paying her millions more over the next few decades ? Why did he have to pay 30 million in alimony over the years? We need higher taxes to stop such injustices? Are feminists against this? 97% of people who receive alimony are female..

And guess what.. With all of that govt involvement , they have a really low birth rate. They barely have kids anymore..that's what I mean about unintended consequences of the use of force.. So they have to import third world people to work and pay for the social program, which leads to a new set of issues..


----------



## marriedman321

In real life, most women are coddled and protected over men in so many ways...

Example.. My wife cheated, and another man sent her tens of thousands of dollars.

While married, she did not want to work.. She liked taking vacations, liked going to the mall to see friends, liked having lunch with friends, etc.. Once she did work, she chose something part time, something low paying, something she liked, and kept all of her own money..As is usually the case, women are motivated not by money, but by a job they enjoy.

On the stand at court , it was twisted into "i did not let her work". (poor female) Even though she had tens of thousands of dollars in her account, and even though she admitted cheating, the judge awarded her spousal support.. What? Are feminists going to back me? Are they going to point out how she is an equal and capable woman, so she should not take the money and earn her own way like I do? I doubt it.


----------



## norajane

JCD said:


> And the 'leadership' which does not exist, but somehow spends the money norjane sends to them for advocacy of these things that she probably would not personally support. Just like maybe some of my money. And yet, it I am held liable for Republican/Libertarian/military donations...so does norjane.


Scholarships for girls. College scholarships. Those are the "organizations" I personally support.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> SA- since we have 1 year mat leave here I was a SAHM for a year with my second child while my first was in school. Since I had the time I could do a lot around there to help and was part of the "club". The next year when I went back to work, my job allows me lots of room to still be around for the kids at school, help around there. But I was no longer part of the club, I got dirty looks, snide comments.
> 
> I've seen those kinds of comments you've heard before directed at SAHMs and heard all the ones about working Mothers coming at me.
> IMO it's a Mommywar- the big SAHM vs. working Mother battle. It's like the breast vs. bottle war.
> I don't think it's feminists vs. SAHMs.


 Maybe others don't realize this about me but I would never put down Working Moms .... I applaud them for all they do.. it's far MORE THAN MYSELF.. (if anything I feel less than them -when I get to comparing as I have mentioned)...I don't consider myself insecure here...it's just the truth... they have worked harder to get where they are..I'd be a fool to suggest otherwise. 

...Yet I never wanted that lifestyle, the whole barefoot & pregnant thing does not offend me, IT WAS MY DREAM..

... We did all we could, living within our means to allow for my staying home, it's what he wanted (even complained when I was working too much ).... I am proud in a different way.. of all we have accomplished on his lower income... even if it's nothing I can boast doing independently outside of my Husband...he was needed... but he would turn around & tell me I was the brains of the outfit..

IF I feel anything on "The Wars" on this forum ... it's in the name & praise of Independence outside of a man.. this is honorable -what I feel is the drum beat of the Feminist woman...... and when a woman doesn't have this ... she is not a wise woman..

Yes..I feel shamed for not being independent financially....or what man would want to join forces with a woman who isn't [email protected]#.. he would have to be a FOOL...especially in THIS SOCIETY with rampant cheating & divorce, and Court Law in favor of the Mother yet [email protected]#$ 

Before coming to TAM ...I really can't say I have experienced women's disdain for my views/ choices .... working or non.. I can't relate to feeling shunned by any such group with those I have known.... 

The closest I can think is.. and these are not even put downs to me... a lady I volunteered for seemed on a mission to get me to breastfeed, buying me a book.. bringing it to the hospital.. her intentions were well.. but I still bottle fed. I was a bottle fed child.. very healthy.. so were all of our kids.. they didn't get any more ear infections either, which is claimed among other benefits. (guess I wasn't as old fashioned on that one!)..

And a lady from my Church, she has grown a closer friend over the yrs... but it was funny.. this heated little debate we had in a Walmart parking lot... she felt compelled, once she learned I had 6 c-sections , to inform me had she been my Doula.. (what she does)...she could have spared me from all of those.... It was very clear she had some sort of stick up her butt with Doctors, didn't trust them, their judgement...I could compare some Feminists (the radicals ) similar to this.. in regards to MEN... it was just a LITTLE MUCH.... like C-sections were the plague of the earth, rarely needed..and OBGYN's are so incompetent. 

Was she there.. did she know my pelvis was on the small side, my OBGYN telling me even before Labor I may end up with one, that I labored IN THE HOSPITAL for 24 hrs, not progressing.... what I think is...had I lived 100 yrs ago, I might have been one of those Mothers who [email protected]# .... so in this way.. I'm terribly thankful to be living today, God bless my Doctors & I would NEVER NEVER NEVER take a chance trying to have a baby at home..... hey, that's a woman's choice too... but it's not one for me... 

I felt compelled to let her know I was smiling, happy & Gay (in a non sexual way) with each of my C-sections...I loved my birth experiences even if they were not as Natural as the women who can push them out on her kitchen floor... heck, had I even managed to pass our 1st.. I would have been terrified to learn I was having another....

C-sections can be a beautiful too!

I have female friends who work full time.. always did.. and those who do not... it's not something that even comes up...oh she may rant about her job -and I listen.. but other than this.. never felt they looked down on me......Working for them is just to keep up with the bills & afford the things they want..... it's no different over ourselves.....it's all in the name of the same thing...what works best for our families... and we're not all the same.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> Isn't the point of a revolution to end? Are we joining groups to end slavery? No, the issue is no longer there.


Government sanctioned slavery in the USA ended. However underground slavery is still exists here. There are about 100,000 slaves in the USA at any one time. World wide there are over 35 million slaves... more than have ever existed at any one time in history. So no the fight against slavery has not over. Groups fighting slavery exist and are growing. it's just the most people chose to ignore this.



marriedman321 said:


> It just seems different with feminism.. These powerful groups will need to continue to distort facts to stay relevant, grow, and gain more power.


Well, I'm not sure what groups you are talking about and what facts you think are being distorted. So we'd have to look at each item you have a problem with, and look at the actual data. I don't buy that every thing that feminists and women's rights folks talk based on distorted facts.

Yes there are some feminists (male and female) who are fighting as much to keep the power that they have gained. That's how any political system works. Those who gain power will seek to hold onto and expand that power. It's human nature.

Men of money and power also do this. They continue to fight to try to take all rights away from workers, gain more power for themselves and lining their pockets with more and more money is always their goal. Are you also telling all these rich men that they have won their war and it's time for them to shut up and go home? I doubt that.

Just as you have the right voice your opinion and to assemble freely, so do the people who believe that there is more to do in the area of women's rights.

I'm not sure why you think that you or anyone else has the right to tell them that they need to shut up and go home.



marriedman321 said:


> Are feminists ever chastising women who get pregnant by rich men just to make money? Chastising women for taking alimony? Chastising women for false rape allegations?


It is not the job of any feminist, or any woman, to chastise women who behave badly. 

Do you go around chastising very man who acts badly? Of course not.



marriedman321 said:


> Do feminists love Ann Coulter? Sarah palin? Is it more of a woman thing, or left thing?


No one is required to love or not to love Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin? Do you think that no woman has the right to not like the politics and character of another woman. Just like men, each woman makes up her own mind on things like whether or not they like anyone, to include Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin. 

Shoot I know women on the far right who don't like their of them. 


I don't understand what you mean by "Is it more of a woman thing, or a left thing?

And I don't understand why you ask me such a question. I do not speak for all women. It sounds like you think that all women have a common thought process. Maybe you think that we have a group consciousness and so one of us can speak for all women. Sorry, we are as much individuals as men are. I can only speak for myself.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> I think that you are wrong about this. There current studies on wages that dispute your claim.
> In 2014
> 
> American women who work full time, year round are typically paid only 78 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.


You realize that this number is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women? 

It does not take into account hours worked, different occupations, how many years worked etc..

So as an example, if my wife wants to be a day care teacher because she loves it, and makes $300 a week, and marries me, who has the same stressful job for 20 years making $3000 a week, that stat will count her as making 10 cents on the dollar compared to me. Yes, it is that ridiculous.. But feminists love to keep these distortions alive to prove they are still needed.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> In real life, most women are coddled and protected over men in so many ways...
> 
> Example.. My wife cheated, and another man sent her tens of thousands of dollars.
> 
> While married, she did not want to work.. She liked taking vacations, liked going to the mall to see friends, liked having lunch with friends, etc.. Once she did work, she chose something part time, something low paying, something she liked, and kept all of her own money..As is usually the case, women are motivated not by money, but by a job they enjoy.
> 
> On the stand at court , it was twisted into "i did not let her work". (poor female) Even though she had tens of thousands of dollars in her account, and even though she admitted cheating, the judge awarded her spousal support.. What? Are feminists going to back me? Are they going to point out how she is an equal and capable woman, so she should not take the money and earn her own way like I do? I doubt it.


You married a woman who had low morals and ethics. Then you allowed her do these things that you disagree with. 

Then you have the audacity to rant on that all women are like your wife.

You want me to point out to your wife that she needs to support herself?

I put my ex through medical school and residency. (He had no debt , not a penny, from medical school). He cheated on me our entire marriage with many women. By the time we divorced I found out that he had moved large sums of money I earned into accounts I could not access. I was robbed.

So are you going to go tell my ex to return the money he took from me? How about telling him that he should show more moral fortitude and return to me the over $100,000 I spent on his medial school?


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> You married a woman who had low morals and ethics. Then you allowed her do these things that you disagree with.
> 
> Then you have the audacity to rant on that all women are like your wife.
> 
> You want me to point out to your wife that she needs to support herself?
> 
> I put my ex through medical school and residency. (He had no debt , not a penny, from medical school). He cheated on me our entire marriage with many women. By the time we divorced I found out that he had moved large sums of money I earned into accounts I could not access. I was robbed.
> 
> So are you going to go tell my ex to return the money he took from me? How about telling him that he should show more moral fortitude and return to me the over $100,000 I spent on his medial school?


No, I pointed out an example of an unfair system in place. The govt did not force you to put him through medical school at the point of a gun. 

If I choose to pay for my wife's medical school thinking there will be a big pay off for me in the future that would be an individual decision and have nothing to do with an unfair system.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> You realize that this number is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women? .


What a riot. You did not even see the source of the numbers I provided. Yet you think that you think that you know how they were derived. What a crock.




marriedman321 said:


> It does not take into account hours worked, different occupations, how many years worked etc...


The numbers took that into consideration. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.



marriedman321 said:


> So as an example, if my wife wants to be a day care teacher because she loves it, and makes $300 a week, and marries me, who has the same stressful job for 20 years making $3000 a week, that stat will count her as making 10 cents on the dollar compared to me. Yes, it is that ridiculous.. But feminists love to keep these distortions alive to prove they are still needed.


So now you give a non-related example that has nothing to do with the number I provided. Thus trying to discredit what I wrote. 

The numbers I provided were for the exact same jobs done by men and women. 

I'm wasting my time talking to you here.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> What a riot. You did not even see the source of the numbers I provided. Yet you think that you think that you know how they were derived. What a crock.
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers took that into consideration. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> So now you give a stupid example that has nothing to do with the number I provided. Thus trying to discredit what I wrote.
> 
> The numbers I provided were for the exact same jobs done by men and women.
> 
> I'm wasting my time talking to you here.


Ok, can you please cite it..Would love to see the source and how those numbers were tabulated. Because the number I know that speaks of this exact wage discrepancy is computed in the exact way I mentioned. 

.Economists have debunked this so many times, yet it stays alive.. And if the numbers took everything into consideration, you did not state that in your original statement. You just said "American women who work full time, year round are typically paid only 78 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts." That is just one of the misleading myths I am speaking of. Meant to rile women up to fight against something that does not even exist. 

It would be like having a study that states "30 yr old men who live at home and work full time make 75 cents on the dollar compared to full time working men with a family", then crying it must be because of discrimination against men because they live at home...While ignoring the fact that guys who live at home might not need to make as much, so they choose different types of jobs and work fewer hours...


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> No, I pointed out an example of an unfair system in place. The govt did not force you to put him through medical school at the point of a gun.
> 
> If I choose to pay for my wife's medical school thinking there will be a big pay off for me in the future that would be an individual decision and have nothing to do with an unfair system.


The government did not force you, or put a gun to your head, to get you to sign a marriage contract that stated that you and your wife were equal partners and both of you had a right to 50% of all earned income and assets. It also stated that if you two divorced, the lower income spouse would have to pay the other alimony. You signed that contract of your own free will.



marriedman321 said:


> Are feminists ever chastising women who get pregnant by rich men just to make money?


Hm, I don’t see all those rich guys complaining when they have lines of beautiful women giving them sex freely. If these rich men aren’t smart enough to protect themselves, that’s their problem. After all, no one force them or held a gun to their head to force them to have sex and get a gold digger pregnant. If they are stupid enough to knock up gold diggers, then they are pretty stupid.

I do not get why some of you men think that all women should be out chastising any woman who acts badly. But then you feel no responsibility to do the same when men act badly.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> You are the one who brought up that Sarah Palin was unfairly attacks in a sexist manner by the left and democrat party.
> 
> Well, that brings up the fact that the right and the Republicans has a long history of doing the exact same thing. And the two easiest targets of the right's attacks to recall are the sexist attacks against both Hillary and Chelsie.
> 
> Remember that those in glass houses should not throw stones.


You still refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

An organization, a movement, a religion, a whatever you want to characterized what you do, does not get to openly and graphically renege on their avowed principles without honestly opening themselves to taking legitimate flack for *violating their principles!*

I am not dinging Jon Stewart to saying nasty things about Sarah Palin. I am not dinging SNL or the Democratic party for throwing out sexist slurs at Sarah Palin. Hell, they had a TON of fun with Larry Craig! That is part of the POLITICAL tension.

Heck, you might remember this one: Caesar was said to be 'a husband to every wife and a wife to every husband'. 2,000 years of sexual attacks.

But the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Roman Senate never put as a plank in any of their creeds 'we will not slvt shame women and will oppose it as a social construct'. Except, it seems, your allies are doing it to a political enemy.

If an anti-abortion group suddenly has a majority of their talking heads getting filmed getting abortions, they, AS A MOVEMENT, had delegitimized themselves to a degree. This is what happened with Bill. This is what happened with Sarah.

If you wanted to discuss the blatant hypocritical stance of the Republicans on spending during the Bush years, you'd have a legitimate comparison. VIOLATION OF ESPOUSED PRINCIPLE. They deserve every bit of condemnation they get for that...and they fostered the Tea Party to smack them around.

Feminists violated their principles. The 'sin' of sexual shaming is nowhere near equal. Because it is 'rude' in Republican circles. It is a SIN in feminist circles.

There is no difference here. Your argument has no weight.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> The government did not force you, or put a gun to your head, to get you to sign a marriage contract that stated that you and your wife were equal partners and both of you had a right to 50% of all earned income and assets. It also stated that if you two divorced, the lower income spouse would have to pay the other alimony. You signed that contract of your own free will.
> 
> 
> Hm, I don’t see all those rich guys complaining when they have lines of beautiful women giving them sex freely. If these rich men aren’t smart enough to protect themselves, that’s their problem. After all, no one force them or held a gun to their head to force them to have sex and get a gold digger pregnant. If they are stupid enough to knock up gold diggers, then they are pretty stupid.
> 
> I do not get why some of you men think that all women should be out chastising any woman who acts badly. But then you feel no responsibility to do the same when men act badly.


So Feminists view women as inferior beings that are incapable of making decisions so must be protected..Men are capable and do not need to be protected. 

1. Girl gets wasted and forgets she had sex.. Well she was taken advantage of and raped.. No fault of her own actions..

2. Woman marries an abusive man.. No fault of her own. Poor woman.. Not her fault who she picked to marry..

But...

3. man marries a gold digger. Well he is dumb and should have known better. 

The difference is, that in 1 and 2, the govt protects women.. In number 3 it actually helps women become gold diggers.

When will feminists correct this so they can be more equal?


----------



## JCD

norajane said:


> Scholarships for girls. College scholarships. Those are the "organizations" I personally support.


I wanted to clarify an example of how 'supporting X good things by giving money does not mean the money can't be transferred to Y things I do not support.' It was not meant as a personal slur.

We can only hope the money is directed as we will it. Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it is not.

If I gave money to 'hire lawyers for illegitimately jailed Irish' and found out that the money was sent to buy guns for the IRA, I'd feel the same way if were a woman and supported 'equal rights' but then found out my cash went straight to politicians I did not like.

Granted, scholarships are harder to monkey with.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> No, I’m not upset with you for not reading the articles. You said that you could not find anything except liberal/democrat feminist material when you did an internet search. But now you know that there are conservative feminist organization that are out there and speaking out. That was my point.


 You know as well as I , we can find anything we want on a google search.. and given one's foundation on any given subject.. another will come along and belittle what was written by those they disagree with ..and since everything under the sun is relative or Subjective (just a matter of opinion).. what does any of it really matter anyway? 

I may go back & click on those Links you gave...but not enough time right now.. I should be in bed :sleeping:

I guess I am one who looks at statistics.. I just feel statistically speaking...the vibe is the vast majority *are* liberal democrats.. I just don't have a whole lot in common with liberal democrats Elegirl.. what should I do... I am who I am.. I feel how I feel...

They would want to spit on some of my views... just like you didn't care for my taking the conservative view on the sexual revolution.. also on the maiden name thread.. my perceptions , which I am happy with/ feel as strongly about as you.....but we find ourselves on different sides of the issue. 



> These are important to me too. I’ve done a lot of work to further these issues. To me, you cannot have address these issues without addressing women’s rights at all. For example, without women’s vote there is not democracy. If half of the people cannot vote and have no say in their government, it's no a democracy. If half the people do not have equal rights, it's not democracy.


 I guess I don't feel that just because one doesn't care for the term -which I have tried my best to explain why I don't feel I even SHOULD be associated with it.. .. no mention that I admitted I LIKE some anti-feminist articles, you tube videos.. ...I seriously expected to get on here tonight and be CRUCIFIED by the women for that comment... 

I would like to know this.. for all the feminists who are against the radicals, extremists.. can you , too, read the other side.. and acknowledge that even the anti-feminists have a valid point now & then? If we can't reason with both sides.. and find some common ground.. we'll all just grow more intolerable towards the labels.


----------



## JCD

marrieddude,

We, as men, cannot encourage our wives to take time out of their careers and not make money by caring for our children without making some assurances that they will not be left on an ice floe if our head gets turned by a pretty face. Granted, paying alimony to a cheater who INTIATES the divorce is a very bitter pill.

I can certainly quibble about sizes of alimony, but if it was my sister, or my daughter who was left out in the cold, I'd have some pretty strong words to the man!


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> Ok, can you please cite it..Because the number I know that speaks of this wage discrepancy is computed in the exact way I mentioned. Economists have debunked this so many times, yet it stays alive..
> 
> It would be like having a study that states "30 yr old men who live at home and work full time make 75 cents on the dollar compared to full time working men with a family", then crying it must be because of discrimination against men because they live at home...While ignoring the fact that guys who live at home might not need to make as much, so they choose different types of jobs and work fewer hours...


The numbers I gave are for the retail sector. 

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/retailworkers32centsshort.pdf

The article talks about Wal-Mart v. Dukes in which women brought a class action case against Wal-Mart wage and promotion discrimination against women. The court did find that Wal-Mart does systemically discriminate against women in wages and promotions. However the Supreme Court threw out the case saying that the women who brought the suit did not have enough in common to be considered a class. 

The outcome of this case in the Supreme Court is one of the reasons that many believe that the Paycheck Fairness Act is not needed. If a class of people cannot sue for organization wide wage and promotion discrimination, then some other protection is needed when it occurs.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> So are you going to go tell my ex to return the money he took from me? How about telling him that he should show more moral fortitude and return to me the over $100,000 I spent on his medial school?


Give me an address. I'd do it. Maybe I'd listen to his side first, but I'd do it.

I will certainly (and cheaply) admit he is a person of very low morals and he reflects badly on all men. I don't like he is on 'my team' and I don't want him associated with me.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> No, the alimony is purely the discretion of the judge. I did not sign any paper saying I must pay alimony..None of this was in the marriage contract.


Before I got married I took a course for lay people in marriage law given my attorneys. These classes are given in every city. In my opinion they should be required before any one gets married. They should be a required class in high school. 

Apparently you and most people do not even bother to find out what they are signing when they sign a marriage certificate. 

When a person signs a marriage certificate, they are agreeing to be subject to and follow the state’s marriage and family laws.

The marriage laws of every state clearly call out the responsibilities of both spouses. They state how separate and community assets/income will be considered during the marriage and in the event of a divorce. They state what conditions and considerations will come into play for alimony, child support and child custody. 

I’m not sure why you did not even know what the laws were and that the marriage contract you signed bound you to those laws.

*So I got this far in a reply and then stopped to really read and comprehend what you wrote below.... *



marriedman321 said:


> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
> Men just should know better.. That's it.. And if the system abuses them, well it is ok..Their own fault! *No reason to fight an unfair system if it can benefit some women and destroy some men... *


Why are you making ugly remarks like this and accusing me such hideous sentiments? This is uncalled for. What is the matter with you? 



marriedman321 said:


> I guess all those girls partying with the boys and getting wasted and sexually assaulted should just know better too!


What does girls/women getting drunk and boy/men raping them have to do with a discussion of marriage and alimony?


marriedman321 said:


> Don't you know alcohol makes you drunk, guys like sex, and thats what will happen? I guess they are just pretty stupid..


I don’t know why you are making this personal? Why are you now accusing me of partying, getting drink and being assaulted? What the hell?

You have no idea of who you are talking to here or what I believe on these topics. Yet you start this ugly attack on me. You have lost it. Seriously lost it. 

I’m done talking to you.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Give me an address. I'd do it. Maybe I'd listen to his side first, but I'd do it.
> 
> I will certainly (and cheaply) admit he is a person of very low morals and he reflects badly on all men. I don't like he is on 'my team' and I don't want him associated with me.


I would love to give you his address.... 

Go ahead and listen to his side too. and I can give you the evidence of what I've said. I still have it all.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> marrieddude,
> 
> We, as men, cannot encourage our wives to take time out of their careers and not make money by caring for our children without making some assurances that they will not be left on an ice floe if our head gets turned by a pretty face. Granted, paying alimony to a cheater who INTIATES the divorce is a very bitter pill.
> 
> I can certainly quibble about sizes of alimony, but if it was my sister, or my daughter who was left out in the cold, I'd have some pretty strong words to the man!


:iagree: But I also believe that alimony should be rehabilitative if at all possible. That the person receiving alimony should be required to be as self supporting as possible in a reasonable amount of time.

Now a woman (or man) who stayed home and is 30 with 10 years of marriage can get back into the work force. A woman (or man) who is 50/55 is not going to have much luck with that. They might be able to increase their income level some so that alimony can be decreased. But it's really hard to start over at that age. A lot of factors come into play. This is why there are not stick alimony rules and judges have a lot of leeway.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> :iagree: But I also believe that alimony should be rehabilitative if at all possible. That the person receiving alimony should be required to be as self supporting as possible in a reasonable amount of time.
> 
> Now a woman (or man) who stayed home and is 30 with 10 years of marriage can get back into the work force. A woman (or man) who is 50/55 is not going to have much luck with that. They might be able to increase their income level some so that alimony can be decreased. But it's really hard to start over at that age. A lot of factors come into play. This is why there are not stick alimony rules and judges have a lot of leeway.


I can't quibble with any of this.

A woman in her 60s with no job skills...what is she going to do? Wait tables at a Waffle House? 

BUT...it's also the 21st century and if women want equality, a 30 something is not in the same 'this is how things are done' paradigm that an older woman faced. She made her choices eyes wide open!

So I have a touch less sympathy for her. She can get her butt a job. But a few years to get back on her feet? Sure

Kids are different. I just don't know how we monkey with child support to avoid someone bad from doing something bad.

That's the hard part: how do you make laws to deal with the worst actors. You can't.

Which to bring it back to feminism, is why I am skeptical of 'perfecting' the lives of women with legislation. It can do something. I doubt it can do everything.


----------



## Personal

marriedman321 said:


> I guess all those girls partying with the boys and getting wasted and sexually assaulted should just know better too! Don't you know alcohol makes you drunk, guys like sex, and thats what will happen? I guess they are just pretty stupid..


No women or girl should be raped because they are inebriated, no woman or girl should be raped regardless of the circumstances.

Alcohol consumption does not excuse rape, no one is asking for it because they consume alcohol.

When someone rapes another they do it by choice, when someone is raped by another they have no choice.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> You still refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
> 
> An organization, a movement, a religion, a whatever you want to characterized what you do, does not get to openly and graphically renege on their avowed principles without honestly opening themselves to taking legitimate flack for *violating their principles!*
> 
> I am not dinging Jon Stewart to saying nasty things about Sarah Palin. I am not dinging SNL or the Democratic party for throwing out sexist slurs at Sarah Palin. Hell, they had a TON of fun with Larry Craig! That is part of the POLITICAL tension.
> 
> Heck, you might remember this one: Caesar was said to be 'a husband to every wife and a wife to every husband'. 2,000 years of sexual attacks.
> 
> But the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Roman Senate never put as a plank in any of their creeds 'we will not slvt shame women and will oppose it as a social construct'. Except, it seems, your allies are doing it to a political enemy.
> 
> If an anti-abortion group suddenly has a majority of their talking heads getting filmed getting abortions, they, AS A MOVEMENT, had delegitimized themselves to a degree. This is what happened with Bill. This is what happened with Sarah.
> 
> If you wanted to discuss the blatant hypocritical stance of the Republicans on spending during the Bush years, you'd have a legitimate comparison. VIOLATION OF ESPOUSED PRINCIPLE. They deserve every bit of condemnation they get for that...and they fostered the Tea Party to smack them around.
> 
> Feminists violated their principles. The 'sin' of sexual shaming is nowhere near equal. Because it is 'rude' in Republican circles. It is a SIN in feminist circles.
> 
> There is no difference here. Your argument has no weight.


You are splitting hairs in an attempt to vilify feminist women/organizations and to let the Republican Party off the hook. 

I’m telling you how it’s looked at by a lot of people, especially women.

It is equally as bad for the Republicans to use sexism to attack a woman as it is for anyone else to do it. The Republicans lost huge numbers of women because of they attacked Hillary based on her gender using some pretty ugly sexist attacks. And they have had a hard time winning women back with the stupid things that are said and done… like the stupid man who said that a woman’s body knows to not get pregnant if she is raped. 

I want you to read this web page: Women and the GOP. 

National Federation of Republican Women

The Republican Party is telling people that they are the real supporters of woman’s rights. They are saying that the radical leftist feminists and the Democrat party are really just using women’s issues to get the woman vote.

Well, if a party is going to make that claim, then they had better do a better job of representing women and a better job of treating women with dignity and respect than the radical left feminists and the democrat party.

Both parties have treated women in politics horribly with the sexist attacks. 

Splitting hairs over who is committing a “sin” and who are just obnoxious, rude and a bore is just ridiculous.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Which to bring it back to feminism, is why I am skeptical of 'perfecting' the lives of women with legislation. It can do something. I doubt it can do everything.


No one is trying to "perfect" the lives of women.

Law are how we structure our society. So to say laws should not be used is to say that we should not have social rules that include women.

Exactly what is wrong with a law that states the following?

"Fair Pay Act of 2013 - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, race, or national origin. (Allows payment of different wages under seniority systems, merit systems, systems that measure earnings by quantity or quality of production, or differentials based on bona fide factors that the employer demonstrates are job-related or further legitimate business interests.)"


If you oppose the above, then it seems you support wage/pay discrimination. You support Wal-Mart refusing women promotions because they say men should be paid more (that is what supervisors in Wal-Mart have told women who were turned down for promotions.)


----------



## JCD

Personal said:


> No women or girl should be raped because they are inebriated, no woman or girl should be raped regardless of the circumstances.
> 
> Alcohol consumption does not excuse rape, no one is asking for it because they consume alcohol.
> 
> When someone rapes another they do it by choice, when someone is raped by another they have no choice.


This is a perennial argument. But it has two factors:

1) criminal action and intent by a bad person

2) wisdom and self control.

Example one: I hire a prostitute and drink with her. If I end up drugged, drunk and robbed, I can just see people saying 'you put yourself in a dangerous situation'. This is not excusing the robbery...it is questioning my judgment and actions.

Example two: If I go to a business meeting with alcohol, imbibe too much and make a total ass of myself, trying to cha cha with the CEOs wife, knocking over trays, and ending up soaked in the fountain screaming imprecations, I am betting no one is going to leap to my defense that 'my drinking is irrelevant' and I should not suffer my employment consequences.

One can cite that 'this was a crime' while still noting 'this was avoidable'. Essentially, it is, at core, a right to get drunk consequence free. 

But it is also a plea for a trustworthy society, which I understand. Rape is not subject to ones own actions...though alcohol makes the subject of consent very sketchy.

The two points are sort of inseperable. I know what I am teaching my daughters. Two drinks max and never let it leave your sight.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> You are splitting hairs in an attempt to vilify feminist women/organizations and to let the Republican Party off the hook.
> *
> I’m telling you how it’s looked at by a lot of people, especially women.*


Huh. So you say that Republicans DESERVE the bad press they received by saying nasty things about Hillary.

How is that any different than me saying that FEMINISTS deserve the bad press they received for supporting a sexual harasser and saying bad things about a woman?


We aren't getting anywhere here.

Let me please politely ask you one question.

Do you feel that it is a principle of feminists that one should not sexually slander or use gender shaming attacks on women? That they are, in fact, striving for a society where that is not considered 'fair play' and not correcting that perpetuates a gender hostile environment for women?

Because unless we resolve that one point, there is no point going any further in the discussion.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> No one is trying to "perfect" the lives of women.
> 
> Law are how we structure our society. So to say laws should not be used is to say that we should not have social rules that include women.
> 
> Exactly what is wrong with a law that states the following?
> 
> "Fair Pay Act of 2013 - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, race, or national origin. (Allows payment of different wages under seniority systems, merit systems, systems that measure earnings by quantity or quality of production, or differentials based on bona fide factors that the employer demonstrates are job-related or further legitimate business interests.)"
> 
> 
> If you oppose the above, then it seems you support wage/pay discrimination. You support Wal-Mart refusing women promotions because they say men should be paid more (that is what supervisors in Wal-Mart have told women who were turned down for promotions.)


If you want to be a fair player, quote the full law, not the bits you like.

And also discuss the implications of the full law.

Here is my favorite bit: 



> States that any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs *without their written consent*.
> 
> Authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to seek additional compensatory or punitive damages in a sex discrimination action.


Translation to point one: People can be added to this lawsuit without written consent...or probably ANY consent! What a bonanza for trial lawyers. "We can sue Wal Mart on the behalf of every single woman if we can convince a jury this is true...even if the women didn't ask...even if they weren't treated unfairly...just because they were women.

The second point is it offers the Executive Branch the ability to enact putative damages to companies which violate what the Secretary of Labor (Or his boss) expectation of 'fair wages' with punitive fines.

It is not clear on that last point if the SecLab even needs to have a judge or a trial. Which makes it possible to use the Secretary of Labor as a political witchhunt. 

Considering what President Immigration is in the middle of doing, no, I think I can oppose this without hating women, particularly considering how Wilson ignored Habeas Corpus, FDR used the IRS, McCarthyism and how the government treated Microsoft recently.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Huh. So you say that Republicans DESERVE the bad press they received by saying nasty things about Hillary.
> 
> How is that any different than me saying that FEMINISTS deserve the bad press they received for supporting a sexual harasser and saying bad things about a woman?


You are saying that feminists are MORE wrong for saying bad things about Palin then Republicans are for saying similar bad things about Hillary. 

I am saying that feminists, democrats and republicans are all equally as bad for attacking women politicians and other women using sexist attacks.

On the topic of Bill Clinton. I think that those who supported Bill Clinton did so in error. But I understand that he’s one of those personalities that is Teflon. I don’t get it. I don’t buy the argument that Lewinsky was and adult and consented. In corporate American a CEO who did what Clinton did would be crucified. I do think that a large part of the reason they supported him is that the alternative was to hand the Whitehouse and a lot more over the Republicans. Given the same circumstances, Republicans would back the devil himself to protect their power.


JCD said:


> Let me please politely ask you one question.
> Do you feel that it is a principle of feminists that one should not sexually slander or use gender shaming attacks on women? That they are, in fact, striving for a society where that is not considered 'fair play' and not correcting that perpetuates a gender hostile environment for women?
> Because unless we resolve that one point, there is no point going any further in the discussion.


I think that the only principles that all feminists agree on and support, across the board, are that there needs to be equality for women in society and under the law.

I think that not using sexist attacks against men and/or women should be part of the feminist principles. 

What you still do not get, is that there is no one feminist platform and one feminist agenda. Each person and each organization has their own ideas. Each one will do what they think is appropriate. 

I cannot answer for anyone but myself. But you keep talking about it as though I’m part of some big religion for which I need to answer for the actions , thoughts and words of every person who says they support women’s rights.


----------



## EleGirl

Here’s the law…………..

Fair Pay Act of 2013 - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, race, or national origin. (Allows payment of different wages under seniority systems, merit systems, systems that measure earnings by quantity or quality of production, or differentials based on bona fide factors that the employer demonstrates are job-related or further legitimate business interests.)

Prohibits the discharge of, or any other discrimination against, an individual for opposing any act or practice made unlawful by this Act, or for assisting in an investigation or proceeding under it. 

Directs courts, in any action brought under this Act for violation of such prohibition, to allow expert fees as part of the costs awarded to prevailing plaintiffs. Allows any such action to be maintained as a class action. 

Directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to: (1) undertake studies and provide information and technical assistance to employers, labor organizations, and the general public concerning effective means available to implement this Act; and (2) carry on a continuing program of research, education, and technical assistance with specified components related to the purposes of this Act. 

Makes conforming amendments relating to congressional and executive branch employees to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/438


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> You are saying that feminists are MORE wrong for saying bad things about Palin then Republicans are for saying similar bad things about Hillary.
> 
> I am saying that feminists, democrats and republicans are all equally as bad for attacking women politicians and other women using sexist attacks.


I can agree on that last part. And they should be just as accountable for their actions as you hold Republicans for Hillary. Which is the point of this thread: feminism got a black eye for acting in what seems to be an unprincipled way.

More on this later.




> On the topic of Bill Clinton. I think that those who supported Bill Clinton did so in error. But I understand that he’s one of those personalities that is Teflon. I don’t get it. I don’t buy the argument that Lewinsky was and adult and consented. In corporate American a CEO who did what Clinton did would be crucified. *I do think that a large part of the reason they supported him is that the alternative was to hand the Whitehouse and a lot more over the Republicans*. Given the same circumstances, Republicans would back the devil himself to protect their power.


I agree with everything you say except that last bit. I think the last bit is irrelevant. This is a discussion about feminism. And that was exactly what I said about feminists: that they showed themselves as opportunistic, venal and willing to deal with 'the devil himself' just to keep a hand on power. Bill, as cited by numerous articles, was 'their guy'. They felt he would give them more power and they were not going to let any silly sexual harassment law (IIRC, a law signed by Clinton himself to thundering applause by feminists) get in the way of a comfortable relationship. They still don't.



> I think that the only principles that all feminists agree on and support, across the board, are that there needs to be equality for women in society and under the law.
> 
> I think that not using sexist attacks against men and/or women should be part of the feminist principles.
> 
> What you still do not get, is that there is no one feminist platform and one feminist agenda. Each person and each organization has their own ideas. Each one will do what they think is appropriate.
> 
> I cannot answer for anyone but myself. But you keep talking about it as though I’m part of some big religion for which I need to answer for the actions , thoughts and words of every person who says they support women’s rights.


Perhaps I am a bit sensitive to the issue, but I recall hearing a LOT of lectures from feminists on television, in print, and on radio discussing how bad sexist attacks, sexist jokes, sexist attitudes...sexist ANYTHING is verboten and horrible. Men should not talk about women that way. Men HITTING on women at work was a very bad thing. Power dynamics, blah blah blah.

So while you feel this is true, you will not hold all feminists to holding this. That is fair. And you have answered fairly about your feelings. You like some laws. You think some things were inappropriate.

BUT...I have heard the constant litany of lectures, almost always aimed at Republicans or men in general.

So while perhaps I cannot accuse _every_ feminist of being a hypocritical ass, for a large number of their public faces, this label is pungently true.

So please excuse me for the schadenfreude. Suddenly, maybe sexual harassment wasn't as simple as...men had been saying all along and been excoriated for.

Try this statement on for size: "A large number of public and vocal feminists showed themselves to be extraordinarily hypocritical and opportunistic in comparing their lectures vis a vis sexual harassment and sexist attacks compared to their actions and statements re Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin."


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Here’s the law…………..
> 
> Fair Pay Act of 2013 - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, race, or national origin. (Allows payment of different wages under seniority systems, merit systems, systems that measure earnings by quantity or quality of production, or differentials based on bona fide factors that the employer demonstrates are job-related or further legitimate business interests.)
> 
> Prohibits the discharge of, or any other discrimination against, an individual for opposing any act or practice made unlawful by this Act, or for assisting in an investigation or proceeding under it.
> 
> Directs courts, in any action brought under this Act for violation of such prohibition, to allow expert fees as part of the costs awarded to prevailing plaintiffs. Allows any such action to be maintained as a class action.
> 
> Directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to: (1) undertake studies and provide information and technical assistance to employers, labor organizations, and the general public concerning effective means available to implement this Act; and (2) carry on a continuing program of research, education, and technical assistance with specified components related to the purposes of this Act.
> 
> Makes conforming amendments relating to congressional and executive branch employees to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act.
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/438


Oops. Sorry. Different bill.

I'll check it out later. Work


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Here is my favorite bit:
> 
> *States that any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent.  *


No, the law does not say that. What it does say is:

* Any such action may be maintained as a class action as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''. *

So all normal, already existing, Federal Rules of Civil Procedures apply. Federal Rules of Civil Procedures allow for joining parties to the class without their written consent. 

But in order to be added to the class, it has to be proven that they were affected by the basis of the suit. 




JCD said:


> Translation to point one: People can be added to this lawsuit without written consent...or probably ANY consent! What a bonanza for trial lawyers. "We can sue Wal Mart on the behalf of every single woman if we can convince a jury this is true...even if the women didn't ask...even if they weren't treated unfairly...just because they were women.


I do not have a problem with following normal, already existing, Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. That is what I would expect. 

I believe that Federal Rules of Civil Procedures already states that a class can be added to without written consent of the plaintive. 

I received a nice payout on a class action suit against a bank last year. I never even knew the suit was going on, nor did I ever give my written consent. But the bank violated a federal law which hurt me financially. The lawyers for the feds apparently got a list of the account holders who were screwed over by the bank. And we all got a payout. It was nowhere near what I lost due to the bank’s breaking the law, but at least I got something.




JCD said:


> The second point is it offers the Executive Branch the ability to enact putative damages to companies which violate what the Secretary of Labor (Or his boss) expectation of 'fair wages' with punitive fines.
> It is not clear on that last point if the SecLab even needs to have a judge or a trial.


The Secretary of Labor is part of the Executive Branch. 

I agree with adding compensatory or punitive damages. These are used in civil law all the time. That’s what the awards are in civil suits.

Language in the modification to the law make it clear that it’s talking about court actions. “the court shall” and “Federal Rules of Civil Procedures”



JCD said:


> Which makes it possible to use the Secretary of Labor as a political witchhunt.
> Considering what President Immigration is in the middle of doing, no, I think I can oppose this without hating women, particularly considering how Wilson ignored Habeas Corpus, FDR used the IRS, McCarthyism and how the government treated Microsoft recently.


What are you saying here? That we need to dismantle the Executive Branch? Because that’s the only thing that would assure that every so often the Executive Branch (and President) does not try to expand their power.

How about we demand that those in Congress start acting like they understand the Constitution and start limiting the nonsense of over use of executive orders?


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Huh. So you say that Republicans DESERVE the bad press they received by saying nasty things about Hillary.


Yes, the Republicans deserve bad press for using sexists attacks on Hillary and other women.


JCD said:


> How is that any different than me saying that FEMINISTS deserve the bad press they received for supporting a sexual harasser and saying bad things about a woman?


I also said that the Democrats and feminists (there is no need to use all caps, ya know) deserve the bad press they received for supporting a sexual harasser and using sexist attacks against Palin and other women.

Now I have no problem with all anyone disagreeing with the political positions of an candidate, politician or anyone else. That’s politics.

What I disagree with you on is that you seem to think that the Republicans get a pass for using sexist attacks against Hillary and other woman. I disagree.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> The numbers I gave are for the retail sector.
> 
> http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/retailworkers32centsshort.pdf
> .


I was curious about the study that shows women make 22% less overall, and how this is due to discrimination..

The link you provided just illustrated that they took a survey, (what type of survey?), where they asked 435 people in NYC who work in retail what they make.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> I can't quibble with any of this.
> 
> A woman in her 60s with no job skills...what is she going to do? Wait tables at a Waffle House?
> 
> BUT...it's also the 21st century and if women want equality, a 30 something is not in the same 'this is how things are done' paradigm that an older woman faced. She made her choices eyes wide open!
> 
> So I have a touch less sympathy for her. She can get her butt a job. But a few years to get back on her feet? Sure
> 
> Kids are different. I just don't know how we monkey with child support to avoid someone bad from doing something bad.
> 
> That's the hard part: how do you make laws to deal with the worst actors. You can't.
> .


MEN can be SAHDs and get alimony as well. Men have the choice, just like women, to find a partner that will agree with having him at home to look after the kids.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Personal said:


> No women or girl should be raped because they are inebriated, no woman or girl should be raped regardless of the circumstances.
> 
> Alcohol consumption does not excuse rape, no one is asking for it because they consume alcohol.
> 
> When someone rapes another they do it by choice, when someone is raped by another they have no choice.


I look at life more from a *preventive measure*.. we can't expect total strangers at a Party to be honorable people.... most especially drunk horny men... so it's not wise , as a woman , to put yourself in those situations... (just as feminists think it's not WISE for me to not get a degree and depend on a man- being skill-less).. I'd take my risk for this over the drunken FRAT party thing.

This is not excusing Rape in any way, shape or form..but of course I would be accused of it in speaking this out loud, now wouldn't I?

Shouldn't we teach our children to be very very careful of the type of people they hang with..and to be in control of themselves so they can SAY a hearty "NO"..

Getting happily plastered with someone.. it makes it just a little murky for me...


----------



## LongWalk

Feminism was easy to understand when the issues were simple issues: the right to vote, own property, equal pay for equal work. Things get much complicated when the inherent gender differences create demands.

Women have to pay for tampons and sanitary pads. Men don't. Should there be compensation for this expense? This sort of discussion doesn't really go anywhere because there is no practical way to resolve this. Should there be a tax deduction?

The more serious issues for feminism revolve around achieving personal happiness. Men and women both want:

1) Great sex lives
2) To be desired by a large number of attractive potential partners
3) To eliminate consequences for mistakes in our personal lives as quickly and painlessly as possible
4) To understand the opposite sex
5) so that we can get them to do what we want them to do 
6) To understand our own real needs
7) so that we can do what we should do lead healthy lives

Achievement all of the selfish aims, which are legitimate since all individuals are in sexual competition, comes into conflict with achievement of social order.

Stoning or lashing adulters in Iran or Afghanistan, is that directed towards controlling men, women or both?

No fault divorce, which gender benefits from that?

In Egypt 91 percent of the women have under clitorectomy and even higher perentage of men have has foreskins sliced off. Who are the winners from this?

Single mothers in the US military reserve are called up to serve overseas and must leave infant children behind in the care of whomever they can find. Grandmother, sister, BFF. Who wins from this type of equality?

Every weekend America follows high school, college and professional football whose players are accorded special status. No women athlete get this level of treatment. Why?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> *I do not get why some of you men think that all women should be out chastising any woman who acts badly. But then you feel no responsibility to do the same when men act badly*.


While I am on a roll. I don't see this the same either.. 

I feel if MORE WOMEN would be those instructional ethical mentors...(of course this is subjective & relative since we won't all agree to what is honorable & good)... to our young women, our daughters .... this includes constructive criticism along the way....TO OUR OWN GENDER...

And more MEN would do the same for our boys growing up... instead of blaming the other sex for all our ills.. we'd see far more harmonious relationships...

So I am one who disagrees that chastising our own sex is something to not do.. but we all know how that goes over! 

RDJ was a poster here who attempted to do this... and it seems the men ridiculed him.. he realized he missed it A LOT with his wife in the past.. his story was one of turning it completely around...then appealing TO MEN...some argued with him, it got heated at times..... but I felt.. wow.. we need more MEN LIKE HIM to stand up and speak for women ! 

It's similar to being self aware.. looking at ourselves..our roles 1st...what can we do to help men?... and men asking...what can we do to help women?... yeah, sounds so idealistic I suppose.. but really I am a realist, not holding my breathe .. but if more would lean this way...listening to each other...putting ourselves in their shoes.. if the situation was turned around...it is a good start... but this requires someone has empathy of course...and a conscience.

I feel feminists should be listening to the Men's right issues today as much as they *expect *them to listen to their side...is this not fair?? I am speaking of those who are reasonable of course, not a loud mouth spokesperson for the radicals on either side..

I can tell you.. I will be hard on my own daughter in some ways.. if I even think she is growing into some entitled little princess....I don't want her to use a man...or give off big expectations...as I KNOW how destructive these attitudes are in marriages... that's part of my raising her... and for our boys too.. they are taught how to treat women with respect...We raise the marrying type..they won't be found in the Frat parties....but I have "No more Mr Nice Guy" handy for reference , as we all know how prone women are for chasing the Di**s...in their youth...


----------



## naiveonedave

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel feminists should be listening to the Men's right issues today as much as they *expect *them to listen to their side...is this not fair?? I am speaking of those who are reasonable of course, not a loud mouth spokesperson for the radicals on either side..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my main problem with feminism. Any 'anti-feminist' statements are percieved as heresey and immediately ignored or more commonly, shouted down.
> 
> We have made it very hard on boys in the US today. We won't understand the end results for some time, but the fact that 55+% of people in college are women is a huge warning sign. Not to mention the impact of zero tolerance policies kicking boys out of school for being boys. (the dreaded pop tart or finger made into a gun).
> 
> The genders are different, and feminism as seen by men in my neck of the woods, seems to totally disregard this fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> MEN can be SAHDs and get alimony as well. Men have the choice, just like women, to find a partner that will agree with having him at home to look after the kids.


Here is the main problem with this argument - almost all men don't want to be SAHDs. Many women want to SAHM, especially after they have a kid or two.


----------



## marriedman321

naiveonedave said:


> SimplyAmorous said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel feminists should be listening to the Men's right issues today as much as they *expect *them to listen to their side...is this not fair?? I am speaking of those who are reasonable of course, not a loud mouth spokesperson for the radicals on either side..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my main problem with feminism. Any 'anti-feminist' statements are percieved as heresy and immediately ignored or more commonly, shouted down.
> 
> We have made it very hard on boys in the US today. We won't understand the end results for some time, but the fact that 55+% of people in college are women is a huge warning sign. Not to mention the impact of zero tolerance policies kicking boys out of school for being boys. (the dreaded pop tart or finger made into a gun).
> 
> The genders are different, and feminism as seen by men in my neck of the woods, seems to totally disregard this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Little boys are raised to be disposable throughout history.
> 
> Given toys guns, sent to war, killed , maimed, and there is little care. Just a number. But we hear how female lawyers could only be paralegals 100 years ago.
> 
> I also dont see the point to labeling yourself as something. I don't see the point to donating money to only boys so they can go to college.
> 
> Would all the young men who died in ww1,ww2, Korea, nam would rather have had the problem of only being a legal secretary? Or a lower paid attorney?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> No, the law does not say that. What it does say is:
> 
> * Any such action may be maintained as a class action as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''. *
> 
> So all normal, already existing, Federal Rules of Civil Procedures apply. Federal Rules of Civil Procedures allow for joining parties to the class without their written consent.
> 
> But in order to be added to the class, it has to be proven that they were affected by the basis of the suit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a problem with following normal, already existing, Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. That is what I would expect.
> 
> I believe that Federal Rules of Civil Procedures already states that a class can be added to without written consent of the plaintive.
> 
> I received a nice payout on a class action suit against a bank last year. I never even knew the suit was going on, nor did I ever give my written consent. But the bank violated a federal law which hurt me financially. The lawyers for the feds apparently got a list of the account holders who were screwed over by the bank. And we all got a payout. It was nowhere near what I lost due to the bank’s breaking the law, but at least I got something.
> 
> 
> 
> The Secretary of Labor is part of the Executive Branch.
> 
> I agree with adding compensatory or punitive damages. These are used in civil law all the time. That’s what the awards are in civil suits.
> 
> Language in the modification to the law make it clear that it’s talking about court actions. “the court shall” and “Federal Rules of Civil Procedures”
> 
> 
> What are you saying here? That we need to dismantle the Executive Branch? Because that’s the only thing that would assure that every so often the Executive Branch (and President) does not try to expand their power.
> 
> How about we demand that those in Congress start acting like they understand the Constitution and start limiting the nonsense of over use of executive orders?


If you had read my prior post, you would have seen that I misread your law as the payroll protection act, and not the act you cited. So my comments did not make sense.

Additionally, this is getting very political and only political.

This thread was about feminism. 

However, how you used this is part of what torques me (and probably a lot of other people off) about feminism's tactics: If you do not support (innocuously named law which may or may not be good for EVERYBODY) you are anti-woman and probably an evil person.

Forget if there are important principles besides if a woman can get 17 cents more. Opposing any specific law is automatically characterized as anti-woman. Differing opinions or other priorities are not allowed!

I dislike that strongly. I am probably not alone. I can understand why, with some of the blatant hypocrisy on display, the 'my way or the highway' approach, and ignoring female voices that they are suppose to represent, why 'feminism is misunderstood...or understood too well.'

Whether I 'win' here or not is irrelevant. There is a backlash. That some feminists find it inexplicable says more about their sense of self awareness or talent with denial than about the public at large. Of course some of it is unfair. But I severely doubt all of it, or even half of it is unfair.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> While I am on a roll. I don't see this the same either..
> 
> I feel if MORE WOMEN would be those instructional ethical mentors...(of course this is subjective & relative since we won't all agree to what is honorable & good)... to our young women, our daughters .... this includes constructive criticism along the way....TO OUR OWN GENDER...
> 
> And more MEN would do the same for our boys growing up... instead of blaming the other sex for all our ills.. we'd see far more harmonious relationships...


You have not understood what I was saying.

I completely agree that both men and women should be good role models to others in their same gender, especially the young. And they should speak out against people in their own gender who do things they consider wrong.

I do this in my own live all the time with the people I interact with. I’m not shy about it at all. Don’t care who the person is.

What I was talking about are the men who I am talking to here who are beating me up as though it’s my responsibility to take on every woman, especially every feminist, in the entire country, who does something that they disagree with. They seem to think that if I don’t spend all my time, energy and resources doing this then I’m at fault for what those women say and do. This is ijust down right nonsense.

I certainly don’t see them doing this with all the men in country do say and do stupid and horrible things. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> So I am one who disagrees that chastising our own sex is something to not do.. but we all know how that goes over!
> 
> RDJ was a poster here who attempted to do this... and it seems the men ridiculed him.. he realized he missed it A LOT with his wife in the past.. his story was one of turning it completely around...then appealing TO MEN...some argued with him, it got heated at times..... but I felt.. wow.. we need more MEN LIKE HIM to stand up and speak for women !


Yep, I saw when this happened. Tells you a lot, doesn’t it?


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> SimplyAmorous said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel feminists should be listening to the Men's right issues today as much as they *expect *them to listen to their side...is this not fair?? I am speaking of those who are reasonable of course, not a loud mouth spokesperson for the radicals on either side..
> 
> 
> 
> That is my main problem with feminism. Any 'anti-feminist' statements are percieved as heresey and immediately ignored or more commonly, shouted down.
> 
> We have made it very hard on boys in the US today. We won't understand the end results for some time, but the fact that 55+% of people in college are women is a huge warning sign. Not to mention the impact of zero tolerance policies kicking boys out of school for being boys. (the dreaded pop tart or finger made into a gun).
> 
> The genders are different, and feminism as seen by men in my neck of the woods, seems to totally disregard this fact.
Click to expand...

I completely agree what feminists should really be looking at what's the right thing to do for all people regardless of their gender. I also think that all people should do this regardless if they are male or female. 

I know that some people who call themselves feminists do not do this.

The women and men who I associate with do. I do.

The problem is that just as so many feminists are so busy yelling about what they want/feel that they are not listening to any other points of view or considering anyone else.. .. the same is happening with an awful lot of men in the men's rights side of things.

People do not stop yelling long enough to actually listen to the other side or to present their points of view and data in a way that it can be absorbed.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> What I was talking about are the men who I am talking to here who are beating me up as though it’s my responsibility to take on every woman, especially every feminist, in the entire country, who does something that they disagree with. They seem to think that if I don’t spend all my time, energy and resources doing this then I’m at fault for what those women say and do. This is ijust down right nonsense.
> I certainly don’t see them doing this with all the men in country do say and do stupid and horrible things.


This is a gross mischaracterization.

No one is 'ordering' you to DO anything and I did a double take when you mischaracterized what I said to the most negative way possible.

I was certainly saying that as long as women hold to the idea 'Thou shalt not speak ill of other (feminist) women' and do no social hygiene in the movement, you get what you deserve on the PR front!

You also stated that a lot of sensible women who disagree with the most vocal feminists aren't getting heard. Since I want to hear more voices and certainly different voices in feminism than I am currently hearing, I certainly suggested that you get heard. If you want influence. This is also construed as a negative order instead of encouraging something you yourself wanted. Or said you wanted.

Democrats have had knock down drag out fights about who and what they were. Look at the '72 convention. Republicans CONSTANTLY fight about what they want and don't want as a party. With so many conflicting issues from social to business, it's a lot of what they do! I even discussed the Tea Party as a backlash to spending, particularly Republican spending (i.e. in that they have a lot more influence on Republican spending than on the Democrats, who tell the TP go to fvck themselves) 

So on that point, you are just plain wrong that 'men' never call men on anything.

But not so clearly feminism. "Don't stifle any of our ideas...even stupid ones. Even ones which will alienate huge swaths of the population'

Okay. Then you get to own the consequences of that kind of stance.

I will bring the popcorn.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> Little boys are raised to be disposable throughout history.
> 
> Given toys guns, sent to war, killed , maimed, and there is little care. Just a number. But we hear how female lawyers could only be paralegals 100 years ago.


Do you really think that little girls were not disposable? Though most of history little girls, even as young as 6-9 years old were handed over to old men to marry. This still is happening is a good part of the world today. The men had (and still have in much of the world) the right to rape these female children as soon as the “marriage” agreement was agreed upon. 
Through most of history, men had multiple ‘wives’. Rich men had harems of dozens is if not hundreds, even thousands. 

25% of all women died from complications of child birth before modern medicine. That death rate is much higher than the death rate of all men in war since the dawn of time.

Do you know one of the main reasons that divorce rates were low in the past? Because a high percentage of marriages lasted no more than 10 years due to the high death rate during child birth.

With war, women WERE NOT ALLOWED TO FIGHT AND PROTECT THEMSELVES, THEIR CHILDREN, AND THEIR HOMES. So they had no choice but to leave their fate up to the men. And what happened on the losing side when the men lost the war? The women became the prize. Until modern time, and even in much of the world today this is what happens. When men lose a war, the enemy descending up on the women and children, raping them, killing them. The ‘lucky’ ones are taken as salves, usually sex slaves. 

If you want to argue about men dying in war, you need to talk to men. Some huge percentage of wars, probably about 99% were started by men over the greed and power lust of powerful men. Most wars would have never happened if the average mad did not voluntarily show up to fight the wars of greedy, power seeking men. You cannot lay the blame of war on women. Women were not allowed to play any part in that arena since the dawn of time.

Women have died in war at a very high rate as defenseless victims who did not even get a chance to defend themselves. Couple that with the 25% death rate in child birth and clearly women were at least as disposable as men if not more. 



marriedman321 said:


> I also dont see the point to labeling yourself as something. I don't see the point to donating money to only boys so they can go to college.


It’s your choice who and what you believe and if you donate your money to anything. Others have the same choice.


marriedman321 said:


> Would all the young men who died in ww1,ww2, Korea, nam would rather have had the problem of only being a legal secretary? Or a lower paid attorney?


So now women are not allowed to have ambitions because some men died in war?

And Women who have no choice but to support themselves are not allowed to want to earn the same degrees as men and then be paid the same income a man is paid because some men died in war? If I lived by your outlook on life, my child would have grown up in poverty. Many many women have the fate of having to support themselves and their children trust upon them by life’s circumstances. It’s always been this way. Some men support their wives and children. There has always been a surprisingly large number who will not do this, or who die young.

We always hear that American men go to war and die so that WE Americans (that means men and women) have freedom. Is that freedom that they fought and died for only available to men? Or can women avail themself of that freedom as well?


----------



## JCD

U.K. poll on Feminism

Highlights



> What does feminism mean to modern women?
> ◾Only 1 in 7 women still call themselves a 'Feminist' - with younger women least likely to.
> ◾Two in five want to 'celebrate difference' rather than be equal to men.
> ◾The biggest battle for modern women is to reinstate the value of motherhood, with 69% making it top priority.
> ◾36 per cent of youngsters cannot imagine a time when men and women were not equal.
> ◾New movement dubbed 'FeMEmism' to reflect women's personal choice.





> "If you don't call yourself a 'Feminist' why is this?"
> 
> 39% criticised old-fashion Feminism for being too divisive, claiming they 'dont want to be equal - women are different to men and we should celebrate the differences.'
> 
> Almost a third (28%) think traditional radical Feminism is 'too aggressive' towards men while a quarter (24%) no longer view it as a positive label for women. One in five describe Feminism as 'old fashioned' and simply 'not relevant' to their generation.
> 
> In subsequent questions, 17% even claim Feminism has gone too far, oppressing men and 'losing sight of the natural roles of men and women'.



HuffPoll on Feminism in America



> According to the survey, just 20 percent of Americans -- including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men -- consider themselves feminists. Another 8 percent consider themselves anti-feminists, while 63 percent said they are neither.





> Broken down by party, 32 percent of Democrats, 19 percent of independents and only 5 percent of Republicans said they are feminists.


I really resent being told I am making stuff up.

**

But here is some good stuff!



> But asked if they believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals," 82 percent of the survey respondents said they did, and just 9 percent said they did not. Equal percentages of men and women said they agreed with that statement, along with 87 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans.


The stuff that SGC likes a lot...it's already in inoculated into our culture. THAT is not the controversial part of Feminism. At this point, it's not 'feminism, ' it's the way things are as a general goal. At this point, we are quibbling over the details. 



> The gulf between the percentage of people who identify as feminists and the percentage who believe in the equality of the sexes may be partly due to a branding problem for the word "feminism." Thirty-seven percent said they consider "feminist" to be a negative term, compared to only 26 percent who consider it a positive term. Twenty-nine percent said it's a neutral term.
> 
> Among Republicans, 58 percent said the term is mostly negative, compared to 40 percent of independents and 20 percent of Democrats. Men were also more likely than women to consider "feminist" a negative term (42 percent to 32 percent), but even among women, more said the term is negative than positive (32 percent to 29 percent).


BRANDING? :rofl:



> Moreover, few Americans think that most others identify as feminists. Only 27 percent said they thought most women are feminists (37 percent said a majority are not, and 36 percent said they weren't sure), and only 7 percent said they thought most men are feminists (67 percent said a majority are not, and 27 percent said they weren't sure).
> 
> Among those who identified themselves as either feminists or strong feminists, though, 43 percent said they thought most women are feminists.


----------



## JCD

Marriedman,

In China, the boat people tied little boys to the deck so they could not fall overboard.

Little girls were NOT tied to anything.

In China and India, they had to make a law to not determine gender with an ultrasound to cut back on the number of gender selection abortions. Seems they have too many boys...why do you think that is?

I agree with you on some things, but sometimes you are way off base.

Life sucks for both genders. It just sucks in different ways.


----------



## Anonymous07

JCD said:


> Marriedman,
> 
> In China, the boat people tied little boys to the deck so they could not fall overboard.
> 
> Little girls were NOT tied to anything.
> 
> In China and India, they had to make a law to not determine gender with an ultrasound to cut back on the number of gender selection abortions. Seems they have too many boys...why do you think that is?


If you have Netflix, check out the documentary called "*It's a Girl*". It shows, even in today's day and age, how little value women are given. I think it's a great eye opener for many people to watch.


----------



## Wolf1974

JCD said:


> Marriedman,
> 
> In China, the boat people tied little boys to the deck so they could not fall overboard.
> 
> Little girls were NOT tied to anything.
> 
> In China and India, they had to make a law to not determine gender with an ultrasound to cut back on the number of gender selection abortions. Seems they have too many boys...why do you think that is?
> 
> I agree with you on some things, but sometimes you are way off base.
> 
> *Life sucks for both genders. It just sucks in different ways.*


Accurate

:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> This is a gross mischaracterization.
> 
> No one is 'ordering' you to DO anything and I did a double take when you mischaracterized what I said to the most negative way possible.


Maybe I have misinterpreted your intent, but yes I have felt that you have been beating on me pretty hard though all of this as though I am somehow responsible to for the thoughts and actions of every feminist. 


JCD said:


> I was certainly saying that as long as women hold to the idea 'Thou shalt not speak ill of other (feminist) women' and do no social hygiene in the movement, you get what you deserve on the PR front!


It’s not the job of every woman to spend our lives censoring ever organization out there that talks about women’s rights. Do you realize that there are thousands of organizations? And hundreds of thousands of individual woman. Exactly how is anyone supposed to go about censor all of them?

You have every bit as much right to speak out as any woman does. You can do your own censoring and calling out. Women are not a separate species such that you as a man has no right to call down women and men who call themselves feminists who say things that you do not agree with. Why do you think that only women can do this?



JCD said:


> You also stated that a lot of sensible women who disagree with the most vocal feminists aren't getting heard. Since I want to hear more voices and certainly different voices in feminism than I am currently hearing, I certainly suggested that you get heard. If you want influence. This is also construed as a negative order instead of encouraging something you yourself wanted. Or said you wanted.


How am I going to get heard? Look at this thread? I have been accused of not caring if divorce laws are just, of getting drunk, partying and raped, of blindly supporting Bill Clinton, and on and on. How many times have I been politely asked what my personal opinion is on a particular issue? Instead the assumption has been that I support everything, every feminist has ever said and done no matter how outlandish it might be. And so I’ve been called to task in just about every post.




JCD said:


> Democrats have had knock down drag out fights about who and what they were. Look at the '72 convention. Republicans CONSTANTLY fight about what they want and don't want as a party. With so many conflicting issues from social to business, it's a lot of what they do! I even discussed the Tea Party as a backlash to spending, particularly Republican spending (i.e. in that they have a lot more influence on Republican spending than on the Democrats, who tell the TP go to fvck themselves)


If you think that feminists and people who support equal rights do not have the same kind of fights/arguments, you have not been paying attention. It’s been going on since the dawn of the women’s right’s movement.


JCD said:


> But not so clearly feminism. "Don't stifle any of our ideas...even stupid ones. Even ones which will alienate huge swaths of the population”
> 
> Okay. Then you get to own the consequences of that kind of stance.


All think tanks, political parties, etc. don’t want their ideas, even the stupid ones stifled. They will all fight back against you if you tell them that they have to shut up on anything that you disagree with. After all what you think is stupid, others might think is brilliant.

You are not responsible for every stupid thing that everyone who self identifies as a Republican says and does. I am smart enough to realize that each person, even in a real organization that is a legal entity, is no responsible for everything others in that organization do and say.

Yet you cannot understand that no individual is responsible for what hundreds of thousands other people say and do just because they all believe in a simple, basic principle… that there need to be equal rights under the law for all people, including women.

That’s my point. I’m done going round and round and round with you or anyone else on this.


----------



## EleGirl

OK, so you say that you were talking about the Payroll Protection Act. I found it and looked at it in realtionship to the things that you say are in the bill and that you object to.

*Introduced in Senate (05/08/2013) (Sumarry follow. The full act can be found at the link)

Small Business Payroll Protection Act of 2013 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a registration system for payroll tax deposit agents (defined as any person that provides payroll processing or tax filing and deposit service to one or more employers). Requires such agents to: (1) submit a bond or to submit to quarterly third-party certifications, (2) make certain disclosures to their clients concerning liability for payment of employment taxes, and (3) pay penalties for failing to collect or pay over employment taxes or for attempting to evade or defeat payment of such taxes.

Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to: (1) issue a notice of confirmation of any address change for an employer making employment tax payments, and (2) send such notice to both the employer's former and new address.

Requires officers or employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) who are evaluating an offer-in-compromise of a tax liability to give special consideration to an offer from a taxpayer who has been the victim of fraud. 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/900/text*

The bills had nothing that you claim is in the bill. It’s about payroll taxes, not pay discrimination.



JCD said:


> Here is my favorite bit:
> 
> *States that any action brought to enforce the prohibition against sex discrimination may be maintained as a class action in which individuals may be joined as party plaintiffs without their written consent.  *


There is not one word about discrimination, sexual discrimination, a class, plantiff or any of the above in the Payroll Protection Act.


JCD said:


> Translation to point one: People can be added to this lawsuit without written consent...or probably ANY consent! What a bonanza for trial lawyers. "We can sue Wal Mart on the behalf of every single woman if we can convince a jury this is true...even if the women didn't ask...even if they weren't treated unfairly...just because they were women.





JCD said:


> The second point is it offers the Executive Branch the ability to enact putative damages to companies which violate what the Secretary of Labor (Or his boss) expectation of 'fair wages' with punitive fines.
> 
> It is not clear on that last point if the SecLab even needs to have a judge or a trial ...e SecLab even needs to have a judge or a trial.


The law says nothing about anything you say here.


----------



## ocotillo

Could there be a disconnect on this thread in how feminism is defined?

Somebody might self identify as a Christian, for example, without belonging to any particular denomination.

Feminism is similarly a big tent with lots of philosophies under it.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Maybe I have misinterpreted your intent, but yes I have felt that you have been beating on me pretty hard though all of this as though I am somehow responsible to for the thoughts and actions of every feminist.


Nope. You have been much more sensible and honest than most. You evinced frustration. I feel frustrated too.



> It’s not the job of every woman to spend our lives censoring ever organization out there that talks about women’s rights.


Absolutely true. I am NOT asking for your life. If you find you have a spare five minutes though...



> You have every bit as much right to speak out as any woman does. You can do your own censoring and calling out. Women are not a separate species such that you as a man has no right to call down women and men who call themselves feminists who say things that you do not agree with. Why do you think that only women can do this?


Because, I have been told most of my life by women that I (and by I, I mean 'males') '*just don't understand.*

It is far too easy (and common) a mental shorthand for feminists of a certain bent to just dismiss any critique from men. They are not afforded such ease when women speak.




> How am I going to get heard? Look at this thread? I have been accused of not caring if divorce laws are just, of getting drunk, partying and raped, of blindly supporting Bill Clinton, and on and on. How many times have I been politely asked what my personal opinion is on a particular issue? Instead the assumption has been that I support everything, every feminist has ever said and done no matter how outlandish it might be. And so I’ve been called to task in just about every post.


You have not exactly been all sweetness and light yourself at times. But that's human too.

I do not agree with a lot of what is being discussed here and where folks are Just Plain Wrong, I have said something.

No, you are not responsible for everything every feminist has ever done. 




> If you think that feminists and people who support equal rights do not have the same kind of fights/arguments, you have not been paying attention. It’s been going on since the dawn of the women’s right’s movement.


Huh...if this is the stuff you get AFTER the fights...wow! 






> Yet you cannot understand that no individual is responsible for what hundreds of thousands other people say and do just because they all believe in a simple, basic principle… that there need to be equal rights under the law for all people, including women.
> 
> That’s my point. I’m done going round and round and round with you or anyone else on this.


Not blaming YOU you. Am blaming women. They 'own' the organization. If women aren't happy with it, (and look at the polling) then they (not you, except as much as you get a voice too) are responsible for changing it.

There is a drawback to the feminine consensus building style which is showing in their organization.


----------



## Anonymous07

SimplyAmorous said:


> I look at life more from a *preventive measure*.. we can't expect total strangers at a Party to be honorable people.... most especially drunk horny men... so it's not wise , as a woman , to put yourself in those situations... (just as feminists think it's not WISE for me to not get a degree and depend on a man- being skill-less).. I'd take my risk for this over the drunken FRAT party thing.
> 
> This is not excusing Rape in any way, shape or form..but of course I would be accused of it in speaking this out loud, now wouldn't I?
> 
> Shouldn't we teach our children to be very very careful of the type of people they hang with..and to be in control of themselves so they can SAY a hearty "NO"..
> 
> Getting happily plastered with someone.. it makes it just a little murky for me...


I used to also think like this and would have agreed with you before... until my cousin was raped. You can do everything "right" and still get raped. No amount of prevention methods can make you totally safe. 

My cousin is a very respectable woman and has always been one to "play it safe"(buddy system, stay with close friends, doesn't drive even if she's only had little to drink, etc.). She was with close friends at a local bar, who I would normally trust myself(I knew them too), and they were hanging out with a few other guys(most they knew, with 2 new ones they didn't). My cousin went to the bathroom, while her close friend watched her drink. The friend turned away for a second to grab her phone and a guy slipped a date rape drug into my cousin's drink. A "guy friend" offered to take her home and walked her out of the bar. Then there is security footage of him and another guy basically carrying my cousin across the street to a truck, as she had basically become unconscious from the drug at that point. She was raped repeatedly by more than one guy and then thrown on her parent's front lawn. My aunt awoke to tires screeching off at 5 am(cousin was going to spend the night at a friends). 

There is nothing "murky" about it. I don't care what the woman wears or if she is plastered drunk, there is no excuse for a man to rape her.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> OK, so you say that you were talking about the Payroll Protection Act. I found it and looked at it in realtionship to the things that you say are in the bill and that you object to.
> 
> *Introduced in Senate (05/08/2013) (Sumarry follow. The full act can be found at the link)
> 
> Small Business Payroll Protection Act of 2013 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a registration system for payroll tax deposit agents (defined as any person that provides payroll processing or tax filing and deposit service to one or more employers). Requires such agents to: (1) submit a bond or to submit to quarterly third-party certifications, (2) make certain disclosures to their clients concerning liability for payment of employment taxes, and (3) pay penalties for failing to collect or pay over employment taxes or for attempting to evade or defeat payment of such taxes.
> 
> Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to: (1) issue a notice of confirmation of any address change for an employer making employment tax payments, and (2) send such notice to both the employer's former and new address.
> 
> Requires officers or employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) who are evaluating an offer-in-compromise of a tax liability to give special consideration to an offer from a taxpayer who has been the victim of fraud.
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/900/text*
> 
> The bills had nothing that you claim is in the bill. It’s about payroll taxes, not pay discrimination.
> 
> 
> There is not one word about discrimination, sexual discrimination, a class, plantiff or any of the above in the Payroll Protection Act.
> 
> 
> The law says nothing about anything you say here.


This is the second time (or is it third) that you have not paid any attention to what I wrote.

I stated early and easily that I got the laws confused and I had not had a chance to check out YOUR law. I still have not.

This is your second response in the same way to a response which said, I cited the wrong law.

The horse is dead Jim.


----------



## JCD

Anonymous07 said:


> I used to also think like this and would have agreed with you before... until my cousin was raped. You can do everything "right" and still get raped. No amount of prevention methods can make you totally safe.
> 
> My cousin is a very respectable woman and has always been one to "play it safe"(buddy system, stay with close friends, doesn't drive even if she's only had little to drink, etc.). She was with close friends at a local bar, who I would normally trust myself(I knew them too), and they were hanging out with a few other guys(most they knew, with 2 new ones they didn't). My cousin went to the bathroom, while her close friend watched her drink. The friend turned away for a second to grab her phone and a guy slipped a date rape drug into my cousin's drink. A "guy friend" offered to take her home and walked her out of the bar. Then there is security footage of him and another guy basically carrying my cousin across the street to a truck, as she had basically become unconscious from the drug at that point. She was raped repeatedly by more than one guy and then thrown on her parent's front lawn. My aunt awoke to tires screeching off at 5 am(cousin was going to spend the night at a friends).
> 
> There is nothing "murky" about it. I don't care what the woman wears or if she is plastered drunk, there is no excuse for a man to rape her.


This is a horrible thing.

That doesn't mean that 'being careful' does not have merit.

One can eschew air travel to avoid a crash and still have a plane slam into your house!

This is about helping your odds, not stating that one can become 'immune' to bad things happening.


----------



## Anonymous07

JCD said:


> This is a horrible thing.
> 
> That doesn't mean that 'being careful' does not have merit.
> 
> One can eschew air travel to avoid a crash and still have a plane slam into your house!
> 
> This is about helping your odds, not stating that one can become 'immune' to bad things happening.


My point is that you can do everything "right" and still have the worst happen. *You can't blame the victim*: "Oh, she was dressed provocatively." "She was drunk and asked for it." That does not matter. She didn't want to have sex and was raped. A person who is under the influence of alcohol or any drug can't consent to sex. Even if she was walking around in just a bra and underwear, it does not give any guy a right to rape her. 

The legal system when it comes to rape is horrible, as most get away scot-free, including the 2 guys who raped my cousin(even with their DNA being found). For what ever reason, in our society, we like to blame the victim. Many think, that for what ever reason, the woman "asked for it" or "deserved" it because she had a drink or dressed a certain way. That should not matter. Both individuals need to consent to sex.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> However, how you used this is part of what torques me (and probably a lot of other people off) about feminism's tactics: If you do not support (innocuously named law which may or may not be good for EVERYBODY) you are anti-woman and probably an evil person.


Now I can say that you misrepresent what I have said.
I have never said that if you do not support some innocuously named law which may not be good for EVERYONE, you are anti-woman and probably an evil person. 
If you said that all women have to go back to being having only one choice…being a wife and raising children; and that when their husbands died they would be burned alive to relieve society of the burden of supporting them. Then yes I’d say that anyone with that belief and goal in mind is anti-woman and evil. I think you would say the same thing. Saying that in this case is not a tactic. It’s the flat out truth. 
I did not call you or anyone else anti-woman or evil because they oppose a particular law.
Instead when you stated that you felt that a law was not a good law, I looked it up. I considered your points and gave you my feedback. If you can show me reasons that I think are valid for opposing I’d oppose it as well. That’s what real discussion and idea exchange is about. 


JCD said:


> However, how you used this is part of what torques me (and probably a lot of other people off) about feminism's tactics: If you do not support (innocuously named law which may or may not be good for EVERYBODY) you are anti-woman and probably an evil person.


Further, it torques me that many men use the same kind of tactic. Any woman who dares to call themselves a feminist or say that they agree with the basic feminist principle of equality is labeled as anti-male, male-hating and probably an evil person. This can be seen on this thread by some (far from all) male posters. It’s really clear and any Men’s Rights Movement sites and in their literature. 

Now I will say that not all the men who post on TAM are like this. There are a lot of men are not. But there are a few who are, well over the top.


JCD said:


> Forget if there are important principles besides if a woman can get 17 cents more. Opposing any specific law is automatically characterized as anti-woman. Differing opinions or other priorities are not allowed!


Why do you think that 17 cents on the dollar is trivial?

Let’s look at what 17 cents less on the dollar means to a worker.

At a wage of $9 an hour, gross income of $18,720, that’s $3,182.40 less a year, or $265.20 less a month.

At a wage of $20 an hour, gross income of $41,600, that’s $7,072 less a year, or $589.33 less a month.

At a wage of $50 an hour, gross income of $104,000, that’s $17,608 less a year, or $1,473.33 less a month.

How willing are you to give up 17% of your income. And why do you think that 17% of anyone’s income is trivial?



JCD said:


> I dislike that strongly. I am probably not alone. I can understand why, with some of the blatant hypocrisy on display, the 'my way or the highway' approach, and ignoring female voices that they are suppose to represent, why 'feminism is misunderstood...or understood too well.'


Blatant hypocrisy? Not accepting 17% less income is blatant hypocrisy? (That’s one of the examples you have used a few times.)




JCD said:


> Whether I 'win' here or not is irrelevant. There is a backlash. That some feminists find it inexplicable says more about their sense of self awareness or talent with denial than about the public at large. Of course some of it is unfair. But I severely doubt all of it, or even half of it is unfair.


There is no winning. That’s not the point, at least it’s not my point here. I’m only here to discuss and exchange ideas.

I agree that some feminists are, well out in left field regardless of which political persuasion they identify with. But I also believe that in every political group (yes feminism is a political issue) there are those who are out in left field. And I believe that they all have the right to be believe and say any stupid thing they want. And then I’ll say anything I want about it. It’s called free speech. But I’m not going to try to shut down anyone’s voice.

There has been a backlash against women who wanted equal rights since the first woman opened her mouth about it. Women have been beaten, set on fire, killed, and grossly mistreated for daring to say a word for a very long time. Women were called all kinds of names, discounted, publically insulted. Perhaps the reason some women do not care if there is a backlash now, is because there always has been a backlash. Although today the backlash is a lot different. It’s more under handed (another type of tactic).

Have you ever watched old clips of the news broadcasts? It’s quite a reminder of what it was like just in the 50’s through the 70’s.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> Could there be a disconnect on this thread in how feminism is defined?
> 
> Somebody might self identify as a Christian, for example, without belonging to any particular denomination.
> 
> Feminism is similarly a big tent with lots of philosophies under it.


This has been one of my points. 

I have clearly defined by definition of feminism. But it seems I am being asked to answer for people who seem to have a different definition. And I refuse to do that.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Nope. You have been much more sensible and honest than most. You evinced frustration. I feel frustrated too.


Do ya think? :rofl:


JCD said:


> *Absolutely true. * I am NOT asking for your life. If you find you have a spare five minutes though.. .


We have an agreement :toast: :yay:


JCD said:


> Because, I have been told most of my life by women that I (and by I, I mean 'males') '*just don't understand.*


I think that there are things about life as a woman that men generally do not understand.

I also think that the reverse is true.

I am 99.9% that you have no idea what it has been like for me for some of the things that I’ve personally have been through simply because I had to become the primary bread winner. These are things that men never have to deal with.

That does not mean that I would not take your point of view seriously. It just means that it’s hard for someone to understand another person’s outlook based on their life’s experiences. Sometimes we have to just trust what a person tells us about how they got to where they are.


JCD said:


> It is far too easy (and common) a mental shorthand for feminists of a certain bent to just dismiss any critique from men. They are not afforded such ease when women speak.


I agree that there are feminists and women who dismiss any critique from men.

From my experience, the exact reverse is also true from some men, from the Men’s Right’s Movement, etc.


JCD said:


> You have not exactly been all sweetness and light yourself at times. But that's human too.


I never intended to be all sweetness and light. My intention was to give you back what you dished out. 
But when you brought up something with real meat, like the significance of 17% less pay; or that law. I checked it out discussed it seriously.


JCD said:


> I do not agree with a lot of what is being discussed here and where folks are Just Plain Wrong, I have said something.


I’ve seen your very good replies on some topics. So I get that.


JCD said:


> Huh...if this is the stuff you get AFTER the fights...wow!


Yes, the women’s right’s movement has had the same kinds of fights/arguments between the players as any other political group. And yes these people have modified and changed their goals, platforms, etc based on the results.




JCD said:


> Not blaming YOU you. Am blaming women. They 'own' the organization. If women aren't happy with it, (and look at the polling) then they (not you, except as much as you get a voice too) are responsible for changing it.


Again, for the gazzillonth time…. There is no “organization” to own. There are just men and women out there and some organizations that are all impendent.

By saying this you are saying that all women are responsible for what every other woman says. Since I’m a woman, and I belong to the set called “women”, you are saying that “own” and am responsible for what all other women so want equal rights say and do. I thought that you just said that you don’t believe that? Ya really got to make up your mind.


JCD said:


> There is a drawback to the feminine consensus building style which is showing in their organization.


You can make the false statement that there is a feminist organization all you want. But there is not one.

There is not even a feminine consensus. 

Women are not some big, collective mind that all think the same or share the same consciousness.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> N
> Why do you think that 17 cents on the dollar is trivial?
> 
> Let’s look at what 17 cents less on the dollar means to a worker.
> 
> At a wage of $9 an hour, gross income of $18,720, that’s $3,182.40 less a year, or $265.20 less a month.
> 
> At a wage of $20 an hour, gross income of $41,600, that’s $7,072 less a year, or $589.33 less a month.
> 
> At a wage of $50 an hour, gross income of $104,000, that’s $17,608 less a year, or $1,473.33 less a month.


_Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post
I think that you are wrong about this. There current studies on wages that dispute your claim.
In 2014

American women who work full time, year round are typically paid only 78 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. 
_

Well, I think this is wonderful and a good sign. Just within a day women gained a nickel.. It was 22 cents less yesterday, now only 17 cents less.

Maybe that's why so many men are unemployed.. Companies can hire women to do the same work and simply pay them less. Why waste money hiring men at all?

Did we find that study yet including the methodology?

This article explains it a bit..

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> Do ya think? :rofl:
> 
> We have an agreement :toast: :yay:
> 
> I think that there are things about life as a woman that men generally do not understand.
> 
> I also think that the reverse is true.
> 
> I am 99.9% that you have no idea what it has been like for me for some of the things that I’ve personally have been through simply because I had to become the primary bread winner. These are things that men never have to deal with.
> 
> That does not mean that I would not take your point of view seriously. It just means that it’s hard for someone to understand another person’s outlook based on their life’s experiences. Sometimes we have to just trust what a person tells us about how they got to where they are.
> 
> I agree that there are feminists and women who dismiss any critique from men.
> 
> From my experience, the exact reverse is also true from some men, from the Men’s Right’s Movement, etc.
> 
> I never intended to be all sweetness and light. My intention was to give you back what you dished out.
> But when you brought up something with real meat, like the significance of 17% less pay; or that law. I checked it out discussed it seriously.
> 
> I’ve seen your very good replies on some topics. So I get that.
> 
> Yes, the women’s right’s movement has had the same kinds of fights/arguments between the players as any other political group. And yes these people have modified and changed their goals, platforms, etc based on the results.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the gazzillonth time…. There is no “organization” to own. There are just men and women out there and some organizations that are all impendent.
> 
> By saying this you are saying that all women are responsible for what every other woman says. Since I’m a woman, and I belong to the set called “women”, you are saying that “own” and am responsible for what all other women so want equal rights say and do. I thought that you just said that you don’t believe that? Ya really got to make up your mind.
> 
> You can make the false statement that there is a feminist organization all you want. But there is not one.
> 
> There is not even a feminine consensus.
> 
> Women are not some big, collective mind that all think the same or share the same consciousness.


I was wondering when I was going to see the link to the Feminist National Convention. It never came.


----------



## marriedman321

More on the wage gap, this time by feminists.. And as I stated before, this is exactly how they calculate this number in such a misleading way.. 

Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By FeministsÂ*|Â*Christina Hoff Sommers

How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns?

The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. *The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." *What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ I would think it would be hard to get a lock on. And again, it may be geographical. The way male/female relations work varies hugely around this country. I know for a fact that I have never been paid less than my male counterparts.


----------



## ocotillo

The word, "Feminism" can be defined so generically that dependent terms like, Feminist Theory, Feminist Studies, Feminist Philosophy, Feminist Thinking, etc., etc. lose their meaning as a result. 

I'm not disagreeing with people who want to view the word generically, but from that viewpoint, almost any sane person with anything resembling a sense of fairness and right and wrong vis-à-vis relations between men and women is by definition, a feminist. --Which raises a legitimate question: When everyone is a feminist, is anyone? 

When people criticize feminism, I don't think they are using the generic definition of the word.


----------



## marriedman321

JCD said:


> Marriedman,
> 
> In China, the boat people tied little boys to the deck so they could not fall overboard.
> 
> Little girls were NOT tied to anything.
> 
> In China and India, they had to make a law to not determine gender with an ultrasound to cut back on the number of gender selection abortions. Seems they have too many boys...why do you think that is?
> 
> I agree with you on some things, but sometimes you are way off base.
> 
> Life sucks for both genders. It just sucks in different ways.


I think the most basic human right is probably being alive..

I guess even with all those Chinese girls being thrown off boats they always had a higher life expectancy than men..
China - Life expectancy at birth



And even for all these women dying during child birth, they still had a higher life expectancy than men in the USA..
Life expectancy in the USA, 1900-98


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> This is the second time (or is it third) that you have not paid any attention to what I wrote.
> 
> I stated early and easily that I got the laws confused and I had not had a chance to check out YOUR law. I still have not.
> 
> This is your second response in the same way to a response which said, I cited the wrong law.


The above is incorrect.

*In post #294* I asked what was objectionable about the “Fair Pay Act” because earlier on the thread is was said that it was basically feminist nonsense and bad act.

*In post #297* you posted your objections.

*In post #301* you posted that, opps, you objections were really not to the “Fair Pay Act” but to some other one. I did not see this post because I was working on post #302.

*In post #302* I responded to your objections after I read the “Fair Pay Act” and looked at the parts that you say you objected to. I did find what was basically (not exactly) the quotes you posted in your objection.

*In post #313* you wrote that your objections actually applied to the Payroll Protection Act. 

*In post #323* I posted what I found when I looked the Payroll Protection Act and evaluated your objections to that act. Your objections do not apply.

*So now in post #327*


JCD said:


> This is the second time (or is it third) that you have not paid any attention to what I wrote.


I’m sorry this is not the second time or the third time. I paid attention to what you wrote each time as shown in the above list of posts.

I evaluated your objects to first the “Fair Pay Act” which I asked about. Then to the “Payroll Protection Act” which you stated the objects really applied to.



JCD said:


> I stated early and easily that I got the laws confused and I had not had a chance to check out YOUR law. I still have not.
> 
> This is your second response in the same way to a response which said, I cited the wrong law.


Yep, in post #313, you stated that you got the “Fair Pay Act” confused with the “Payroll Protection Act”. So now you are objecting that you really did not mean the “Payroll Protection Act”? Is that right?

Ok when you figure out which law you were objecting to, could you please post the name and if at all a link so I can check it out?



JCD said:


> The horse is dead Jim.


Nope the horse is not dead. Jim just fell off, he must have been drunk. 

The original question was about the “Fair Pay Act” which some people on this thread said was basically feminist nonsense and a bad act. I believe that you were one of them, but I’m not 100% sure. 

I would still like to find out the objects are to the “Fair Pay Act”. Why the Republicans did not vote for it and why some here think it’s a bad act.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Elegirl...thank you for all these wonderful posts.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> I think the most basic human right is probably being alive..
> 
> I guess even with all those Chinese girls being thrown off boats they always had a higher life expectancy than men..
> China - Life expectancy at birth
> 
> 
> 
> And even for all these women dying during child birth, they still had a higher life expectancy than men in the USA..
> Life expectancy in the USA, 1900-98


Yea I get your point. 

That makes it ok to let girls get thrown off boats. 

It makes it ok that in china if a couple's first born child is a girl, they almost always kill the baby.

The difference in gender life expectancy is more dependent on biology then on the actions of humans.

Little girls not being protected and hence washed off their family boat is the action of callous humans who do not value the lives of their female children.

Killing first born female children is also the action of callous humans who do not value the lives of their female children.

This goes on in China because males are more valued than females.

It is estimated that 200,000,000 (yes that's 2000 MILLION) baby girls were killed in China between 1979 and 2009. That's 200 Million who never got their basic right to a life.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Elegirl...thank you for all these wonderful posts.


I'm exhausted. And you are welcome


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> _Originally Posted by EleGirl View Post
> I think that you are wrong about this. There current studies on wages that dispute your claim.
> In 2014
> 
> American women who work full time, year round are typically paid only 78 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.
> _
> 
> Well, I think this is wonderful and a good sign. Just within a day women gained a nickel.. It was 22 cents less yesterday, now only 17 cents less.
> 
> Maybe that's why so many men are unemployed.. Companies can hire women to do the same work and simply pay them less. Why waste money hiring men at all?
> 
> Did we find that study yet including the methodology?
> 
> This article explains it a bit..
> 
> Sexual Assault, Wage Gap, and More Feminist Myths that Will Not Die


I got those numbers from a very specific study, covering one specific sector of the economy. It also look at one specific legal case. In that legal case the numbers were verified against Wal-Mart's actual payroll records.

You of course ignored that and keep trying to tie the numbers I provided to some broader, more generic look at the issue.

Does not work.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> I got those numbers from a very specific study, covering one specific sector of the economy. It also look at one specific legal case. In that legal case the numbers were verified against Wal-Mart's actual payroll records.
> 
> You of course ignored that and keep trying to tie the numbers I provided to some broader, more generic look at the issue.
> 
> Does not work.


Ok, so there is no overall wage gap difference that is due to discrimination.. Glad we agree. Except maybe at Walmart I guess? I don't know. 

i did read the study you included, and it was consisted of 435 retail workers being surveyed in NYC.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> I think that you are wrong about this. There current studies on wages that dispute your claim.
> In 2014
> 
> *American women who work full time, year round are typically paid only 78 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.
> *
> African American women are typically paid only 64 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
> Hispanic women typically make only 56 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men
> 
> In 2011, women were 49.3% of the more than 14.6 million workers employed in the retail sector. But women are paid about 68.3% of the wages that men make.


I thought you posted this.. Which is the same "fact" I just debunked. When I originally told you how this number was calculated you said I was full of it. 


This is important as feminists continually distort facts and figures to paint a certain picture. 

So is what you posted here (bolded and above) true or not? If it is true please cite it.


----------



## ocotillo

If I were to criticize feminism, it would not be along the lines of anything on this thread. It would be strictly within the world that my wife and my oldest daughter live in.

Men (Including myself) sometimes feel that we are being criticized simply for being men. One example is a study that was done in 2012 that explored the validity of objectification theory.

Volunteers were shown pictures of men and women for half a second each and the movements of their eyes were tracked. The models in the pictures were wearing tight fitting clothing (Looked like spandex to me) and the eyes of most of the male test subjects went straight to the hips of pictures showing young, healthy females. 

The authors saw this as proof of local processing versus global processing, (Which I would agree with) but feminist science writers subsequently summarized this as proof positive of objectification itself. (Which I would heartily disagree with.)

I would be willing to bet that I could concoct a test that any highly sexual person regardless of whether they were male or female would fail in the exact same way.  (Keep in mind that you would have a whole half of a second to look at the picture....)


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> Ok, so there is no overall wage gap difference that is due to discrimination.. Glad we agree. Except maybe at Walmart I guess? I don't know.
> 
> i did read the study you included, and it was consisted of 435 retail workers being surveyed in NYC.


There you go twisting my words again.

I do not agree with anything you have said.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
wage gaps need to be studied carefully. Careers last a long time, discrimination from 30 years ago can still have a significant effect. 

It is a very different question whether a woman in the same field makes less than a man, and whether a woman starting in a field makes less.

There is also lots of variation between fields, and significant disparity in income between similar fields that are male and female dominated.


This makes discussion difficult unless everyone is very careful to define exactly what they are talking about.


----------



## Personal

Anonymous07 said:


> I used to also think like this and would have agreed with you before... until my cousin was raped. You can do everything "right" and still get raped. No amount of prevention methods can make you totally safe.
> 
> My cousin is a very respectable woman and has always been one to "play it safe"(buddy system, stay with close friends, doesn't drive even if she's only had little to drink, etc.). She was with close friends at a local bar, who I would normally trust myself(I knew them too), and they were hanging out with a few other guys(most they knew, with 2 new ones they didn't). My cousin went to the bathroom, while her close friend watched her drink. The friend turned away for a second to grab her phone and a guy slipped a date rape drug into my cousin's drink. A "guy friend" offered to take her home and walked her out of the bar. Then there is security footage of him and another guy basically carrying my cousin across the street to a truck, as she had basically become unconscious from the drug at that point. She was raped repeatedly by more than one guy and then thrown on her parent's front lawn. My aunt awoke to tires screeching off at 5 am(cousin was going to spend the night at a friends).
> 
> There is nothing "murky" about it. I don't care what the woman wears or if she is plastered drunk, there is no excuse for a man to rape her.


My sister was raped in similar circumstances, the difference being it was probably only one man and she wasn't dumped anywhere. She didn't ask for it as no one asks for it.

I think it is a shame that some still believe that some women ask for it and are therefore largely responsible for being raped. To infer that men are somehow lured into rape by woman is nothing more than egregious blame shifting and excusing the inexcusable.

I have been out drinking with many women on many occasions. Yet I have never felt a compulsion to rape them regardless of their dress, demeanour or state of intoxication.

Men that rape do so because they choose to.



JCD said:


> This is a horrible thing.
> 
> That doesn't mean that 'being careful' does not have merit.
> 
> One can eschew air travel to avoid a crash and still have a plane slam into your house!
> 
> This is about helping your odds, not stating that one can become 'immune' to bad things happening.


Of course it doesn't mean there's no merit in caution. A plane falling on ones house though, generally lacks the intent of the very deliberate and personal act of rape.

Considering the fact that even in cultures where the consumption of alcohol is verboten and women are required to be covered head to toe rape is not uncommon.

Women will be raped regardless of whether they don't consume alcohol and wear a burqa, or alternatively drink alcohol and go topless with a bikini at the beach.

Rape is a deliberate and wilful action that is undertaken solely through choice, lets not excuse it by pointing at the victim.

Apologies for the tangent.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> Elegirl...thank you for all these wonderful posts.


:iagree:

Thank-you Elegirl.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> I thought you posted this.. Which is the same "fact" I just debunked. When I originally told you how this number was calculated you said I was full of it.


When I told you that your calculation was nonsense it was because I was thinking that you replied to the numbers about the retail workers. So it had no bearing on those numbers.
In my work I do a lot of numerical and statistical analysis. One thing I have learned is that it’s extremely important to look at things from many different angels. Each angle tells a different part of the story.

It’s like when 8 blind men are touching an elephant. Each will describe the elephant differently. The guy who is touching a leg will say that the animal is like a tree trunk. The one who is touching the truck will say that it’s like a huge snake with a big mouth and no teeth.

That’s what happens with different numerical/statistical analysis. To “see” the elephant you have to look at the big picture that all the studies tell you. We typically run at least 3 different scenarios on everything. Often a lot more to get the full picture.

#1…. Studies that say that women make something like 78% of what men make tells us that as a whole someone are making less than men. It’s significant enough to make a 22% difference. So then a person can look at how this can be changed to improve the financial wellbeing of women as a whole. 

#2…. Studies that say that the wage gap is not as wide when we look at men and women in the same job, with the same education and experience level tell us that the gap is closing when these things are true. 

But from study 1, we know that far fewer women have the same jobs, education and job experience that men have.
From industry specific studies like the one about retail we find out that in some segments, what was found in study #2 does not apply to the retail sector. Looking further at the WalMart case we get a glimpse of why. It’s very likely because men with the same experience and education as women in that industry are far more likely to be promoted. Men are put in the higher paid jobs. Women are told that they are not being promoted because men support families so they need to earn more. Now that woman who is passed over might very well be the sole provider for her children. But hey, she’s a woman so she just needs to shut up.



marriedman321 said:


> This is important as feminists continually distort facts and figures to paint a certain picture.


Well if this is the way you feel, then why even bother talking to a woman? We are after all liars who distort facts and figures.

Ignorant statements like this make me want to just poke you in the eye. :banghead:

I almost did not even reply to this post of yours because having hate thrown at me is not something I enjoy. It certainly does not make me want to participate. But that's part of the reason for throwing out hateful remarks, isn't it?



marriedman321 said:


> So is what you posted here (bolded and above) true or not? If it is true please cite it.


As I showed above, to really discuss studies and statistics, it’s not just looking at the numbers. What you posted did not prove anything wrong. It gave a different view into the existing conditions


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> When I told you that your calculation was nonsense it was because I was thinking that you replied to the numbers about the retail workers. So it had no bearing on those numbers.
> In my work I do a lot of numerical and statistical analysis. One thing I have learned is that it’s extremely important to look at things from many different angels. Each angle tells a different part of the story.
> 
> It’s like when 8 blind men are touching an elephant. Each will describe the elephant differently. The guy who is touching a leg will say that the animal is like a tree trunk. The one who is touching the truck will say that it’s like a huge snake with a big mouth and no teeth.
> 
> That’s what happens with different numerical/statistical analysis. To “see” the elephant you have to look at the big picture that all the studies tell you. We typically run at least 3 different scenarios on everything. Often a lot more to get the full picture.
> 
> #1…. Studies that say that women make something like 78% of what men make tells us that as a whole someone are making less than men. It’s significant enough to make a 22% difference. So then a person can look at how this can be changed to improve the financial wellbeing of women as a whole.
> 
> #2…. Studies that say that the wage gap is not as wide when we look at men and women in the same job, with the same education and experience level tell us that the gap is closing when these things are true.
> 
> But from study 1, we know that far fewer women have the same jobs, education and job experience that men have.
> From industry specific studies like the one about retail we find out that in some segments, what was found in study #2 does not apply to the retail sector. Looking further at the WalMart case we get a glimpse of why. It’s very likely because men with the same experience and education as women in that industry are far more likely to be promoted. Men are put in the higher paid jobs. Women are told that they are not being promoted because men support families so they need to earn more. Now that woman who is passed over might very well be the sole provider for her children. But hey, she’s a woman so she just needs to shut up.
> 
> 
> Well if this is the way you feel, then why even bother talking to a woman? We are after all liars who distort facts and figures.
> 
> Ignorant statements like this make me want to just poke you in the eye. :banghead:
> 
> I almost did not even reply to this post of yours because having hate thrown at me is not something I enjoy. It certainly does not make me want to participate. But that's part of the reason for throwing out hateful remarks, isn't it?
> 
> 
> As I showed above, to really discuss studies and statistics, it’s not just looking at the numbers. What you posted did not prove anything wrong. It gave a different view into the existing conditions



What you did is common.. Speak of the need for feminism, throw out an often repeated "stat" to illustrate some sort of possible discrimination immediately, then offer no proof as how that number was derived. When I told you how it was derived you said i was wrong. Then the conversation shifts to babies in China.

Once again, IMHO, women's groups then need to convince other women to become engineers, fields that rely heavily on math, jobs with more travel etc. Convince women to work 60 hours a week as much as possible, instead of 40..Then they will make more..

But please don't blame some "patriarchy" because men and women largely have different goals, desires, and motivating factors..


----------



## Revamped

Last Saturday, my husband and I took my 8th grade daughter to the Diane Burbick Math and Science Conference for middle school girls. It's a morning spent with leading women who volunteer their time to talk about how these two fields of study are very important to take in the upcoming high school years.

The one thing that was reiterated was, once these core courses are taken, it can lead down a path through many different fields. I learned that I should have pursued my dream of becoming an astro physisist. 

The program has been around since 1997 and is getting bigger every year. I think it isn't just a women's issue. If more fathers encouraged their daughters to take more science and math, it could lead to a larger impact.


----------



## marriedman321

Revamped said:


> Last Saturday, my husband and I took my 8th grade daughter to the Diane Burbick Math and Science Conference for middle school girls. It's a morning spent with leading women who volunteer their time to talk about how these two fields of study are very important to take in the upcoming high school years.
> 
> The one thing that was reiterated was, once these core courses are taken, it can lead down a path through many different fields. I learned that I should have pursued my dream of becoming an astro physisist.
> 
> The program has been around since 1997 and is getting bigger every year. I think it isn't just a women's issue. If more fathers encouraged their daughters to take more science and math, it could lead to a larger impact.



Fathers? Why not mothers? Most kids are either raised by single moms, or always with a stay at home mom.

I don't think women necessarily like math.. Sure some might, but most girls I went to college with picked a major in which they did not have to take calculus.


----------



## Revamped

I am astounded you feel that way.

Seems to me, you haven't been to a college lately...


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> What you did is common.. Speak of the need for feminism, throw out an often repeated "stat" to illustrate some sort of possible discrimination immediately, then offer no proof as how that number was derived. When I told you how it was derived you said i was wrong.


Of course you assign a motive for what I have done/said. You decide that my movies are evil because according to you I’m a liar and distorter of facts… obviously because I’m a woman. You have done this on several of your replies to me.

There are a few reasons why I have not gone back, looked up the study and done an in-depth study in response to your last few posts.

I am quite honestly exhausted. If you look at the time span on my posts here, they go way into the wee hours of the morning and span a HUGE number of hours. I’m just flat out exhausted. I’m just too tired to continue this. I hope to actually get a full night sleep tonight.

On top of that, it’s Thanksgiving week. I took it off to spend time with my wonderful son. With the demands of his grad school classes I just do not get enough time with him. So he’ll be off for the rest of the week. He wins over this TAM nonsense. I also have Thanksgiving dinner to plan and shop for. I have Christmas to start working on.

Basically TAM is not family and it does not pay the bills. It’s entertainment of sorts.



marriedman321 said:


> Then the conversation shifts to babies in China.


You took the conversation into China in your continued attempt to prove that men are victim, of what I’m not sure? Women? So I just replied to bring out a fuller picture. Both men and women have issues that need to be looked at. Both men and women are EQUALLY important in this world.


marriedman321 said:


> Once again, IMHO, women's groups then need to convince other women to become engineers, fields that rely heavily on math, jobs with more travel etc. Convince women to work 60 hours a week as much as possible, instead of 40..Then they will make more..


Those stats that you say are lies, that’s what they tell us. Women who want to earn a good living need to get a good education in the fields that lead to higher pay. So instead of working 60 hours a week as a waitress, they can put in the same hours and paid well as a lawyer, engineer, doctor, physicist, mathematician, and on and on. 

For example... that thing about women going through law school and passing the bar and then only being able to get a job as a legal secretary? That thing about how those evil feminist fought this so that now women can actually get jobs as a lawyer and get paid as much as male lawyers. Yea, that idea that you made snarky remarks about? Yea that.

We need to combat attitudes in schools and in society that encourage girls to not take the harder subjects and to think beyond only dating and marrying some cute guy.

What do you think a HUGE percentage of women and women’s groups are doing? 

This is why some women are giving money for scholarships for the brightest young women. Because often the brightest do not come from the richest backgrounds. It’s sad that a few posters here (very few thank goodness) made snide remarks about a woman on this thread saying that she donates money to help pay scholarships for young women. 

Young women also need to learn a lot about starting their own companies, freelancing, etc. I’m on the board for a nonprofit (a founding member) that provides this type of mentorship to young men and women. One of our biggest success stories is a 25 year old young lady who is a dancer. She is now bringing in over 200K a year. Not bad for an industry that most think no one can earn a living at. Almost anything can be turned into success if the person knows how to market it.



marriedman321 said:


> But please don't blame some "patriarchy"..


What? You get to blame all ill on women and feminist? (the matriarchy maybe?) And then you tell me women cannot blame men or the “patriarchy”. Man.. . you take all the fun out of things.


marriedman321 said:


> because men and women largely have different goals, desires, and motivating factors..


I think that you are largely wrong about this. I believe that men and women have largely the same goals. To have a good life, to find love, to have a family, and to do the things in life they are passionate about. 

In today’s world this means that they have to earn an income. No longer do husband and wife work side by side on a piece of land and in their own home. Now they have to generate income, largely based on their skills and their effort.

For both men and women to achieve these goals, equality under the law, in society has to exist.


----------



## marriedman321

Revamped said:


> I am astounded you feel that way.
> 
> Seems to me, you haven't been to a college lately...


It's not a feeling, just was my college experience.. More girls going into Psychology and early child hood education, and more guys going into engineering.. And thats factually correct.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> Fathers? Why not mothers? Most kids are either raised by single moms, or always with a stay at home mom.


25% of all children in the USA are raised by single mothers. (that means that their father is not involved at all)

75% are raised by both parents either living at home with both parents or in shared custody arrangements.

Most married women with children are not SAHM's. More than 68% of married women with children work outside the home.

Fathers are very much involved in the lives of their children.

Sure there are segments of the population in which fathers are hard to find. But that's not most of society.

Employment Characteristics of Families Summary



marriedman321 said:


> I don't think women necessarily like math.. Sure some might, but most girls I went to college with picked a major in which they did not have to take calculus.


Women like math just fine and excel I it. The problem is that they are discouraged from pursuing any math beyond entry level algebra.

Even today, girls told that they don't need math, or that girls are bad at math, or because they are told that boys don't like smart girls. This is why events like the one that Revamped talked about are being done.


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> 25% of all children in the USA are raised by single mothers. (that means that their father is not involved at all)
> 
> 75% are raised by both parents either living at home with both parents or in shared custody arrangements.
> 
> Most married women with children are not SAHM's. More than 68% of married women with children work outside the home.
> 
> Fathers are very much involved in the lives of their children.
> 
> Sure there are segments of the population in which fathers are hard to find. But that's not most of society.
> 
> Employment Characteristics of Families Summary
> 
> 
> 
> Women like math just fine and excel I it. The problem is that they are discouraged from pursuing any math beyond entry level algebra.
> 
> Even today, girls told that they don't need math, or that girls are bad at math, or because they are told that boys don't like smart girls. This is why events like the one that Revamped talked about are being done.


I just see this as a little unfair..

So now, women should be pushed into high level fields with lots of mathematics..

But since we are all equal, why aren't girls pushed into fixing cars, construction, coal mining, garbage men, drilling for oil, building bridges and skyscrapers, dangerous jobs etc.. Why do we reserve these fields for boys? Why aren't feminists complaining?


----------



## Revamped

marriedman321 said:


> It's not a feeling, just was my college experience.. More girls going into Psychology and early child hood education, and more guys going into engineering.. And thats factually correct.


That, in fact, is NOT factually correct. If you note where I post from, I live less than a mile away from Kent State University. My children grew up playing in the fountains at the 13 story library. They know where the Technology building is (soon to be torn down and a new facility built), the Business building, the one with the wavy roof (Math studies) and Science (the free planetarium shows twice a year).

Why? THIS cost accountant mother wants them to go fly away.... As long as they live at home so I can keep an eye on them!

So when you go on and on where the mothers are,

I'm right here pal.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marriedman321 said:


> I just see this as a little unfair..
> 
> So now, women should be pushed into high level fields with lots of mathematics..
> 
> But since we are all equal, why aren't girls pushed into fixing cars, construction, coal mining, garbage men, drilling for oil, building bridges and skyscrapers, dangerous jobs etc.. Why do we reserve these fields for boys? Why aren't feminists complaining?


Many women do go into these types of jobs. My area has a lot of labour type jobs and many women pursue them. 

One issue women face when they go into a male dominated field is sexual harassment or sexism. 

We don't need to push anyone to do anything if we just stop _discouraging _and allow for everyone to make their own choice without having to worry about their gender.


----------



## Revamped

marriedman321 said:


> I just see this as a little unfair..
> 
> So now, women should be pushed into high level fields with lots of mathematics..
> 
> But since we are all equal, why aren't girls pushed into fixing cars, construction, coal mining, garbage men, drilling for oil, building bridges and skyscrapers, dangerous jobs etc.. Why do we reserve these fields for boys? Why aren't feminists complaining?


Well, my x HAS taught our daughter to change a tire. She's 13 though, not ready to be driving. This past summer, she WAS out there cutting the back yard. My son helped her do a half way descent job. My x was a brick layer, had both of them out there, when he had side jobs. At 5 and 9, they carried bricks, blocks, stone, mixed mortar.

They both learned growing up, work is hard.

Your son is three. What have YOU done to facilitate his education? Art museum, natural history, science museums?


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> The original question was about the “Fair Pay Act” which some people on this thread said was basically feminist nonsense and a bad act. I believe that you were one of them, but I’m not 100% sure.
> 
> I would still like to find out the objects are to the “Fair Pay Act”. Why the Republicans did not vote for it and why some here think it’s a bad act.


Without getting into the meat of the subject, here are a couple of fair answers.



marriedman321 said:


> More on the wage gap, this time by feminists.. And as I stated before, this is exactly how they calculate this number in such a misleading way..
> 
> Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By FeministsÂ*|Â*Christina Hoff Sommers
> 
> How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns?
> 
> The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. *The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." *What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.





NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ I would think it would be hard to get a lock on. And again, it may be geographical. The way male/female relations work varies hugely around this country. I know for a fact that I have never been paid less than my male counterparts.



If there is not a problem, there does not need to be a fix.

As you stated, the movement (which is not a movement...but somehow can make pressure to get legislation enacted....how exactly does that work if there is no organization, pray tell?) is a political entity. They want something, they ask for it.

This study, which has swept through Republican and Libertarian circles like a grass fire, seems to strongly imply that the feminist assertions on pay inequality are a _teensy bit_ self serving if not actually wrong.

So if Republicans do not feel there is a problem, why should they make a law 

a) to pay off feminists who hate them like poison (I know you don't believe this. Republicans do and even a casual perusal of what 'feminists' on television say will support this fact) , 

b) discommode a bunch of people who DO support them, and 

c) create more regulations, when a small plank of the party is to cut back on regulations, and 

d) (This is the big one) do a darned thing to work with Obama. 

There is zero love lost between those two entities. So any law for the past six years or the next two years is pretty much dead in the water. Why should your pet law be any different? In fact, one could argue that throwing that law out there is a throw away partisan attack. The Democrats know that nothing is getting passed, so they throw out a sop to the feminists to say 'See! WE support women...it's those evil Republicans who are stopping (rainbow and puppy law)." This is acting in bad faith because they knew it was never passing in the first place. This was a PR move, not a law.

There are consequences to being seen as a partisan political organization. I introduce you to the phrase *'War on Women' *which traipses constantly on our airwaves. Because...you know...I hate my daughters, I hate my wife and I hate all the women I met and want them in burkas...and poor! 

Well...if I (generic Republican) am never going to get plaudits from you (generic feminism), why should I lift a finger to give you what you want?

And, for the twentieth time, this is why I said that feminism's support of Bill and Sarah had severe consequences. Now you are seeing some of them. As showed by that poll I posted, more than half of Republicans of both genders see 'feminism' as a synonym for 'Democrat' if not 'enemy'. (A touch of hyperbole, but on point)

Republicans are not going to hand out burkas (we like legs too). But as long as we are characterized as Sauron's second cousin by women on talk television, don't expect a whole lot of Christmas cards.

AND YET, Republicans also at 78% support income equality. That does not mean we necessarily favor every bit of legislation you want.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anonymous07 said:


> I used to also think like this and would have agreed with you before... until my cousin was raped. You can do everything "right" and still get raped. No amount of prevention methods can make you totally safe.
> 
> My cousin is a very respectable woman and has always been one to "play it safe"(buddy system, stay with close friends, doesn't drive even if she's only had little to drink, etc.). She was with close friends at a local bar, who I would normally trust myself(I knew them too), and they were hanging out with a few other guys(most they knew, with 2 new ones they didn't). My cousin went to the bathroom, while her close friend watched her drink. The friend turned away for a second to grab her phone and a guy slipped a date rape drug into my cousin's drink. A "guy friend" offered to take her home and walked her out of the bar. Then there is security footage of him and another guy basically carrying my cousin across the street to a truck, as she had basically become unconscious from the drug at that point. She was raped repeatedly by more than one guy and then thrown on her parent's front lawn. My aunt awoke to tires screeching off at 5 am(cousin was going to spend the night at a friends).
> 
> There is nothing "murky" about it. I don't care what the woman wears or if she is plastered drunk, there is no excuse for a man to rape her.


And YOU are reading into my intent on my post, which I completely EXPECTED on this thread.. waiting for it in fact... I SAID "we can't expect total strangers at a Party to be honorable people.... most especially drunk horny men"...

Your friends situation was NOT this...You said *>>* your cousin was one to play it safe, she adheres to the Buddy system *& went with CLOSE FRIENDS*...doesn't drive drunk...

She did HER BEST TO REASONABLY COVER THE SITUATION...some forethought there.. good - as it should be. 

And I AGREE with you.. when you said "You can do everything "right" and still get raped. No amount of prevention methods can make you totally safe. "... ABSOLUTELY! I have been watching many of those "Forensic Files" shows lately.. some sick ba*tards out there.. who stalk, break in, abduct a woman from a parking lot.. A N Y T H I N G [email protected]#$ 

**** happens every day...I am not one to easily trust anyone. 

Just watched something tonight where a 16 yr old stabbed a girl he was infatuated with...she rejected him... planned killing her in her home (had a friend help him do this).... I think they should be put to death frankly..... I don't even care if they are 16... Not a bleeding heart here when innocent people are hurt, raped, maimed & killed.... 

If others don't get THIS from my posts..let's just say it's frustrating for me. 

Is there really something inherently wrong or so offensive as to say ...use common sense, don't put yourself in the Lion's Den...seems so , since this gets utterly overlooked when I make a point.. 

My Mother was raped 3 times for hanging around unscrupulous men / drunks.. this upped her risk..doesn't mean I couldn't be raped tomorrow in my own home.. 

I have NOTHING good to say about the bar scene... when these sorts of things happen.. it doesn't surprise me much... it's a breeding ground for men looking for easy sex..women need to be very very careful.


----------



## JCD

Elegirl...you really need to drop the 'women can only be legal secretaries' meme.

How about talking about how feminism is relevant NOW?

Because the low hanging fruit has, for the most part, been plucked. Things like that don't exist anymore. But constantly going on about it like it is a current event is as relevant as 8 Track players.

No one is talking about moving the culture that way anymore.


----------



## EleGirl

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Many women do go into these types of jobs. My area has a lot of labour type jobs and many women pursue them.
> 
> One issue women face when they go into a male dominated field is sexual harassment or sexism.
> 
> We don't need to push anyone to do anything if we just stop _discouraging _and allow for everyone to make their own choice without having to worry about their gender.


:iagree: QFT


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> I just see this as a little unfair..
> 
> So now, women should be pushed into high level fields with lots of mathematics..


Now this is getting beyond ridiculous. No one is suggesting pushing anyone into anything. What is being done and suggested is that girls be encouraged to explore as much as possible and not limit themselves to what society considers “women’s jobs”.

If a girl what’s to be hair dresser, all power to her. 

If a girl has eh capabilities and desire to do more, all power to her.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> If there is not a problem, there does not need to be a fix.


While you might not think there are any problems in this world that affect women, others do. Those that think that there are still problems have every right to work on the problems they see.


JCD said:


> As you stated, the movement (which is not a movement...but somehow can make pressure to get legislation enacted....how exactly does that work if there is no organization, pray tell?) is a political entity. They want something, they ask for it.


I never said that there is not a “movement”. I said that there is not one overarching organization that represents women and feminism. There are thousands (or tens of thousands of organization) and millions of women who individual do and say what they choose, as is their right.



JCD said:


> This study, which has swept through Republican and Libertarian circles like a grass fire, seems to strongly imply that the feminist assertions on pay inequality are a _teensy bit_ self serving if not actually wrong.


Just because something sweeps through Republican and Libertarian circles does not make the he only correct and final word on anything. I can show you all kinds of foolish stuff that get “swept through” these organizations. 



JCD said:


> So if Republicans do not feel there is a problem, why should they make a law


Of course if the Republicans do not feel that there is a problem then they don’t need to vote for the law. 
However, I am not convinced one way or the other on the law. There are thinks I like in it. As a business owner I like the clarification on what sort of things can be used to as justification for paying different people different wages. 

I see you are not going to address the “Fair Pay Act” and tell me what is objected to. I guess your objections as posted will stand. (Yes the words you post are close enough that I do believe they were taken out of the “Fair Pay Act” and then words that are not in the act were added to mislead. I’m sure not by you, but by one of those sites that sends false info sweeping through political misinformation on the internet.


JCD said:


> a) to pay off feminists who hate them like poison (I know you don't believe this. Republicans do and even a casual perusal of what 'feminists' on television say will support this fact) ,


These sentences don’t make a lot of sense. But I’m hoping I understand it.

It’s not the feminist on television that Republicans need to worry about. It women like me who are looking for someone who actually represents our point of view and will lead the country in the way we believe it should me.

At this point I think that the Republics are falling short. So are the Democrats. But I don’t’ see any party that I can support.



JCD said:


> b) discommode a bunch of people who DO support them, and
> c) create more regulations, when a small plank of the party is to cut back on regulations, and


While I believe that we have way too much regulation and laws, I think we need smarter regulation and laws. Like the tax code that could be written in a couple of pages instead of thousands.

I have not heard anything yet that says that the “Fair Pay Act” does is bad. It looks like it mght actually be very good and clarify things quite a bit (aka smarter laws/regulations).



JCD said:


> d) (This is the big one) do a darned thing to work with Obama.


Now there’s a good reason to strike down a good act. Partisan politics. NOT!!!

Now you are getting to the meat of the issue. It’s about the people in power getting and keeping power and lining their own pockets. They could care less about the people in this country.



JCD said:


> There is zero love lost between those two entities. So any law for the past six years or the next two years is pretty much dead in the water. Why should your pet law be any different?


My pet law? I asked you a question about a law that you said you did not like. I am seriously interested in what you personally think about it. So now you are calling it “my pet law”



JCD said:


> In fact, one could argue that throwing that law out there is a throw away partisan attack. The Democrats know that nothing is getting passed, so they throw out a sop to the feminists to say 'See! WE support women...it's those evil Republicans who are stopping (rainbow and puppy law)." This is acting in bad faith because they knew it was never passing in the first place. This was a PR move, not a law.


If the Republican were smart, they would re-craft it in a way that was better. They could send it back for a vote. Then if the democrats voted that down…. It takes the wind out of their sail.



JCD said:


> There are consequences to being seen as a partisan political organization. I introduce you to the phrase *'War on Women' *which traipses constantly on our airwaves. Because...you know...I hate my daughters, I hate my wife and I hate all the women I met and want them in burkas...and poor!


You can act all hurt all you want. But the fact is that the Republicans are not convincing many people that they give a hoot about women. That tis’ time to shut up and go home does not win a lot of votes.



JCD said:


> Well...if I (generic Republican) am never going to get plaudits from you (generic feminism), why should I lift a finger to give you what you want?


So all the Republicans are doing is to have a piss fight with women and feminists? That’s it? That’s who the lead on major issues? Not impressed at all. It is 100% possible for the Republican Party to work with like-minded women and feminist organizations, they do exist. They could put them out there so that very knows that they exist. Most people, even most Republicans, don’t know that they exist.

If they did that they could break the hold that the far left has. But nope, let’s just have a piss fight and then take our toys and go home. Our feelings are hurt. .sniffle sniffle.



JCD said:


> And, for the twentieth time, this is why I said that feminism's support of Bill and Sarah had severe consequences. Now you are seeing some of them. As showed by that poll I posted, more than half of Republicans of both genders see 'feminism' as a synonym for 'Democrat' if not 'enemy'. (A touch of hyperbole, but on point)


There are two ways to approach this. 

1)	Do as I suggest above and create a strong presence for Republican/right feminist organizations. This would change the dialog. It would change overnight how people see the word..

2)	Or still put forward a strong presence for Republican/right feminist organizations. But change the language… call it something that encompasses both men and women…. But get it out there.

But no, instead here we go again with that stupid piss contest… and let’s double it cause of bill Clinton. Yea, that will show those evil women/feminists.

The Republicans are allowing the feminists to do what is going on. I’m wondering if it’s actually what they want. Two parties that the different sides of the same coin. They just let power shift back and forth between them while the same big money people run the country from behind the scene.


JCD said:


> Republicans are not going to hand out burkas (we like legs too). But as long as we are characterized as Sauron's second cousin by women on talk television, don't expect a whole lot of Christmas cards.


Yea, I agree that Republicans are not going to hand out bukas. Anyone using that language is only doing it shock and get attention. I guess it’s working because you bought it hook, line and sinker.

But what you are saying is that as long as the feminists and women on the left are not nice to the Republican Party, the Republican Party is not going to address issues that women have?



JCD said:


> AND YET, Republicans also at 78% support income equality. That does not mean we necessarily favor every bit of legislation you want.


Again you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say I wanted the legislation. I asked YOU why YOU object to it. I guess you will never answer that question in a serious manner.

So what part of the legislation do they support? What part don’t they support? And why? Why didn’t they put through their own act?

What Republicans support income equality? How do they define income equality? Where is the Republican’s Party’s statement/platform on this?


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Elegirl...you really need to drop the 'women can only be legal secretaries' meme.


I mentioned it where it fit into the conversation with a poster who brought it up. Why don’t you tell him to not bring it up?



JCD said:


> How about talking about how feminism is relevant NOW?


I asked about the “Fair Pay Act”. That’s very relevant. But you won’t address it in any meaningful manner. 



JCD said:


> Because the low hanging fruit has, for the most part, been plucked. Things like that don't exist anymore. But constantly going on about it like it is a current event is as relevant as 8 Track players.
> 
> No one is talking about moving the culture that way anymore.


The only thing you seem to want to talk about is that feminist need to shut up and go home because the problems related to women have been solved.

And of course you want to talk about how mean the feminist are to the Republicans.


----------



## EleGirl

And I'm done here. This is going in circles and nowhere.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> If I were to criticize feminism, it would not be along the lines of anything on this thread. It would be strictly within the world that my wife and my oldest daughter live in.
> 
> Men (Including myself) sometimes feel that we are being criticized simply for being men. One example is a study that was done in 2012 that explored the validity of objectification theory.
> 
> Volunteers were shown pictures of men and women for half a second each and the movements of their eyes were tracked. The models in the pictures were wearing tight fitting clothing (Looked like spandex to me) and the eyes of most of the male test subjects went straight to the hips of pictures showing young, healthy females.
> 
> The authors saw this as proof of local processing versus global processing, (Which I would agree with) but feminist science writers subsequently summarized this as proof positive of objectification itself. (Which I would heartily disagree with.)
> 
> I would be willing to bet that I could concoct a test that any highly sexual person regardless of whether they were male or female would fail in the exact same way.  (Keep in mind that you would have a whole half of a second to look at the picture....)


:scratchhead:

How is any of this about feminism? Did you get to the part in the What Women Want book yet about the one thing that caused their girl-boner-O-meter (thingy hooked up to a woman's insides taking readings while they showed her images) to spike consistently? 

An image of an erect penis.

What does that or your example have to do with feminism? Do we have to listen to what feminists *OR* Fox News have to say about the two facts above? And if so, why?


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> How is any of this about feminism? Did you get to the part in the What Women Want book yet about the one thing that caused their girl-boner-O-meter (thingy hooked up to a woman's insides taking readings while they showed her images) to spike consistently?
> 
> An image of an erect penis.
> 
> What does that or your example have to do with feminism? Do we have to listen to what feminists *OR* Fox News have to say about the two facts above? And if so, why?


FW

Yes, I finished the book. Thanks for a good recommendation and an interesting read. 

The OP asked if feminism is misunderstood. I don't think it's misunderstood so much as everyone simply has different notions of what it is, which is something I tried to illustrate via the comparison to Christianity.

One person might self identify as Christian, but only be vaguely theistic; not belong to a denomination and not go to church. Another person might be a doctor of theology at a seminary and author of a book on a pretty esoteric Christian topic, like the significance of the anarthrous predicate nominative in the book of John. (--Not making that up, LOL.) I would say that both individuals are Christian in their own way. 

Similarly, one person may be feminist only in the generic sense of believing that people should be treated fairly and equitably regardless of gender. Another person might be a professor of feminist studies at a university and an authority on a feminist topic. 

Objectification and objectification theory are both important components of feminist thought, and feminist theory. Any student majoring in Gender studies / Women's studies / Feminist studies is going to encounter those concepts very early on.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> What I get tired of is being put down and attacked here because I dare to say that yes I support feminism; meaning equal rights for women.


 I can understand this...but also on this side of the fence, someone like myself who doesn't agree with all the tangents , waves & offshoot views -outside of the LEGAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN TO BE TREATED FAIRLY IN THE COURT SYSTEM, WORK PLACE, VOTING..."under the law" as another poster pointed out.. (I'm with you here [email protected]#).....

As you, I don't appreciate others putting me down if I happen to see some valuable input from those so quickly painted "anti-feminist" when in reality, those people too agree with the original intent of what Feminism stood for.. None of us feel women should be possessions, treated like chattel and every other awful thing that is said to shame those who might not totally agree with the new feminist whatever..this too is wrong, hurtful, only serves to divide us..


EleGirl said:


> We you are kinda doing the same thing that those writers did… you are lamenting the changes that we have been going through for the last few decades and how they are changing the structure of family. YOur children’s lives will most likely be very different from your. Well my life has been very different than the lives of my parents’ and my grandparents.


 2nd son has been with the same GF for over 3 yrs.. they are just 17..she is going to college for Forensics.. cool... but she wants children, she comes from a large family.. what I foresee is this.. she is going to spend all this money for a degree, then want to stay home.. but if she needs me to watch those babies.. I'll be happy.. gives me a purpose ! Our son better have a good job to cover her college loans.. For him to go into any marriage feeling she won't quit or want to take time off for her children would be foolish in my opinion, so he better be prepared to take on HER debt too.. at least that wasnt something my H had to do. 

Yes.. I like the older fashioned model.... and I feel shunned every time I read a poster go on about ... "It's not the 1940's anymore.. Geeesh".. or speak to something I hold dear as being archaic... we need all types here at TAM.. don't we.. I represent how that sort of lifestyle can still work today.. and yes, I feel I am NOT liked for it.. and I certainly do not feel included in the circle of feminists when I speak my views... did I get ONE like from any women on this thread?? .. maybe 1.. HappyGilmore I believe.. she also prefers the "egalitarian" term .. 

Listen... I know where I stand. 



EleGirl said:


> An interesting review of the book from Publishers Weekly
> 
> "In this sometimes simplistic and misguided book, Harris calls for the end of religious faith in the modern world. Not only does such faith lack a rational base, he argues, but even the urge for religious toleration allows a too-easy acceptance of the motives of religious fundamentalists. Religious faith, according to Harris, requires its adherents to cling irrationally to mythic stories of ideal paradisiacal worlds (heaven and hell) that provide alternatives to their own everyday worlds. Moreover, innumerable acts of violence, he argues, can be attributed to a religious faith that clings uncritically to one set of dogmas or another. Very simply, religion is a form of terrorism for Harris. Predictably, he argues that a rational and scientific view—one that relies on the power of empirical evidence to support knowledge and understanding—should replace religious faith.
> 
> We no longer need gods to make laws for us when we can sensibly make them for ourselves. But Harris overstates his case by misunderstanding religious faith, as when he makes the audaciously naïve statement that "mysticism is a rational enterprise; religion is not." As William James ably demonstrated, mysticism is far from a rational enterprise, while religion might often require rationality in order to function properly. On balance, Harris's book generalizes so much about both religion and reason that it is ineffectual. "
> 
> But of course this is a topic for a different thread.


I didn't read the whole book.. and does any man, or women for that matter have it all correct ? I surely don't think so.. ..I lost my religion years ago....too many things warred against my mind... I am open to reading others views, philosophies..... until they start to damn everything I hold dear.. cause I don't think I am a bad person.. . we live to treat others the way we would want to be treated.. that's my religion...and when I fvck it up..I will look at myself 1st -then go try to make up for my wrong. 

On his rebuttal -which I haven't read anything about this really...all I can tell you is... I very much appreciate his take on morality / our consciences...and science....some feel he is over reaching & they could very well be right! ...What I appreciate about Sam Harris is ... he is a "Moral Realist"...not a "Moral Relativist"...I am one who feels Moral Relativism gives an "anything goes" attitude, which destroys societies.. 

Maverick Philosopher: Sam Harris on Rational Mysticism and Whether the Self is an Illusion

He said this


> I used the words spirituality and mysticism affirmatively, in an attempt to put the range of human experience signified by these terms on a rational footing. It seems to me that the difficulty Flynn had with this enterprise is not a problem with my book, or merely with Flynn, but a larger problem with secularism itself.
> 
> As a worldview, secularism has defined itself in opposition to the whirling absurdity of religion. Like atheism (with which it is more or less interchangeable), secularism is a negative dispensation. Being secular is not a positive virtue like being reasonable, wise, or loving. To be secular, one need do nothing more than live in perpetual opposition to the unsubstantiated claims of religious dogmatists.
> 
> Consequently, secularism has negligible appeal to the culture at large (a practical concern) and negligible content (an intellectual concern). There is, in fact, not much to secularism that should be of interest to anyone, apart from the fact that it is all that stands between sensible people like ourselves and the mad hordes of religious imbeciles who have balkanized our world, impeded the progress of science, and now place civilization itself in jeopardy.
> 
> Criticizing religious irrationality is absolutely essential. *But secularism, being nothing more than the totality of such criticism, can lead its practitioners to reject important features of human experience simply because they have been traditionally associated with religious practice*.


 I see a lot of this on TAM from those who call themselves feminists ...where I can still gleam the good or reasonableness of some of these practices like taking the man's last name... I also very much look up to my Husband and when he says NO to me... I better listen.. he always has my/ our children's best interests at heart...as it was meant to be, so I believe. 

I also like Christopher Hitchens, God rest his soul.. these things haven't given me brownie points with my Christian friends.. but they haven't dusted off their feet yet..

It's good to still value people even if it's one of these...







..


Basically this is how I look at it...


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
rape: Clearly the complete and total fault of the rapist. Women should not have to change their behavior to avoid being raped. But - in the real world as it is now, women *can* reduce their chances of being raped by taking some precautions. 

Taking precautions will not eliminate rape, just reduce the chances.


----------



## Anonymous07

marriedman321 said:


> Fathers? Why not mothers? Most kids are either raised by single moms, or always with a stay at home mom.
> 
> I don't think women necessarily like math.. Sure some might, but most girls I went to college with picked a major in which they did not have to take calculus.


Dads should be just as involved as moms are. Why not have the fathers be into it? 

It's not that most women don't like math, many really do, but we live in a society that pushes women to choose more feminine majors in college. I don't know if you have seen these toys or the advertisements for them, but I love this:

About GoldieBlox | Meet Debbie Sterling - GoldieBlox founder

Are these toys "perfect", no, but they at least start to make a point. The number of women who go into science, technology, engineering, and math is far lower than that of men. It is changing , but it is slow going. I have a bachelor's of science degree, but more than half of the people in my major were male. I had two sexist professors who told me that maybe I should "choose another major" as if I couldn't handle it as a woman. Ugh. I did perfectly fine and actually excelled there(published a paper with a female professor of mine). 

Another issue with choosing this type of major is that the work force for these fields typically don't support working mothers. If a woman wants to become a mom, she is going to have a really hard time of it. Women face a lot of problems in the work force if they want to pump breast milk during the work day, have a short maternity leave, and so on. Men don't have those problems. It is a big discouragement for women to go into these male dominated fields because they are treated so poorly.


----------



## Anonymous07

SimplyAmorous said:


> 2nd son has been with the same GF for over 3 yrs.. they are just 17..she is going to college for Forensics.. cool... but she wants children, she comes from a large family.. what I foresee is this.. she is going to spend all this money for a degree, then want to stay home.. but if she needs me to watch those babies.. I'll be happy.. gives me a purpose ! Our son better have a good job to cover her college loans.. For him to go into any marriage feeling she won't quit or want to take time off for her children would be foolish in my opinion, so he better be prepared to take on HER debt too.. at least that wasnt something my H had to do.


Why do you think it's a bad thing for your son's gf to get a degree? Even if she stays home, she can use that degree later on as their children get older and are in school(my plan, it's great to have a degree as a back up). An education is never a bad thing, as it opens doors and expands her world view. I have a bachelor's degree and I am a SAHM(for now), but I also have no debt. I had a scholarship and financial aid that paid for most of it, then paid off the rest out of pocket. I actually took on my husband's debt for his degree and we paid off most of it from my savings that I had prior to marriage. I don't regret any of it and if I have a daughter, I will highly encourage her to go to college even if she wants to be a SAHM.


----------



## ocotillo

Anonymous07 said:


> It's not that most women don't like math, many really do, but we live in a society that pushes women to choose more feminine majors in college. I don't know if you have seen these toys or the advertisements for them, but I love this:
> 
> About GoldieBlox | Meet Debbie Sterling - GoldieBlox founder
> 
> Are these toys "perfect", no, but they at least start to make a point.


Yes!. Most schools are no help at all, but the disparity in interests actually starts long before school. In addition to Cuisenaire rods, GoldieBlox and other toys, another tool that seems to have merit is, believe it or not, video games.

--Not the bloody FPS genre, but more along the lines of Portal, which forces the player to visualize in three dimensions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> FW
> 
> Yes, I finished the book. Thanks for a good recommendation and an interesting read.
> 
> *Objectification and objectification theory are both important components of feminist thought*, and feminist theory. Any student majoring in Gender studies / Women's studies / Feminist studies is going to encounter those concepts very early on.


But doing experiments to track where people's eyes are moving on other people's bodies is something that many people are interested in researching...not just "feminists". :scratchhead:

And also...who said that you or anyone else has to listen to or subscribe to what "feminists" are saying about where men's OR women's eyes are traveling upon another person's body? :scratchhead:

I'm putting "feminists" in quotes here because I have no idea who exactly you are referring to in this case, nor do I get why it is important or why it would make you feel bad about just being male, as you said in your first post I quoted about this.

Why would YOU care what "feminists" say about where people eye's travel on a study and why would it make you feel bad?


----------



## Anonymous07

ocotillo said:


> Yes!. Most schools are no help at all, but the disparity in interests actually starts long before school. In addition to Cuisenaire rods, GoldieBlox and other toys, another tool that seems to have merit is, believe it or not, video games.
> 
> --Not the bloody FPS genre, but more along the lines of Portal, which forces the player to visualize in three dimensions.


You are right that some of it starts in childhood. I feel lucky that my parents never pushed gender stereotypes on myself and my brothers. We all learned to cook, work with tools, etc. My dad was just as tough on me, as he was on my brothers. He always pushed me to think 'outside the box'. My mom has her master's degree and was a SAHM for many years before going back to work when I was in elementary school. She really showed us how great it is to get an education. 

I don't push gender stereotypes on my son and won't do so on any future child. He plays with a Barbie and baby doll. He loves to wear his baby in a carrier, like I wear my son. It's very sweet. Not exactly "boyish", but I think it will help make him a great dad some day. If we have a girl, she can choose what she wants to play with. It doesn't have to be Barbie or some pink toy. 

Sweden is one of the most progressive nations around(in the top 5) when it comes to gender equality and I thought this was interesting:

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/03/three-letter-word-driving-gender-revolution-272654.html


----------



## Anonymous07

Faithful Wife said:


> But doing experiments to track where people's eyes are moving on other people's bodies is something that many people are interested in researching...not just "feminists". :scratchhead:


Nothing to do with feminism, but many scientist study eye movement in regards to other people's bodies for insight into sex appeal. The Discovery channel has a lot of info on it(Science of Sex Appeal) and you can watch those videos online. We looked into a lot of that in some of the health science classes I took in college.


----------



## norajane

Anonymous07 said:


> Why do you think it's a bad thing for your son's gf to get a degree? Even if she stays home, she can use that degree later on as their children get older and are in school(my plan, it's great to have a degree as a back up). An education is never a bad thing, as it opens doors and expands her world view. I have a bachelor's degree and I am a SAHM(for now), but I also have no debt. I had a scholarship and financial aid that paid for most of it, then paid off the rest out of pocket. I actually took on my husband's debt for his degree and we paid off most of it from my savings that I had prior to marriage. I don't regret any of it and if I have a daughter, I will highly encourage her to go to college even if she wants to be a SAHM.


:iagree:

Women don't always have kids as soon as they are able to. Some work for a while and save up as much as they can in order to afford having children when they are ready. A college degree can help them save up more money faster by allowing them to get jobs that require degrees and pay more than jobs that don't require degrees. Plus, they can start their own 401(k)'s which will grow even after they stop working, if they choose to stop. A woman who works for 5 years after college can sock away $50,000 or more in a 401(k) and let it sit growing into much more over the next 40 years.

You also never know what will happen in the future. A college degree is useful if you find yourself needing or wanting a job, whether you choose to be a SAHM at some point or not.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I can understand this...but also on this side of the fence, someone like myself who doesn't agree with all the tangents , waves & offshoot views -outside of the LEGAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN TO BE TREATED FAIRLY IN THE COURT SYSTEM, WORK PLACE, VOTING..."under the law" as another poster pointed out.. (I'm with you here [email protected]#).....


I find the above interesting. I say the same thing. Have said it over and over here. But because I dare to use the word “Feminist” some people get bent out of shape.

I will put a caveat on this though. I have no idea what you consider “tangents, waves & offshoot views”. That’s a very broad statement. And you don’t know what I would put that label on. Are we even talking about the same things? I think you would be surprised how close we are. The differences we have are most likely driven by our lives experience. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> As you, I don't appreciate others putting me down if I happen to see some valuable input from those so quickly painted "anti-feminist" when in reality, those people too agree with the original intent of what Feminism stood for.. None of us feel women should be possessions, treated like chattel and every other awful thing that is said to shame those who might not totally agree with the new feminist whatever..this too is wrong, hurtful, only serves to divide us..


The above is caused by arguing over broadly defined ideas. When this is done with any serious topic, it will end up the same. BOTH sides not listening to the other. Then add the vitriol, the icing on the cake if you will, and it turns into something really ugly. This goes on from both sides. 


SimplyAmorous said:


> 2nd son has been with the same GF for over 3 yrs.. they are just 17..she is going to college for Forensics.. cool... but she wants children, she comes from a large family.. what I foresee is this.. she is going to spend all this money for a degree, then want to stay home.. but if she needs me to watch those babies.. I'll be happy.. gives me a purpose ! Our son better have a good job to cover her college loans.. For him to go into any marriage feeling she won't quit or want to take time off for her children would be foolish in my opinion, …


I’m going to address this, not because I have any problem with women chosing to be SAHM’s, but because I have a different take on some of the things you stated above.

Let’s remember that marriage is a partnership. She will most likely take some time off work. Women and men at the firm I work for BOTH can take off 6 months, much of it paid, at the time they have a child (through birth or adoption). And you know what, both usually do take that time. 

Do you know why both the men and the women can do this? Because both made sure that they made life choices that allowed them to get a job that has great benefits.

Your soon to be daughter-in-law can take some time off for children and then go back to work. This is what most women with an education that leads to a good, solid career do. At some point she will be able to go back to work. And she and your son can take turns staying home to take care of sick kids, taking kids to the doc, etc. etc. Raising those kids will not be only her job. Your son is equally responsible and do anything a mother can do once a child is weaned. And even when nursing, a baby can be bottle fed mother’s milk. Shoot you did not nurse your kids. Why would she have to? And they will have the best baby sitter they could every find.. YOU. 

Your soon to be daughter-in-law (stbDIL) will most likely work until she starts to have children. That can go a long way to pay her student loans.

And, your stbDIL can go back to work at whatever point she wants and the children will be fine. There is a very high probably that she will not quit working. Instead the two of them can structure their lives in a way where they share parenting, share home chores, and both work. They are going into good fields so will mostly likely have great benefits to include ones that make it easier for parents. And they will have the best child care possible.. YOU 



SimplyAmorous said:


> .. at least that wasnt something my H had to do.


Yes, you had no student loans that your husband had to pay since you stayed home and work part time. If you had gone to college and gotten a degree, the chances are that the part time work you have done all these years would have been paid much higher. So you could have taken the difference and paid your own loans. There are women where I work, women engineers, math majors, etc. who have never worked full time since they had children. But their hourly wage is as good as anyone with their same education and experience. 

Your stbDIL will be able to contribute quite a bit to her own student loans before children and while they are young. And as the children get older she will be able to work full time and pay those student loans. And she will contribute a lot more to their overall finances. So even if she does take some time off for kids, she will be able to contribute quite handsomely to the family finances and paying off her own darn student loans.

If something happens to your son (God forbid) he will have a wife who can take care of him and the children financially. 

While your husband did not have to pay off any student loans of your, he will also never benefit from having the extra income from a wife who can earn a very good income. I’m not putting you down. You brought it up. I’m only showing you that there are more than one side to this Rubik cube.

And let’s not forget that you stbDIL’s income will also go to help pay off your son’s student loans.

See, it’s not all gloom and doom. Congratulate your son for picking a woman who will a good partner in life.
Here’s an example from where I work.
One of the women on our team had a baby earlier this year. She took her 6 months off. Then she came back half time for a while. She now works from home full time, and only comes in when she needs to. Now before anyone says she’s getting special treatment because she’s a woman, over half of our team works from home and only comes in when they have to… me included. We have an international team. Our team members live all over the USA, Europe, India and China. I’ve worked on projects where I’m the only team member in the USA and/or locally. 

Going back to the one particular woman I was talking about, she is so valuable to our team that a lot of work stopped cold when she was on maternity leave. There is no one who can do what she does. To replace her would take 2-3 years of training and we have no one who could train that new person.

Her husband works in a similar field, at a different company. He’s also been able to take a lot of time to be with their new son. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. I like the older fashioned model.... and I feel shunned every time I read a poster go on about ... "It's not the 1940's anymore..


Well it’s not the 1940’s anymore. A lot has changed. That’s a fact.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Geeesh".. or speak to something I hold dear as being archaic...


This feeling right here…. The way you feel some have this sort of attitude towards you. That’s exactly how I, and a lot of women feel, when we talk about the choices we have made in lives or that HAD to take a different path because of the unexpected things that life threw at them.

There have been lots of posts on TAM where men post that women with careers are {insert list of very derogatory traits}. There have been women here who do the same thing. It’s not just SAHM’s like yourself who run into people who are less than kind and less an understanding.
Sometimes, when people post things defending their own life and explain why they have done the things they have done… it’s taken as them attacking anyone with a different life and different life choices. It’s not.
From my point of view, you have been lucky. Your life has not had the challenges that mine has. So you see the world and life differently than I do. But that does not make either of us good, bad, right, or wrong.


SimplyAmorous said:


> we need all types here at TAM.. don't we.. I represent how that sort of lifestyle can still work today.. and yes, I feel I am NOT liked for it.. and I certainly do not feel included in the circle of feminists when I speak my views... did I get ONE like from any women on this thread?? .. maybe 1.. HappyGilmore I believe.. she also prefers the "egalitarian" term ..
> 
> Listen... I know where I stand.


I have no idea why you think that you are not liked on TAM, or all this negativity. Few if anyone here looks down on you for being a SAHM. Geez.

By the way, I don’t think that you have ever liked any of my posts. Should I worry that you look down on me or don’t like me? I don’t think this is the case. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I didn't read the whole book.. and does any man, or women for that matter have it all correct ?


Your discussion on the books is interesting. But this format (the forum) is too restrictive to really get into a discussion of some very big topics. I’ll check into the books more.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> rape: Clearly the complete and total fault of the rapist. Women should not have to change their behavior to avoid being raped. But - in the real world as it is now, women *can* reduce their chances of being raped by taking some precautions.
> 
> Taking precautions will not eliminate rape, just reduce the chances.


I agree that if a women goes to a party, gets plastered. She's increasing the risk of her being raped.

But the FACT is that the vast majority of rapes occur when women have done nothing that might increase their risk. 

Yet most discussions of rape to right to talking about how women put themselves at risk and that's why they are raped.


----------



## ocotillo

Hello, FW 



Faithful Wife said:


> But doing experiments to track where people's eyes are moving on other people's bodies is something that many people are interested in researching...not just "feminists". :scratchhead:


These type of studies are done with very different motives. Some researchers attach sensors to other parts of the body (Ahem...) to correlate sexual arousal with visual stimuli. 

Others are seeking clinical validation of a component of objectification called, "Reduction To Body" which happens when we treat people simply as a collection of body parts rather than as a whole person. 




Faithful Wife said:


> And also...who said that you or anyone else has to listen to or subscribe to what "feminists" are saying about where men's OR women's eyes are traveling upon another person's body? :scratchhead:


We've all got our hobbies and interests. I'm a person who's fascinated with social movements. This particular study was summarized in the type of magazines I like to read, so stumbling across it was pretty much unavoidable. 




Faithful Wife said:


> I'm putting "feminists" in quotes here because I have no idea who exactly you are referring to in this case...


The study I'm thinking of was done by Dr. Sarah Gervais, a double Ph.D. (Psychology & Women's Studies) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln along with Theresa Vescio, Jens Forster, Anne Maass & Caterina Suitner. 

AFAIK, it's not available for free, but there's plenty of summaries to found on the internet. 





Faithful Wife said:


> ....nor do I get why it is important or why it would make you feel bad about just being male, as you said in your first post I quoted about this.
> 
> Why would YOU care what "feminists" say about where people eye's travel on a study and why would it make you feel bad?


At a personal level, I don't feel "Bad" about it because I think it's utter rubbish. Even knowing what little I know about you, I bet I could concoct a similar, "Test" that you would, "Fail" too. (And that's intended as a compliment )

At a family level, I've said that this is, "....strictly within the world that my wife and my oldest daughter live in." Both of them teach at universities.

At a social level, it's simply a factoid to be discussed. Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory and this is after all, a thread on feminism.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> But doing experiments to track where people's eyes are moving on other people's bodies is something that many people are interested in researching...not just "feminists". :scratchhead:
> 
> And also...who said that you or anyone else has to listen to or subscribe to what "feminists" are saying about where men's OR women's eyes are traveling upon another person's body? :scratchhead:
> 
> I'm putting "feminists" in quotes here because I have no idea who exactly you are referring to in this case, nor do I get why it is important or why it would make you feel bad about just being male, as you said in your first post I quoted about this.
> 
> Why would YOU care what "feminists" say about where people eye's travel on a study and why would it make you feel bad?


Good points. A lot of these types of studies are used by marketing firms to determine what to put in advertising. Knowing how the target market is going to react is important. Knowing the order in which viewers look at things in advertisements can be the difference between mediocre sales and a block buster marketing campaign.


----------



## EleGirl

Anonymous07 said:


> You are right that some of it starts in childhood. I feel lucky that my parents never pushed gender stereotypes on myself and my brothers. We all learned to cook, work with tools, etc. My dad was just as tough on me, as he was on my brothers. He always pushed me to think 'outside the box'. My mom has her master's degree and was a SAHM for many years before going back to work when I was in elementary school. She really showed us how great it is to get an education.
> 
> I don't push gender stereotypes on my son and won't do so on any future child. He plays with a Barbie and baby doll. He loves to wear his baby in a carrier, like I wear my son. It's very sweet. Not exactly "boyish", but I think it will help make him a great dad some day. If we have a girl, she can choose what she wants to play with. It doesn't have to be Barbie or some pink toy.
> 
> Sweden is one of the most progressive nations around(in the top 5) when it comes to gender equality and I thought this was interesting:
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/03/three-letter-word-driving-gender-revolution-272654.html


When my son was little he insisted that I get him a doll. He said that his daddy had a baby (him) so it's only right that he had one too. Smart kid.

When the kids (my son & my 2 step kids) were in late elementary school and junior high, my sons and daughter played with boys that are considered male and female toys. 

Barbie was a big favorite as was GI Joe. 

I'd take the kids to WalMart to buy toys. My son would buy Barbies, GI Joes, Power Rangers stuff, legos, etc. When we got to the register he's always make a comment that the bardies were a present for his cousin (LOL).

The kids all three decided that Ken was a wimp and why would Barbie want anything to do with a girly-man. So they matched up Barbie and GI Joe. Sounds like match made in heaven.

Barbie was often dressed in either GI Jane & GI Joe cloths. The pink Barbie car was a tank when GI Barbie and GI Joe were doing their military thing. Then when Barbie and GI Joe were doing civilian things, it was their cool car.

And of course legos and any building type toy were also favorites of all the kids , to include my daughter.

This idea of boy & girl toys is nonsense. There are toys. And kids have great imaginations.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anonymous07 said:


> Why do you think it's a bad thing for your son's gf to get a degree? Even if she stays home, she can use that degree later on as their children get older and are in school(my plan, it's great to have a degree as a back up). An education is never a bad thing, as it opens doors and expands her world view. I have a bachelor's degree and I am a SAHM(for now), but I also have no debt. I had a scholarship and financial aid that paid for most of it, then paid off the rest out of pocket. I actually took on my husband's debt for his degree and we paid off most of it from my savings that I had prior to marriage. I don't regret any of it and if I have a daughter, I will highly encourage her to go to college even if she wants to be a SAHM.


I didn't say that it was a bad thing ...you are reading into my words.. I am only concerned that if she decides to stay home how much extra debt he will be taking on.. paying back 2 College educations... I regret saying anything and I have nothing further to add.... Hats off to you all.. you have worked harder, you are smarter...and I live in the 1940's.. 

Yes Elegirl my husband could have married a more educated woman with a degree so if something happens... I can take care of him... thank you for reminding me I made all the wrong choices in life... 

I am very proud of how well we have done financially with what we have.....even if it's on a much smaller scale of proud & satisfaction you all carry... 

Son's GF is pretty liberal with her spending, she likes to get the finest of everything..her parents don't mind being in debt.. they make about the same income as us.. but they spoil her -the only daughter... we're not like that... 

I do worry if she does quit.. and expects the same sort of lifestyle ...those 2 will be having some conflict...not so compatible in this area... which he is aware of...she bought him something for their Anniversary...it was expensive .. he was complaining just yesterday to me how much money she wasted on that and could have gotten it much cheaper.. Love the girl.. we all do... and she is nuts about him.. but this is the one area I personally worry about... they are not on the same page.. 

This was where my head was at writing the post.. not against her getting a degree.. but oh well..


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I didn't say that it was a bad thing ...you are reading into my words.. I am only concerned that if she decides to stay home how much extra debt he will be taking on.. paying back 2 College educations... I regret saying anything and I have nothing further to add....


Now this is getting ridiculous. I replied to you not to put you down but to point out another point of view that is more positive to your stbDIL and your son’s choices. 

Not one person is putting you down, saying that you made bad choices, or that you are living in a past error. We are saying that when people make other choices, that’s ok. And their choices have no impact on your choices what so ever. Your choices are you choices and they are good for you.

However some of us had not chance to make the same choices you did. I certainly never had the chance to choose the type of life you did. But you hold that against me. Your posts are often directed at putting down women who do not have the same life you do. I don’t hold your choices against you. Nor do I hold your extreme good luck against you. I’m tired of having the fact that I have had to become the breadwinner and I found a way to do it very well thrown in my face by some posters.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Hats off to you all.. you have worked harder, you are smarter...and I live in the 1940's..


You, your life, is not what life was like in the 1940’s. Believe me it was not. But you have a good life. No one has said that they worked harder or are smarter. We are saying that there are all kinds of choices, they are all good. People often make the choices they do based on the good fortune and/or crap life hands them.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes Elegirl my husband could have married a more educated woman with a degree so if something happens... I can take care of him... thank you for reminding me I made all the wrong choices in life...


I never said that you made the wrong choices. DO NOT PUT THAT ON ME. YOU ARE NOW TRYING TO SHAME ME FOR POINTING OUT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK at the situation with you stbDIL.


SimplyAmorous said:


> I am very proud of how well we have done financially with what we have.....even if it's on a much smaller scale of proud & satisfaction you all carry...


You do have a lot to be proud of. You are now where near as poor as you keep telling us you are. You two own a large piece of absolutely beautiful land, you have a good home. You have told us that you have save a lot. That there is insurance and savings to take care of you no matter what happens. You have done better and are more blessed then most people.


SimplyAmorous said:


> Son's GF is pretty liberal with her spending, she likes to get the finest of everything..her parents don't mind being in debt.. they make about the same income as us.. but they spoil her -the only daughter... we're not like that...


Different strokes for different folks. It’s a good thing that she will be able to support her own spending.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I do worry if she does quit.. and expects the same sort of lifestyle ...those 2 will be having some conflict...not so compatible in this area... which he is aware of...she bought him something for their Anniversary...it was expensive .. he was complaining just yesterday to me how much money she wasted on that and could have gotten it much cheaper.. Love the girl.. we all do... and she is nuts about him.. but this is the one area I personally worry about... they are not on the same page..


I can understand that worry. They have time to work this out.



SimplyAmorous said:


> This was where my head was at writing the post.. not against her getting a degree.. but oh well..


Again, when I replied I was only giving another way to look at the situation.


----------



## always_alone

Simply Amorous, you really should stop beating yourself up for being who you are. If you think you should be more educated or "wordly" (whatever that means), then step out of your comfort zone, take a course, travel, or teach yourself a new skill.

If you are truly happy with who you are, then embrace it, and never mind what people think of you. While there may be people who will challenge your world view or feel that it doesn't apply to them, there will be others cheering you on and wishing they had it so good.

As Elegirl has been so eloquently and exhaustively arguing, feminism is about empowerment and, most of all, the choice to pursue your own happiness and fulfillment.


----------



## Anonymous07

SimplyAmorous said:


> I didn't say that it was a bad thing ...you are reading into my words.. I am only concerned that if she decides to stay home how much extra debt he will be taking on.. paying back 2 College educations... I regret saying anything and I have nothing further to add.... Hats off to you all.. you have worked harder, you are smarter...and I live in the 1940's..
> 
> Yes Elegirl my husband could have married a more educated woman with a degree so if something happens... I can take care of him... thank you for reminding me I made all the wrong choices in life...
> 
> I am very proud of how well we have done financially with what we have.....even if it's on a much smaller scale of proud & satisfaction you all carry...
> 
> Son's GF is pretty liberal with her spending, she likes to get the finest of everything..her parents don't mind being in debt.. they make about the same income as us.. but they spoil her -the only daughter... we're not like that...
> 
> I do worry if she does quit.. and expects the same sort of lifestyle ...those 2 will be having some conflict...not so compatible in this area... which he is aware of...she bought him something for their Anniversary...it was expensive .. he was complaining just yesterday to me how much money she wasted on that and could have gotten it much cheaper.. Love the girl.. we all do... and she is nuts about him.. but this is the one area I personally worry about... they are not on the same page..
> 
> This was where my head was at writing the post.. not against her getting a degree.. but oh well..


No one is putting down your lifestyle SA(what you do works great for you). We're just saying that your future DIL can choose to do things differently than yourself and still have a good life, too. This is their life, not yours, which I think you need to keep in mind. 

Your son and future DIL are still very young and have a lot of time to sort through finances before marriage. That is something they will have to work out and really talk about/plan ahead for.


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> Simply Amorous, you really should stop beating yourself up for being who you are. If you think you should be more educated or "wordly" (whatever that means), then step out of your comfort zone, take a course, travel, or teach yourself a new skill.
> 
> If you are truly happy with who you are, then embrace it, and never mind what people think of you. While there may be people who will challenge your world view or feel that it doesn't apply to them, there will be others cheering you on and wishing they had it so good.
> 
> As Elegirl has been so eloquently and exhaustively arguing, feminism is about empowerment and, most of all, the choice to pursue your own happiness and fulfillment.


:iagree: In my eyes SA has done exactly what feminism is about.... she chose the life she wanted and has made it work very well... better and a whole lot of people.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening EleGirl
I don't know the statistics. Where I am, college frat rapes are the most discussed (maybe not most common) and they have a patter of women getting drunk. Please don't misunderstand - it is not a woman's *fault* if she gets drunk, she has every right to, but I think it increases her chances of being raped. 

I think a lot of people talk about what women can do because it is not easy to change what rapists do. Most men are not rapists, and I suspect most do not know any rapists (I don't - as far as I know). So they don't see an easy way to influence the criminals. 


So to me a women is not "raped because she was drunk". I'd rather say that she was "less able to avoid being raped because she was drunk". 

There is lots of room to discuss improved enforcement. Its tricky though - most rapes (I think) happen without witnesses and with minimal physical evidence (of rape as opposed to sex). This makes it difficult to convict on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The increasing prevalence of surveillance will undoubtedly help this, while making some other problems worse. 





EleGirl said:


> I agree that if a women goes to a party, gets plastered. She's increasing the risk of her being raped.
> 
> But the FACT is that the vast majority of rapes occur when women have done nothing that might increase their risk.
> 
> Yet most discussions of rape to right to talking about how women put themselves at risk and that's why they are raped.


----------



## marriedman321

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening EleGirl
> I don't know the statistics. Where I am, college frat rapes are the most discussed (maybe not most common) and they have a patter of women getting drunk. Please don't misunderstand - it is not a woman's *fault* if she gets drunk, she has every right to, but I think it increases her chances of being raped.
> 
> I think a lot of people talk about what women can do because it is not easy to change what rapists do. Most men are not rapists, and I suspect most do not know any rapists (I don't - as far as I know). So they don't see an easy way to influence the criminals.
> 
> 
> So to me a women is not "raped because she was drunk". I'd rather say that she was "less able to avoid being raped because she was drunk".
> 
> There is lots of room to discuss improved enforcement. Its tricky though - most rapes (I think) happen without witnesses and with minimal physical evidence (of rape as opposed to sex). This makes it difficult to convict on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The increasing prevalence of surveillance will undoubtedly help this, while making some other problems worse.


Let me use an analogy..

Let's pretend I decide to go to a gay bar..

I know the guys there are gay.. So, I decide to start drinking Vodka like crazy..

I then decide to go back to someone's house for an after party.. I then wake up the next morning and my pants are off..

Now how many people feminists would feel sorry for me if I claim rape? The logic would be "hey, why did you get drunk at a gay bar and go back to a guys house.. you are a man, you should know better! Get over it and don't do that again idiot.."

And that's the irony.. Women are equal, strong, and just like men on one hand, but on the other hand they are naive, can't handle alcohol, exhibit poor judgement, and will forever be scarred because they had drunken sex at a party they don't even remember. 

In my example, the gay guy, who is also a member of a leftist protected group, will not be viewed as a horrible violent rapist.. he was a guy having fun..However the frat guy who had sex with the drunk girl, the straight man, deserves life in prison and is scum of the earth.


----------



## Revamped

There is NEVER a circumstance where blame should be placed on the victim, regardless of who that victim is.


----------



## NobodySpecial

You cannot have sex WITH someone who is that inebriated. You can only have sex on them. Or at them. Not with them. Men are protected from this by the inability to get it up.

Sickening.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> I agree that if a women goes to a party, gets plastered. She's increasing the risk of her being raped.
> 
> But the FACT is that the vast majority of rapes occur when women have done nothing that might increase their risk.
> 
> Yet most discussions of rape to right to talking about how women put themselves at risk and that's why they are raped.


Hello Richard!!



richardsharpe said:


> Good evening EleGirl
> I don't know the statistics. Where I am, college frat rapes are the most discussed (maybe not most common) and they have a patter of women getting drunk. Please don't misunderstand - it is not a woman's *fault* if she gets drunk, she has every right to, but I think it increases her chances of being raped.


Of course this type of rape is the most discussed. It’s discussed because it’s sensational and it helps to create the image that any woman who is raped brought it on herself by the way she behaved and/or dressed.



richardsharpe said:


> I think a lot of people talk about what women can do because it is not easy to change what rapists do. Most men are not rapists, and I suspect most do not know any rapists (I don't - as far as I know). So they don't see an easy way to influence the criminals.


Here are some numbers to contemplate. About 10% of rapes happen away from home or a familiar/safe place like the home of a friend, neighbor or relative. So… Frat rapes are less than 10% of all rapes.

About four out of ten sexual assaults take place at the victim’s own home. 

*Two in ten* take place in the home of a friend, neighbor or relative. 

*One in ten* take place outside, away from home. 

*one in 12 *take place in a parking garage.

Only *10% *of rapes are committed by strangers.



richardsharpe said:


> So to me a women is not "raped because she was drunk". I'd rather say that she was "less able to avoid being raped because she was drunk".


Putting it that way, it sounds like it’s her fault because she did not fight back. The fact is that women getting drunk does to cause them to be raped. What causes them to be raped is that there is a rapist present who is looking for a victim. Rapists almost always pick the easy victim. But if there is no easy victims, they will just pick anyone who they can get in private enough situation. 

Even if none of the women at the party got drunk, if there is a man there looking to rape, he will rape someone.



richardsharpe said:


> There is lots of room to discuss improved enforcement. Its tricky though - most rapes (I think) happen without witnesses and with minimal physical evidence (of rape as opposed to sex). This makes it difficult to convict on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The increasing prevalence of surveillance will undoubtedly help this, while making some other problems worse.


Yep. Rapists pick the easiest victim they can find and usually the most private place they can find. This is why most rapes cure in the woman’s home or another home where she thinks she’s safe. It is usually when the woman is in the home alone.

Rape kits and DNA testing have gone a long way to help prosecute rapes.

So yes, we do need to teach both young women and young men to be very careful about getting drunk, especially in some environments. But overall, doing that will prevent only a small number of rapes. It will hardly touch the overall rape statistics.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Hmm, if he were to get you intentionally drunk and take advantage of you, then it would be rape. And wow , homosexuals are still one of the most highly discriminated groups. They often face more assault, slander, and still not seen as equals. Yes, there could be false cases of rape, but I think a high majority of them are legit. Most women don't report rape still because of the mentality of being blame for their assault. If a woman was past out, and a random guy rape her, yes he does deserve to go to jail. If you were drunk and lying around, and a random gay guy had sex with you, that would be rape. In both cases, no one gave consent. If homosexuals were out there drugging people with date rape drugs as much as frats, men at bars, I wouldn't blame the men that got raped. It would be like blaming a random person walking home from work, getting mugged, blaming them for walking alone. That person had the intent to mug, and that guy who slip a drug into that girl's drink, had the intent to rape. Most cases of drunk driving happen at night, so if you decided to go around town, and a drunk driver hits you, does it make it partially your fault. Like cheaters, I thought people are responsible for their actions. Sure you can have a crappy marriage, but do you blame the bs if the ws cheats, or is the ws responsible for what they do? It was their choice to cheat, just like rape, it is someone's choice to rape.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> Let me use an analogy..
> 
> Let's pretend I decide to go to a gay bar..
> 
> I know the guys there are gay.. So, I decide to start drinking Vodka like crazy..
> 
> I then decide to go back to someone's house for an after party.. I then wake up the next morning and my pants are off..
> 
> Now how many people feminists would feel sorry for me if I claim rape? The logic would be "hey, why did you get drunk at a gay bar and go back to a guys house.. you are a man, you should know better! Get over it and don't do that again idiot.."
> 
> And that's the irony.. Women are equal, strong, and just like men on one hand, but on the other hand they are naive, can't handle alcohol, exhibit poor judgement, and will forever be scarred because they had drunken sex at a party they don't even remember.


So now you think you know how women would react to a man being raped by another man. Rape is rape. It does not matter what gender the victim is.



marriedman321 said:


> In my example, the gay guy, who is also a member of a leftist protected group, will not be viewed as a horrible violent rapist.. he was a guy having fun..However the frat guy who had sex with the drunk girl, the straight man, deserves life in prison and is scum of the earth.


And now you know all about how gay people think.

You must be a gay woman to know all this.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I really don't want to keep posting on here, it just works me up emotionally......I literally had to read some articles where others think it is worth something to choose to stay home with children .....to counteract how some of these posts make me feel.....if that makes me too sensitive, I'm sorry... that's who I am.. I wouldn't change it anyway.. it has it's good side...I will always pick myself up.. 

In googling the relationship between Feminists & stay at home Mom's trying to find more understanding.....I came across this -very much the opposite.... 

I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry- of course this is a radical... but still it burns you to read ANYONE CAN FEEL LIKE THIS...



> Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.
> 
> Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same. It’s hard for me to believe it’s not just verbally placating these people so they don’t get in trouble with the mommy bloggers.
> 
> Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with.
> 
> These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average?


Days later she corrected this (after much backlash- she had to do some damage control after all).....


> "The great thing about Feminism is that it means that women can do anything. You can be a working woman or a stay at home mother and both choices are equally valid. There is no “wrong way” to do feminism. This means that as good feminists, we never judge the choices of other women."


This article explores that divide.. (very short) On Amy Glass, Stay-at-Home Moms, and Feminism: When Will We Stop Judging Each Other? 

I'd really LIKE to believe the majority of Feminists THINK like this..but when near every discussion is so focused on the importance of being financially independent ...working for equality in the workplace....that women are not yet making what men are making...they need to get into more engineering/ math fields... how can we, by our choices feel any part of that landscape...us traditionally minded women who just want to cater to our men, enjoying our mundane role...feeling it has value enough ( I get THAT from him, but not feminists).... I can't help but feel on the outside looking in.... 

This article captures how some of us feel....I only share because we are in the minority now , it can feel ostracizing at times...

Why Do Feminists Heap Such Scorn on Stay at Home Moms? 

Coming upon this article.. I think it makes a lot of sense to WHY many feminists do this though... 

Solving the “Problem” of Stay at Home Moms



> Early on in graduate school I met a woman who identifies as a second wave feminist (personally, I’m third wave all the way). She told me that she’s opposed to stay at home moms, because every time a woman drops out of the workforce, or declines to enter it, she stands in the way of gender equality and makes things harder for women as a whole.
> 
> How? Well, the greater the number of women who drop out of the workforce, the more likely employers will be to view women as a risky investment—and the fewer women in the workplace the more likely workplaces will be male-dominated and male-centric.
> 
> In fact, she went so far as to suggest that women should be required to work and not allowed to stay home, as this would ultimately lead to greater gender equality.
> 
> While I could see the intuitive sense in what she was saying, it made me extremely uncomfortable. I have several good friends who are stay at home moms, two in particular. Each of them worked in their early to mid twenties, and quit to stay home when they had their first baby. In each case these decisions were affected by their job prospects—one in particular was on a job track with little in the way of advancement—and by the extremely high cost of daycare, as well as by personal preference. Both identify as feminists, and both have completely supportive husbands. I am not okay with the idea of forcing these women to have jobs outside of the home, especially when home is where they’ve chosen to be.
> 
> 
> *I think part of the problem here is that sometimes there is a conflict between choice and equality. *I mean, think about it: If women always chose to take low paying jobs (say, teacher, or secretary) while men chose to take high paying jobs (say, accountant, or banker), there would never be economic equality between the genders. And it’s not just that. As long as more women go into teaching and more men into banking, even if it is by choice, teaching will pay less and banking as a career won’t be friendly to women.
> 
> * If you could equalize the number going into each, this would start to change. So it becomes a sort of circle, and sometimes an endorsement of “choice” is not actually the most efficient way to bring about equality.* The woman I met in graduate school was right that the most efficient way of achieving economic and social equality, as well as a more family friendly workplace environment, would be to require all women to enter the workplace.





> *Elegirl said*:Your posts are often directed at putting down women who do not have the same life you do.


 it hurts me very much if others see me in this light... if so, I have no purpose or worth being on TAM at all.... 

Or is it just expressing my own experiences.....as we all do...some may find things I say triggering - due to their sensibilities -just as these type of threads are to me, I feel "lessor".....if others feel this is intentional...and "often".... then I need to pack my bags & just say Goodbye....



> You are now where near as poor as you keep telling us you are. You two own a large piece of absolutely beautiful land, you have a good home. You have told us that you have save a lot. That there is insurance and savings to take care of you no matter what happens.


 I only speak that we would be considered Low income by our family size...being very frugal is a large part of our early years... some of our stories would have some shaking their heads...but it did help us save $$... We are no where near 6 figures & never will be.. but we're OK with that... we wanted to have our children younger.... had we waited till our 30's to start a family as so many feel is best...finding out we couldn't conceive -living 7 yrs of infertility... we would not have the family we have today...




> *Anonymous07 said*: This is their life, not yours, which I think you need to keep in mind.


 this comment jabbed me.. .. I am aware of the proper boundaries in relationships when we care to be a help, not a hindrance.....I well understand that a Mothers role is finished, severed when her sons fly the nest, even before they marry.. why I cried a river when we dropped our 1st son off at college.. I know my place......We only have so many yrs to mentor them to make good choices for their lives...then you allow them to come to you...you don't expect, you don't interfere...

My MIL has been the most gracious to understand this in our own lives.. . we are not even close, very little in common but she loves me -because I love her son & treat him good.. that's all that matters to the heart of a mother.. 

If anything...the only meddling I have done lately is.. his GF was in a School play & he was going to blow it off -he hates musicals.. even told her he didn't want to go, but I persuaded him to be there for her , bought his ticket.... we went to see her, supporting her...she is a wonderful person ...very devoted ... I can't see him ever finding another like her...she just spends money more liberally than our family would...but that would probably be true of most we met..



EleGirl said:


> :iagree: In my eyes SA has done exactly what feminism is about.... she chose the life she wanted and has made it work very well... better and a whole lot of people.


 Thank you Always Alone & Elegirl for what you said ....I grew up just wanting a family, because I felt I didn't have much of one.....I am very thankful for what I have today.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really don't want to keep posting on here, it just works me up emotionally......I literally had to read some articles where others think it is worth something to choose to stay home with children .....to counteract how some of these posts make me feel.....if that makes me too sensitive, I'm sorry... that's who I am.. I wouldn't change it anyway.. it has it's good side...I will always pick myself up..
> 
> In googling the relationship between Feminists & stay at home Mom's trying to find more understanding.....I came across this -very much the opposite....
> 
> I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry- of course this is a radical... but still it burns you to read ANYONE CAN FEEL LIKE THIS...
> 
> 
> 
> Days later she corrected this (after much backlash- she had to do some damage control after all).....
> 
> This article explores that divide.. (very short) On Amy Glass, Stay-at-Home Moms, and Feminism: When Will We Stop Judging Each Other?
> 
> I'd really LIKE to believe the majority of Feminists THINK like this..but when near every discussion is so focused on the importance of being financially independent ...working for equality in the workplace....that women are not yet making what men are making...they need to get into more engineering/ math fields... how can we, by our choices feel any part of that landscape...us traditionally minded women who just want to cater to our men, enjoying our mundane role...feeling it has value enough ( I get THAT from him, but not feminists).... I can't help but feel on the outside looking in....
> 
> This article captures how some of us feel....I only share because we are in the minority now , it can feel ostracizing at times...
> 
> Why Do Feminists Heap Such Scorn on Stay at Home Moms?
> 
> Coming upon this article.. I think it makes a lot of sense to WHY many feminists do this though...
> 
> Solving the “Problem” of Stay at Home Moms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it hurts me very much if others see me in this light... if so, I have no purpose or worth being on TAM at all....
> 
> Or is it just expressing my own experiences.....as we all do...some may find things I say triggering - due to their sensibilities -just as these type of threads are to me, I feel "lessor".....if others feel this is intentional...and "often".... then I need to pack my bags & just say Goodbye....
> 
> I only speak that we would be considered Low income by our family size...being very frugal is a large part of our early years... some of our stories would have some shaking their heads...but it did help us save $$... We are no where near 6 figures & never will be.. but we're OK with that... we wanted to have our children younger.... had we waited till our 30's to start a family as so many feel is best...finding out we couldn't conceive -living 7 yrs of infertility... we would not have the family we have today...
> 
> 
> this comment jabbed me.. .. I am aware of the proper boundaries in relationships when we care to be a help, not a hindrance.....I well understand that a Mothers role is finished, severed when her sons fly the nest, even before they marry.. why I cried a river when we dropped our 1st son off at college.. I know my place......We only have so many yrs to mentor them to make good choices for their lives...then you allow them to come to you...you don't expect, you don't interfere...
> 
> My MIL has been the most gracious to understand this in our own lives.. . we are not even close, very little in common but she loves me -because I love her son & treat him good.. that's all that matters to the heart of a mother..
> 
> If anything...the only meddling I have done lately is.. his GF was in a School play & he was going to blow it off -he hates musicals.. even told her he didn't want to go, but I persuaded him to be there for her , bought his ticket.... we went to see her, supporting her...she is a wonderful person ...very devoted ... I can't see him ever finding another like her...she just spends money more liberally than our family would...but that would probably be true of most we met..
> 
> Thank you Always Alone & Elegirl for what you said ....I grew up just wanting a family, because I felt I didn't have much of one.....I am very thankful for what I have today.



I think the way some men and women look down on sahds also. I think some people equate worth with what someone brings home financially. Fact is, without a good support system at home, those people would not be as successful, their focus would be scattered in too many directions. I have seen men calling stay-at-home-dads as inferior names. There should be nothing wrong with taking care of the fort, while your partner tries to conquer the world. 

To me, feminism represents that women should be treated equally in all aspects of life. If a man or woman wants to seek higher education, then they should recieve the same opportunities. If a man or woman decide to be stay at home parents, then they should be respected. Raising a child is a job. If both parents are working, then you would have to allocate that responsibility to someone else, and that would cost money. If someone is putting the time and energy into something, then they should be respected. After all, your using that time and energy to help create a stable environment, improve your family's circumstances, and your doing it for the benefit for those you love.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> it hurts me very much if others see me in this light... if so, I have no purpose or worth being on TAM at all....
> 
> Or is it just expressing my own experiences.....as we all do...some may find things I say triggering - due to their sensibilities -just as these type of threads are to me, I feel "lessor".....if others feel this is intentional...and "often".... then I need to pack my bags & just say Goodbye....


Bah… no reason for you to say Goodbye…. We’d all miss you.

This what happens. It’s a good part of why you get to feeling like people put you down.

I know that we’ve had discussions, for example, that I think a woman needs to have a fallback position so that if her husband leaves her, she has to leave him, he gets sick, he loses his job. 

And you stated that you don’t think that’s necessary.

We are both speaking from our experience. 

When I was 22 I married a nice guy and thought I was going to have a life pretty much like yours.

I believe what I do because in my life, that’s what I needed. Well my husband had in intracranial aneurism and then brain surgery and he suffered brain damage. I had to drop out of school and support us. I could only fine a full time job paying $250 a month. We had huge medical bills. Every good paying job I tried to get I was laughed at , told that a woman could not do that kind of work, no one wanted to buy appliances from a woman, etc. etc. etc. And it’s hardly the last time a hard lesson push me in that direction. I just don’t want to bore you with the “rest of the story”.

You believe as you do because your nice guy did not get sick, and you were never thrust into the same position I was. As I said you are lucky, perhaps blessed is a better word. (And I think I am blessed to, but in a very different way.)



SimplyAmorous said:


> I only speak that we would be considered Low income by our family size...being very frugal is a large part of our early years... some of our stories would have some shaking their heads...but it did help us save $$... We are no where near 6 figures & never will be.. but we're OK with that... we wanted to have our children younger.... had we waited till our 30's to start a family as so many feel is best...finding out we couldn't conceive -living 7 yrs of infertility... we would not have the family we have today...


There is a book you should read: “The Millionaire Next Door”. Now you might not be a millionaire (or you might), but with what you and your husband have pulled off you just make get there. The book talks about the fact that a person’s income has little to do with their wealth/assets. Most people who make a high income, live paycheck to paycheck. Most millionaires (those who have at least a million in assets) are frugal and live in a normal middle-Middle Class neighborhood, drive an older car and buy their clothing at JC Pennies. You really ought to read the book. I think you would see yourselves in it.



SimplyAmorous said:


> this comment jabbed me.. ..


It was not meant to jab you. As a mother of child around your children’s ages, I know I need to be reminded of that, sometimes often. We want so much good for our kids and it’s hard to have to step back. I get it.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Thank you Always Alone & Elegirl for what you said ....I grew up just wanting a family, because I felt I didn't have much of one.....I am very thankful for what I have today.


You are welcome.

Oh and those articles you posted and talked about. Yea, there are some idiots who are say they are feminists.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening marriedman321
I don't know what anyone else would say, but I would say you were raped. If one of my gay friends drove me home because I was too drunk, then took advantage of me while I was passed out, I'd call it rape. 



marriedman321 said:


> Let me use an analogy..
> 
> Let's pretend I decide to go to a gay bar..
> 
> I know the guys there are gay.. So, I decide to start drinking Vodka like crazy..
> 
> I then decide to go back to someone's house for an after party.. I then wake up the next morning and my pants are off..
> 
> Now how many people feminists would feel sorry for me if I claim rape? The logic would be "hey, why did you get drunk at a gay bar and go back to a guys house.. you are a man, you should know better! Get over it and don't do that again idiot.."
> 
> And that's the irony.. Women are equal, strong, and just like men on one hand, but on the other hand they are naive, can't handle alcohol, exhibit poor judgement, and will forever be scarred because they had drunken sex at a party they don't even remember.
> 
> In my example, the gay guy, who is also a member of a leftist protected group, will not be viewed as a horrible violent rapist.. he was a guy having fun..However the frat guy who had sex with the drunk girl, the straight man, deserves life in prison and is scum of the earth.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening EleGirl
> I don't know the statistics. Where I am, college frat rapes are the most discussed (maybe not most common) and they have a patter of women getting drunk. Please don't misunderstand - it is not a woman's *fault* if she gets drunk, she has every right to, but I think it increases her chances of being raped.
> 
> I think a lot of people talk about what women can do because it is not easy to change what rapists do. Most men are not rapists, and I suspect most do not know any rapists (I don't - as far as I know). So they don't see an easy way to influence the criminals.


How can men who are not rapists help? 

How about instead of blaming women for taking such a terrible risk like going to a fraternity party, actually criticizing the fraternities themselves. They do seem, after all, to be chock full of rapists, and practically a training ground for them.

How about instead of admonishing women for being so careless as to have a drink, calling for consistent prosecution and punishment of a$$holes who put date rape drugs in those drinks? 

Did you know that recent fraternity party case, women were systematically drugged? Like all of them?

Or instead of shrugging and excusing the behaviour as just guys having a bit of a laugh, or just making the most of an opportunity, actually acknowledging the reality and scope of the problem? 

Or instead of calling out women for being so bloody stupid as to go on date, or go to a man's apartment, or ever be anywhere alone with one, just stop for a second and realize what you are saying: basically any time a woman puts any trust in a man she is putting herself at risk of rape.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening marriedman321
> I don't know what anyone else would say, but I would say you were raped. If one of my gay friends drove me home because I was too drunk, then took advantage of me while I was passed out, I'd call it rape.


Absolutely! And to say anything else is to diminish a very real crime.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening eligirl
(didn't copy the whole thread, it was too long).

From your numbers, it sounds like most rapes happen in the home. Are those (I presume) women raped by a partner as opposed to a stranger? These are of course very difficult to prosecute cases because it is so hard to prove a lack of consent. I hope any woman who is raped would never return to that partner (whether or not she could press charges). but I know that isn't true. 

Some of those home rapes are presumably also when the victim was drunk, but I don't know how many.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't consider someone to be at fault if the were unable to fight off an attack (rape or any other attack). 

DNA testing is good for proving that people had sex, but proving lack of consent, especially for acquaintance rapes, is very difficult unless there is significant physical injury. 

The issue of rapists "just picking another victim" is a very interesting / important one. In most cases does the rapist decide to rape, then pick the easiest victim, OR does the rapists see an easy victim and decide to rape? Is taking precautions changing the number of rapes, or only changing which women are raped? (I have no idea - are there any studies).

If precautions just change the victim, then this is not a way to reduce rapes in general. 

Universal surveillance WOULD greatly reduce rapes (or at least allow convictions in almost all cases). Is that worth the cost? I believe the technology exists to do this. 

Its an interesting thing to ponder: since most rapes happen at home, would you be willing to put cameras (encrypted) in every room of your house so that if you were raped it would be easy to prove in court?


----------



## Revamped

marriedman321 said:


> This is funny.
> 
> We are really thinking drunk sorority girls are all giving verbal consent to have sex..They get wasted, hang out with the popular boys and then say "Sir, you my have sex with me right now"
> 
> You see, feminism turned young women into party animals. They are told "Go party with the boys! You are equal". Have sex like men!" Oh but, wait. on the other hand women are the weaker sex that can be taken advantage of.. SHHHHHH ...Don't repeat that again..
> 
> The vast vast majority go out to party, meet guys, get wasted, get laid. They do not care in the morning at all. I lived at a university and know how they behave. Isn't that what we are striving for? Women to be like guys?
> 
> So, similarly, guys at University become used to this.. They understand the non verbal cues of todays "ladies". They go out to get drunk, black out, get laid like their female counterparts.
> 
> Then , someone snaps a photo.. Or a girl is labeled a ****. Or a video emerges. "Oh, she was raped and the drunk boy is a rapist!" This lady now says she does not remember consenting!
> 
> You can't tell men and women to get wasted together , and then call one a criminal for what he has become used to. He became used to this because of today's female behavior.


This is purely offensive. 

Please don't teach your son this is ok to think.


----------



## Revamped

A feminist would raise her son to think an act of violence such as rape is reprehensible and wrong.

Therefore, she'd throw his butt in prison herself.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always_alone
no one I know (as opposed to idiots on the internet) has every suggested that the victims are to blame. All they suggest is that they can take precautions to avoid the rapists (a very different statement). 

People tend to socialize with others with similar beliefs. I don't know any rapists because I wouldn't socialize with anyone who indicated having any thoughts in that direction. I was never in a frat and certainly would not have been in one with that sort of activity going on. 

I am completely in favor of harsh penalties when rape or drugging can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 


I know that some people do have the attitudes that you suggest, but it is far from universal for men to think that way. 




always_alone said:


> How can men who are not rapists help?
> 
> How about instead of blaming women for taking such a terrible risk like going to a fraternity party, actually criticizing the fraternities themselves. They do seem, after all, to be chock full of rapists, and practically a training ground for them.
> 
> How about instead of admonishing women for being so careless as to have a drink, calling for consistent prosecution and punishment of a$$holes who put date rape drugs in those drinks?
> 
> Did you know that recent fraternity party case, women were systematically drugged? Like all of them?
> 
> Or instead of shrugging and excusing the behaviour as just guys having a bit of a laugh, or just making the most of an opportunity, actually acknowledging the reality and scope of the problem?
> 
> Or instead of calling out women for being so bloody stupid as to go on date, or go to a man's apartment, or ever be anywhere alone with one, just stop for a second and realize what you are saying: basically any time a woman puts any trust in a man she is putting herself at risk of rape.


----------



## always_alone

marriedman321 said:


> You can't tell men and women to get wasted together , and then call one a criminal for what he has become used to. He became used to this because of today's female behavior.


You seem to be a little confused about the difference between having sex and rape. Let me help you: having sex is consensual, both parties are into it. Rape is non-consensual. 

It is a very real and traumatic crime perpetuated against both women and men.


----------



## richardsharpe

There are two different issues:
Whether a rape occurred, and whether there is enough evidence to convict someone for rape. 

If he actually raped her, then pretty much everyone (including his mother) would be happy to see him in prison. If she *claimed* he raped her, then people will disagree on the appropriate standard of proof. 






marriedman321 said:


> I can guarantee one thing..
> 
> If a feminist's son was facing 20 years in prison because some drunk sorority girl claimed she was raped (Does not remember consenting as she was wasted) her tune would change real quickly about what is rape and what is not..


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> no one I know (as opposed to idiots on the internet) has every suggested that the victims are to blame. All they suggest is that they can take precautions to avoid the rapists (a very different statement).


Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you out specifically, nor was I suggesting that you personally think all of those things.

But have you ever noticed that whenever this issue comes up, the immediate reaction is that women shouldn't drink or party, or go to a man's apartment, and if she does, she is either asking for it (and should know that) or putting herself at risk. 

Why do you suppose that is, if it isn't about blaming the victim and excusing rapists as boys being boys? 

Why can't the conversation ever be about what a horrible thing rape is, and what steps we might take to stop people from committing it?


----------



## marriedman321

always_alone said:


> You seem to be a little confused about the difference between having sex and rape. Let me help you: having sex is consensual, both parties are into it. Rape is non-consensual.
> 
> It is a very real and traumatic crime perpetuated against both women and men.


it depends.. It is hardly ever this clear with young girls involved..

You see, often times they don't want to appear to be easy, so they do not verbally consent.. If a guy asks her "Can i have sex with you", he might as well just put his clothes back on and go home..

So many girls live in their own type of fantasy, and being a **** is perhaps the last thing they want to be.. So they can blame it on alcohol, never really consent, or afterwards twist it in their own mind that they were raped if they do not like how the guy acts after..

If a friend asks "Did you have sex with Joe", they will says "i don't know, or no, or maybe, or i can't remember etc" Even if they clearly remember having sex. 

Example..

Man grab girl and passionately kisses.. She does the usual "No, no" when he touches more of her..

They continue and he fingers her.. before you know it they are having sex.. Not much if any resistance..

Now there are 2 outcomes after..

A. he finishes and hugs her, kisses her, and wants to see her again.. = not rape..

B. He runs out the door after finishing inside.. = Rape


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marriedman321 said:


> Man grab girl and passionately kisses.. She does the usual "No, no" when he touches more of her..
> 
> They continue and he fingers her.. before you know it they are having sex.. Not much if any resistance..
> 
> Now there are 2 outcomes after..
> 
> A. he finishes and hugs her, kisses her, and wants to see her again.. = not rape..
> 
> B. He runs out the door after finishing inside.. = Rape


Or he stops when she says no like he should.

ETA: seriously- saying no, no and "not much" resistance is NOT just girls being girls. 

Teach your sons to find a woman who will say YES, not one who they can eventually make to stop saying NO.


----------



## marriedman321

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Or he stops when she says no like he should.
> 
> ETA: seriously- saying no, no and "not much" resistance is NOT just girls being girls.
> 
> Teach your sons to find a woman who will say YES, not one who they can eventually make to stop saying NO.


Well this is a good thing that women's groups can do.. Educate women to stop playing this coy game, and actually go up to guys and say "hey. lets have sex. i give you consent".

That way, young men get used to hearing the above, and there is far less confusion. But this would mean that, heaven forbid, young women would have to be accountable for their actions..

Do young girls verbally ever mention the act of sex before they have it? It must be extremely rare.. "hi Joe, I like you. Can you have sex with me?"

Or "hi Suzy, Can I have sex with you?" "of course.. you are so romantic"


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marriedman321 said:


> Well this is a good thing that women's groups can do.. Educate women to stop playing this coy game, and actually go up to guys and say "hey. lets have sex. i give you consent".
> 
> That way, young men get used to hearing the above, and there is far less confusion. But this would mean that, heaven forbid, young women would have to be accountable for their actions..



But you don't understand, saying no and resisting is NOT a coy game, it's not consenting. Just because she doesn't press charges doesn't mean it was ok. Most men would not continue in this situation. If this is what any man is used to, that's a big problem. 


Even if this was a game, if men stopped when they got a "no", she would eventually learn that she'd have to say "yes" to get it. He would move on to someone who does.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening eligirl
> From your numbers, it sounds like most rapes happen in the home. Are those (I presume) women raped by a partner as opposed to a stranger? These are of course very difficult to prosecute cases because it is so hard to prove a lack of consent. I hope any woman who is raped would never return to that partner (whether or not she could press charges). but I know that isn't true.


Most rapes at home are things like a father rapes his daughter. A brother rapes his sister. An uncle rapes his niece. Or a very close family friend rapes one of the females in the home.

Then there are the partner/husband rapes. Yes those happen. After all most women who are killed, are killed by their SO/husband.

One of my sisters was raped by her husband. She had just gotten home from the hospital after a miscarriage. He was not home. Instead he was upstairs drinking with the single women in her apartment. Then he came down, saw my sister and started to try to have sex. As you can imagine she was not up to it. Because refused he beat the crap out of her and raped her. It was clear that she was raped. The hospital and police agreed. But this was before a woman could bring charges against her husband for rape. It was also before anyone really gave a darn is a man beat his wife.


richardsharpe said:


> Some of those home rapes are presumably also when the victim was drunk, but I don't know how many.


I’m sure that yes, some women drink in the safety of their own home. If a person cannot drink in the safety of their own home, then there is no safety at home for women.

More often, it’s that the rapist has been drinking.


richardsharpe said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't consider someone to be at fault if the were unable to fight off an attack (rape or any other attack).


I agree.



richardsharpe said:


> DNA testing is good for proving that people had sex, but proving lack of consent, especially for acquaintance rapes, is very difficult unless there is significant physical injury.


 Not in all rapes, but in a good number there is internal damage that is done because the woman did not cooperate (I guess is the way to say it). That and the DNA is pretty damming. 

And of course if the rapist hurt her physically, like pinning her down, chocking (leaving bruises), scratches, pull out a handful of hair, etc.


richardsharpe said:


> The issue of rapists "just picking another victim" is a very interesting / important one. In most cases does the rapist decide to rape, then pick the easiest victim, OR does the rapists see an easy victim and decide to rape? Is taking precautions changing the number of rapes, or only changing which women are raped? (I have no idea - are there any studies).


Most rapes are planned. 

I guess in a home, Uncle Scumbag knows that his niece will be home from school so he waits for her.

In a situation where a rapist goes into a party, he’s planning to find an easy target.

Another scenario… a rapist waits by a factory and waits for women to come out from work. He ignores the young, healthy women who are not an easy target. But he’ll pick the easy one… an older, weaker woman. (this is actually a well know scenario of what rapist say they do)



richardsharpe said:


> If precautions just change the victim, then this is not a way to reduce rapes in general.


Rape is not about sex. It’s about anger, control and power. 

The numbers of rapes have been going down since the late 70’s. The one factor that researcher believe is causing this is that as women have become more empowered, they are seen by rapist less of a target. I was rather surprised to read that. 



richardsharpe said:


> Universal surveillance WOULD greatly reduce rapes (or at least allow convictions in almost all cases). Is that worth the cost? I believe the technology exists to do this.


Since most rapes occur at home by family members and friends, that’s not going to help reduce the numbers much. Most people aren’t going to be willing to up surveillance cameras throughout their homes.

Only 10% of rapes are away from home. So surveillance would help, like in parking garages, work places, outside clubs, restaurants, etc. These are places that would often have surveillance already.



richardsharpe said:


> Its an interesting thing to ponder: since most rapes happen at home, would you be willing to put cameras (encrypted) in every room of your house so that if you were raped it would be easy to prove in court?


It’s something to ponder. If I had the encryption key, maybe. As long as no one else could get videos and use them.. like put them on the internet.

I could see having a house with that kind of surveillance, and some idiot neighbor peeping tom type thought it would be cool to sneak into you place and grab the film. Encryption would be important. But if the idiot peeping tom and an encryption guy…. Anyway my point is there is a lot to consider.


----------



## always_alone

marriedman321 said:


> But this would mean that, heaven forbid, young women would have to be accountable for their actions..


You say it this way, but really what you're arguing is that men should never be accountable for theirs.

Because it's always her fault that the poor boy was even accused, regardless of circumstances.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

marriedman321 said:


> Do young girls verbally ever mention the act of sex before they have it? It must be extremely rare.. "hi Joe, I like you. Can you have sex with me?"
> 
> Or "hi Suzy, Can I have sex with you?" "of course.. you are so romantic"



There are plenty of sexy, romantic, or dirty ways to get consent. It's really not that hard.

My H said he wanted to F me, I said I wanted to F him too. Had I said "no, no" he would have said Ok, and left.


----------



## marriedman321

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> ETA: seriously- saying no, no and "not much" resistance is NOT just girls being girls.


In real life, unfortunately it is.. I mean outside of arguing about feminism on message boards..


----------



## marriedman321

EleGirl said:


> Most rapes at home are things like a father rapes his daughter. A brother rapes his sister. An uncle rapes his niece. Or a very close family friend rapes one of the females in the home.


This seems to be more about pointing out how bad men are instead of talking about feminism..

We all know rapists are scum and should be in prison, etc..We have many laws against all types of rape already.. how does it relate to feminism?


----------



## tom67

marriedman321 said:


> In real life, unfortunately it is.. I mean outside of arguing about feminism on message boards..


Does this make sense?
It's sick and yes double standard.
Arizona statutory rape victim forced to pay child support


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> Yea I get your point.
> 
> That makes it ok to let girls get thrown off boats.
> 
> It makes it ok that in china if a couple's first born child is a girl, they almost always kill the baby.
> 
> The difference in gender life expectancy is more dependent on biology then on the actions of humans.
> 
> Little girls not being protected and hence washed off their family boat is the action of callous humans who do not value the lives of their female children.
> 
> Killing first born female children is also the action of callous humans who do not value the lives of their female children.
> 
> This goes on in China because males are more valued than females.
> 
> It is estimated that 200,000,000 (yes that's 2000 MILLION) baby girls were killed in China between 1979 and 2009. That's 200 Million who never got their basic right to a life.


after reading all of your posts on this thread, I need to ask you one question. What is it with your hostility with the male gender or women who are SAHM ?

Just curious ??

Oh and BTW, I agree completely with Simply Amorous and Marriedman here


----------



## marriedman321

tom67 said:


> Does this make sense?
> It's sick and yes double standard.
> Arizona statutory rape victim forced to pay child support


Wow..


----------



## wmn1

Revamped said:


> A feminist would raise her son to think an act of violence such as rape is reprehensible and wrong.
> 
> Therefore, she'd throw his butt in prison herself.


Blood is thicker than water and with it being an 'allegation' I highly doubt this. The BS flag is thrown here


----------



## FrenchFry

wmn1 said:


> after reading all of your posts on this thread, I need to ask you one question. What is it with your hostility with the male gender or women who are SAHM ?


No. This has been an insanely mellow and polite discussion.
If you have something to insert, please do so. Otherwise move on.


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you out specifically, nor was I suggesting that you personally think all of those things.
> 
> But have you ever noticed that whenever this issue comes up, the immediate reaction is that women shouldn't drink or party, or go to a man's apartment, and if she does, she is either asking for it (and should know that) or putting herself at risk.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, if it isn't about blaming the victim and excusing rapists as boys being boys?
> 
> Why can't the conversation ever be about what a horrible thing rape is, and what steps we might take to stop people from committing it?


I don't think that anyone here is supporting rape or claiming that it is not a bad thing. Where you come up with the statements above baffles me


----------



## marriedman321

wmn1 said:


> Blood is thicker than water and with it being an 'allegation' I highly doubt this. The BS flag is thrown here


Exactly.. Ted Bundy's mom would not believe her son did what he did no matter how much evidence came out.. I don't think any mom in the world would be wanting their son locked up because of a drunken rape allegation.. You would see this mom get really mean, really quickly in the direction of the rape accuser.


----------



## Revamped

marriedman321 said:


> You can't tell men and women to get wasted together , and then call one a criminal for what he has become used to. He became used to this because of today's female behavior.


Well, apparently, mm321 thinks it's ok...


----------



## FrenchFry

I see this thread quickly devolving.


----------



## Revamped

marriedman321 said:


> Exactly.. Ted Bundy's mom would not believe her son did what he did no matter how much evidence came out.. I don't think any mom in the world would be wanting their son locked up because of a drunken rape allegation.. You would see this mom get really mean, really quickly in the direction of the rape accuser.


This is so over the top.

Please stop.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> no one I know (as opposed to idiots on the internet) has every suggested that the victims are to blame. All they suggest is that they can take precautions to avoid the rapists (a very different statement).


When I was in the Army, stationed in Arlington, VA there was a rape in our barracks. The sister of one of the other women flew in that day (I’ll call my friend Mary and her sister Sally). Sally was very tired from the flight, so she went to sleep in Mary’s barracks room. Mary went out to visit friends that night. Before I went to bed, I checked in on Sally and she was sleep.

About 15 minutes after I went to bed, a man jimmied open the fire door of our barracks. (I’ll call the rapist Jim) My room was the closest one to the fire door. Mary’s was the next room down. I always lock my door. Mary never locked her door. After all she thought it was safe in a locked barracks with a guard at the entrance. 

Well Jim tried my door, but it was locked. So then he tried Mary’s. It was unlocked. Sally woke to Jim straddled over her with a knife to her throat. Jim raped Sally many times and kept telling her he was going to kill her. But eventually the Jim left.

It turned out that Jim had broken into 3 barracks that night and did the same thing to the first woman whose room he could get into. 

So what happened? And why am I telling you this? I’m telling you because she was treated the way many, if not most, rape victims are treated.

The MP’s came, they believed her. She had knife marks, bruises, vaginal tearing. She was obviously raped. So were the other women in the other barracks. Jim was found and arrested. 

BUT… the gossip started. The base commander held a meeting to brief everyone living in the barracks of what had happened. A few groups of about 20 people, men mostly, but some of the women, in that meeting started to tell horrific lies. Absolute lies. They said that Sally had been at a club all that night. She was drunk and making passes at all the guys. That she ended up with Jim. So obviously they had consensual sex and now she was falsely accusing him. I heard some of these guys give detailed descriptions of the things that they claimed Sally did. That she was drunk, etc. I do not recall all the details of their lies. What I do recall is that those people gave very detailed descripts of what they claim to have witnessed. Guys were talking about how there were going to beat her up if they saw where because they just knew that she had false accused Jim. 

I worked in the War Room at the Pentagon. Even the people who worked there, the officers, the civilian employees, thought they knew what had happened. There were several different stories. But they all had one thing in common. All of the stories blamed Sally and said that she had falsely accused Jim after consensual sex.
It was horrible. What an eye opener.
Oh, there was enough evidence that he violent raped the women. He is probably still in prison. At least I hope so. 



richardsharpe said:


> People tend to socialize with others with similar beliefs. I don't know any rapists because I wouldn't socialize with anyone who indicated having any thoughts in that direction. I was never in a frat and certainly would not have been in one with that sort of activity going on.


A lot of rapists do not stand out. They are just like normal guys. The same goes for child molesters. You would most likely never know that some guy you know is a rapist. That’s why it’s easy for rapes to occur in the home. 
Hopefully you don’t know anyone who is a rapist. Hopefully I don’t either. But they don’t have a sign tattooed on their forehead.



richardsharpe said:


> I am completely in favor of harsh penalties when rape or drugging can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Me too.



richardsharpe said:


> I know that some people do have the attitudes that you suggest, but it is far from universal for men to think that way.


No it’s not universal. But it’s also not unusual.


----------



## Personal

always_alone said:


> Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you out specifically, nor was I suggesting that you personally think all of those things.
> 
> But have you ever noticed that whenever this issue comes up, the immediate reaction is that women shouldn't drink or party, or go to a man's apartment, and if she does, she is either asking for it (and should know that) or putting herself at risk.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is, if it isn't about blaming the victim and excusing rapists as boys being boys?
> 
> Why can't the conversation ever be about what a horrible thing rape is, and what steps we might take to stop people from committing it?


It certainly is an egregious double standard, although males do get raped I am under no illusions that when I was a young man I was less likely to be raped than a woman inclusive and exclusive of not being in control of all my faculties regardless of the social and physical environment.

That's the thing that bugs me, women should be able to get inebriated and or party etc as do men, without them being at greater risk of becoming the victims of sexual assault than men are.

The fact that women are at greater risk than men under the above mentioned circumstances is telling! If women as a gender were really considered equal and respected as such by all of us. We would no longer hear and or read some of the following statements and questions; She asked for it! If she didn't get drunk it wouldn't have happened, "what was she wearing? etc.

We should also not forget that, consent can be withdrawn by anyone at any time during sex. So even if a woman or man was consenting at the beginning of a sexual act, there's nothing wrong with changing ones mind before it's over.

Please do keep calling men and women out on this whenever they excuse the inexcusable.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> No. This has been an insanely mellow and polite discussion.
> If you have something to insert, please do so. Otherwise move on.


Elegirl, in particular, has been a model of civil discourse and attention to facts, reason, and evidence.

If she is to be called out, it should be for a medal.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> This seems to be more about pointing out how bad men are instead of talking about feminism..
> 
> We all know rapists are scum and should be in prison, etc..We have many laws against all types of rape already.. how does it relate to feminism?


Pointing out that some men are rapist... is pointing out how bad (all) men are? You got reading comprehension problems? :rofl:


If it were not for women standing up and asserting their rights, most rape victims would never even be able to get justice. 

Still today, in parts of the world where feminists, have not made as many inroads, female victims of rape are routinely blamed for their rape, the hung or stoned for the crime of being a rape victim.


You really need to work on your victim complex.


----------



## EleGirl

marriedman321 said:


> Well this is a good thing that women's groups can do.. Educate women to stop playing this coy game, and actually go up to guys and say "hey. lets have sex. i give you consent".
> 
> That way, young men get used to hearing the above, and there is far less confusion. But this would mean that, heaven forbid, young women would have to be accountable for their actions..
> 
> Do young girls verbally ever mention the act of sex before they have it? It must be extremely rare.. "hi Joe, I like you. Can you have sex with me?"
> 
> Or "hi Suzy, Can I have sex with you?" "of course.. you are so romantic"


This is a two way street. Women need to take responsibly and so do guys.

How about this. If a woman does not give clear consent. The guy just stops and walks away?

The guy does not have the right to sex with the girl.


----------



## Revamped

I guess there's still more education to be done.

And it starts at home. I've had these talks with both children. Maybe they can change the world...


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> Yea I get your point.
> 
> That makes it ok to let girls get thrown off boats.
> 
> It makes it ok that in china if a couple's first born child is a girl, they almost always kill the baby.
> 
> The difference in gender life expectancy is more dependent on biology then on the actions of humans.
> 
> Little girls not being protected and hence washed off their family boat is the action of callous humans who do not value the lives of their female children.
> 
> Killing first born female children is also the action of callous humans who do not value the lives of their female children.
> 
> This goes on in China because males are more valued than females.
> 
> It is estimated that 200,000,000 (yes that's 2000 MILLION) baby girls were killed in China between 1979 and 2009. That's 200 Million who never got their basic right to a life.



I don't see anybody here defending the Chinese Government on their abortion practices. However, I do see a noticeable absence in feminist groups protesting this China issue as well as the mistreatment of women in the Middle East


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> after reading all of your posts on this thread, I need to ask you one question. What is it with your hostility with the male gender or women who are SAHM ?
> 
> Just curious ??
> 
> Oh and BTW, I agree completely with Simply Amorous and Marriedman here


I have no hostility at all with SAHM's. As a matter of fact I adore SA. She's one of my favorite people on TAM. There are quite a few SAHM's on here. I have no problem with them. I have no idea why you think I'm hostile to SAHMs. Very strange.

I no hostility against men. Now I had a very good and long discussion with JCD and others on here exchanging points of view. It my understanding that this is what TAM is for. I do think I'm right on this? :scratchhead:

Now I do have an issue with some specific people. In this case one or two specific men who show gross a profound amount of hostility towards women.

You of course have every right to agree with anyone you wish to agree with. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> Elegirl, in particular, has been a model of civil discourse and attention to facts, reason, and evidence.
> 
> If she is to be called out, it should be for a medal.


strongly disagreed !!!!

I do respect much of what I have seen elegirl post on these boards but not on this thread. However, we all have our strong opinions and we all do get on a roll at times so I'll leave it at that


----------



## techmom

Elegirl deserves the "most patient person in a thread" award.

Thanks so much for persisting where I would have given up a long time ago...:rofl:

I don't find it fun talking to a brick wall, lol.


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> I have no hostility at all with SAHM's. As a matter of fact I adore SA. She's one of my favorite people on TAM. There are quite a few SAHM's on here. I have no problem with them. I have no idea why you think I'm hostile to SAHMs. Very strange.
> 
> I no hostility against men. Now I had a very good and long discussion with JCD and others on here exchanging points of view. It my understanding that this is what TAM is for. I do think I'm right on this? :scratchhead:
> 
> Now I do have an issue with some specific people. In this case one or two specific men who show gross a profound amount of hostility towards women.
> 
> You of course have every right to agree with anyone you wish to agree with. Whatever floats your boat.


and I am done with this thread


----------



## techmom

Ladies and gents, this thread proves that feminism is very much needed in 2014, lord have mercy:rofl:

Let me just finish my beer, sit back and :rofl:


----------



## Revamped

I was reading an article a while back that was talking about abortion in India. It stated, with the advancement of sonogram clinics, Indian couples could waltz in, find out the sex of their child then take appropriate steps....right down to the abortion clinic if the results of the sonogram were conclusive the fetus was female...

Now, there is a shortage of Indian female children and men have to seek wives either from outside their province or outside the country...


----------



## tom67

marriedman321 said:


> Wow..


Yes scary.
Oh jury isn't out yet on this winner
Jury will decide if former tutor is guilty of sexually assaulting 15-year-old boy | MLive.com
She was claiming the victim "threatened" her.
You can't make this crap up.


----------



## tom67

This one gets to jazzersize now
Shelley Dufresne, teacher in Destrehan High sex case, is charged Tuesday | NOLA.com
She has TWO trials coming up.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

My brother attended Marquette, and one of the girls there alleged rape. She had a medical exam, and she had abrasions, bruising, and some vaginal tearing. A lot of the evidence pointed that she was rape and assaulted. She went to security and tried to make a complaint, but the security officers did not believe her, even though she showed signs of injury. Well, it turns out that they are suppose to report all cases of rape to the police. Needless to say they did not. In fact, Marquette has been hiding reports of rape for the last ten years. I guess they don't like getting their athletes prosecuted. there have been other complaint against athletes at Marquette. Funny, even with the evidence at the moment, no one took her seriously until she did an interview. Then there was an investigation, where Marquette was found out not to report the incidents to authority. That is where the ten years of not reporting rape came from.


----------



## wmn1

techmom said:


> Ladies and gents, this thread proves that feminism is very much needed in 2014, lord have mercy:rofl:
> 
> Let me just finish my beer, sit back and :rofl:



ummmm no. Not quite. It shows that people put gender over ethics and morals, especially in the feminist movement and that unfortunately is what this world has become ... in 2014


----------



## wmn1

False rape accusations: Why must we pretend they never happen?


----------



## Revamped

Ethically and morally speaking,

There would be no rape because of gender equality.

Power struggles and violence against each other would no longer apply.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

I agree that, whether male or female, the rapist should be locked up. Do women get more leniant sentence? Sure do. Do a lot of rape cases go unreported? yes. Is there a lot of cover-up? Again the evidence would point to yes. Are more men treated unfairly in family court? Yes. Are Women still getting paid less? Depends on the industry. Forbes had women making an average of 12,000 less than their male counterpart for equal level of education, and seniority. Broken down to race included, the worst go to non-white females. As a nation, do we still need a lot of work? Hell yeah. Even among men, with the same level of education, non-whites still make less than their white counterpart. There is enough inequality to go around.

Edit:

The 12,000 is in the research industry.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

wmn1 said:


> False rape accusations: Why must we pretend they never happen?




Oh, I do agree that false reports happens, but also a lot more is not being reported. Studies show that around 15 percent of women will suffer from rape. I think it is a very low percentage of cases that get prosecuted. There are many women and men that fear reporting because of feeling shame.


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> I don't see anybody here defending the Chinese Government on their abortion practices.


Did I say that that anyone here defended the Chinese Government on their abortion practices?



wmn1 said:


> However, I do see a noticeable absence in feminist groups protesting this China issue as well as the mistreatment of women in the Middle East


What sort of protests do you want to see? Do you think that if large numbers of people held a huge protest in the USA that the Chinese or Middle Eastern Countries would care at all?

Remember that these countries are famous for killing their own people if they dare to protest.

What is happening is that women's organizations in the USA and Europe are supporting local women's organizations in most countries. 

They also work with organizations like Amnesty International and others that have a strong voice world wide. For example, they have been instrumental in stopping the execution (by hanging or stoning) many rape victims who were convicted for the crime of being a rape victim.

It's best to help the local people work to change their own governments and society. The local people are not going to listen to Americans coming in and telling them that they have to change or else.

We saw how well that went in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Here is just one organization working to support women's organizations world wide: 

Global Fund for Women

They provide support to thousands of organization in 170 countries world wide.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

In the military, most cases of sexual assault are committed to men. Sadly, I don't think a soldier wants to report that he was sexually assaulted by his comrade. There is a big issue in the military, and some U.S. troops were committing rape over seas. Lets say the United States still has a cover-up issue. From athletes, teachers, male and female, religious figures, military, close family friends, fathers, mothers brothers,and etc. But yeah, the majority will be committed by someone you know. There was this one poster on this site, he and his wife were not on speaking terms. Well, while she was asleep, he penetrated her. A lot of posters called him out on it. He did not realized that he rape his wife. Keep in mind, this was during a separation.


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> Ladies and gents, this thread proves that feminism is very much needed in 2014, lord have mercy:rofl:
> 
> Let me just finish my beer, sit back and :rofl:


No kidding!!


----------



## EleGirl

Revamped said:


> I was reading an article a while back that was talking about abortion in India. It stated, with the advancement of sonogram clinics, Indian couples could waltz in, find out the sex of their child then take appropriate steps....right down to the abortion clinic if the results of the sonogram were conclusive the fetus was female...
> 
> Now, there is a shortage of Indian female children and men have to seek wives either from outside their province or outside the country...


In China, as it stands right now, 20% of the males in the younger generations will not be able to find a wife. 

Genocide of infant girls... girls have little to no value.


----------



## EleGirl

Revamped said:


> Ethically and morally speaking,
> 
> There would be no rape because of gender equality.
> 
> Power struggles and violence against each other would no longer apply.


Interesting thought.

Though, I think that perhaps certain types of violence would decrease significantly. But there still would be rape and violence.

Today there are still men who rape men.

There is child rape and child molestation (of both genders)

Men kill men, all men are equal basically. 
So even if men and women were equal, there would still be murders.


----------



## EleGirl

tom67 said:


> Yes scary.
> Oh jury isn't out yet on this winner
> Jury will decide if former tutor is guilty of sexually assaulting 15-year-old boy | MLive.com
> She was claiming the victim "threatened" her.
> You can't make this crap up.


Have you ever seen the movie "Summer of ‘42"? It came out in 1971. It's a 'coming of age' story of a high school boy and a young woman whose husband was off at war. In the movie, the women and the boy end up having a love affair. In 1971 it was a very popular movie. It was considered a romantic and wonderful story of a teenager having his first sexual experience with a beautiful young woman. American society as a whole had no problem with this movie in 1971 and for a long time after that.

In the past, the 15 year old boy here would have been quite a hero to his friends. His father probably would have thought that was cool. His mother probably would never know.

The reason why today, what happened in this case is even considered a crime is that there have been people pushing for change in the attitudes about sex crimes. This was largely lead by the woman’s movement. I’m glad that the exploitation of teens boys by women like this is now considered a crime.
I hope that this and other women who do this sort of thing are prosecuted the full extent of the law.


----------



## EleGirl

tom67 said:


> Does this make sense?
> 
> It's sick and yes double standard.
> 
> Arizona statutory rape victim forced to pay child support


I’ve heard about this case. It’s outrageous.

Why does that woman even have custody of the girl? I don’t get it.

The state is going after this young man for children support all the way back to when the child was born?

He seems like a good guy. Wants to have a relationship with his daughter and does not mind paying current child support.

Is there a defense fund for this guy so he can afford to hire an attorney?

Another type of case that really astonishes me is that if a women get pregnant from a rape. The rapist can sue for visitation and even shared custody. There have been cases where the rapist won.

Our court system is so screwed up.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr.Fisty said:


> I agree that, whether male or female, the rapist should be locked up. Do women get more leniant sentence? Sure do. Do a lot of rape cases go unreported? yes. Is there a lot of cover-up? Again the evidence would point to yes. Are more men treated unfairly in family court? Yes. Are Women still getting paid less? Depends on the industry. Forbes had women making an average of 12,000 less than their male counterpart for equal level of education, and seniority. Broken down to race included, the worst go to non-white females. As a nation, do we still need a lot of work? Hell yeah. Even among men, with the same level of education, non-whites still make less than their white counterpart. There is enough inequality to go around.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> The 12,000 is in the research industry.


This is a very good post. 

There is a lot that still needs to be done on all of these issues and a lot more. I don't think that society, our laws and our courts will every be perfect. But we can keep working to improve things.


----------



## tom67

EleGirl said:


> I’ve heard about this case. It’s outrageous.
> 
> Why does that woman even have custody of the girl? I don’t get it.
> 
> The state this young man for children support all the way back to when the child was born?
> 
> He seems like a good guy. Wants to have a relationship with his daughter and does not mind paying current child support.
> 
> Is there a defense fund for this guy so he can afford to hire an attorney?
> 
> Another type of case that really astonishes me is that if a women get pregnant from a rape. The rapist can sue for visitation and even shared custody. There have been cases where the rapist won.
> 
> Our court system is so screwed up.


Ele sadly this is not the only case on
A Voice for Men â€“ Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry
Going to bed rough day on wed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

wmn1 said:


> I don't see anybody here defending the Chinese Government on their abortion practices. However, I do see a noticeable absence in feminist groups protesting this China issue as well as the mistreatment of women in the Middle East


So you actually follow and listen to feminists? If you don't, how would you possibly expect to "see" feminist groups protesting these issues?

Get on twitter and follow anyone who is a feminist and you'll see tweets all day long about exactly these foreign issues...as well as other human rights issues in other countries. Try actually looking into something before you state it isn't happening, unkay?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Revamped said:


> A feminist would raise her son to think an act of violence such as rape is reprehensible and wrong.
> 
> Therefore, she'd throw his butt in prison herself.


 even if I don't call myself a feminist.. I feel very strongly on this.. our kids know if they get into any trouble (anywhere, school, teacher)..or land in jail...if they are guilty .... they will stay there..nor would I defend them but be humble and apologetic to whom they hurt...whatever the case may be......We'er very big on consequences... I would be even tougher than a Judge would be...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

marriedman321 said:


> Exactly.. Ted Bundy's mom would not believe her son did what he did no matter how much evidence came out.. I don't think any mom in the world would be wanting their son locked up because of a drunken rape allegation.. You would see this mom get really mean, really quickly in the direction of the rape accuser.


 I would actually be upset if our son put himself in THAT situation as well.. I would consider it very foolish.... a lesson to be learned the hard way..... never have sex drunk .. or with someone you barely know... 

Our oldest had his 1st beer at age 21... we all went to a brewery for his birthday, he didn't even finish it.. let his dad have it... he's acquired some taste for it since then & has his favorite brand... when he comes home for a visit.. him & dad kick back & have a beer.... Funny.. my relatives started the oldest brewery in the United states...I've never had a beer.. don't like it..


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Of course this type of rape is the most discussed. It’s discussed because it’s sensational and it helps to create the image that any woman who is raped brought it on herself by the way she behaved and/or dressed.


There are a lot of other reasons why this is controversial but I am not getting into another rape discussion.


----------



## JCD

Revamped said:


> A feminist would raise her son to think an act of violence such as rape is reprehensible and wrong.
> 
> Therefore, she'd throw his butt in prison herself.


Yes, Feminists always do their darndest to get to the bottom of a rape allegation.


----------



## JCD

Oh GOD! Why did this have to start down this stupid rape debate again?!?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> And you stated that you don’t think that’s necessary.
> 
> We are both speaking from our experience.


 it was the RISK we decided to take....it could have come back to bite...and I did worry at times... (I am a thorough worrier by nature -even bought a book once to curb it.. which sounds ridiculous)...

But we always had a cushion to fall back upon.. Other considerations too.. the cost of childcare, not doable..I had NO relatives to help.... our driveway in the winter (2 of our houses had long treacherous dangerous driveways )... ..Our lust for living in the country, icy back roads.. he doesn't want me on the roads.. he worries...a good friend of ours was almost killed a couple weeks ago, head on collision ..one of our 1st snows, then it started melting.. ICE....she was on her way to work.... Living is a risk..no matter who we are.. so we pick & choose our risks.. * I agree it IS A RISK*.. we just felt it was the lessor one given the variables of our situation..... just as everyone's situation is different. And yes, we were lucky it all worked out as it did all these years. 



> I believe what I do because in my life, that’s what I needed. Well my husband had in intracranial aneurism and then brain surgery and he suffered brain damage. I had to drop out of school and support us. I could only fine a full time job paying $250 a month. We had huge medical bills. Every good paying job I tried to get I was laughed at , told that a woman could not do that kind of work, no one wanted to buy appliances from a woman, etc. etc. etc. And it’s hardly the last time a hard lesson push me in that direction. I just don’t want to bore you with the “rest of the story”.


 I can't imagine living through that.. of course you feel as you do..you HAD to be the strongest woman ever during something like this...you hit on my biggest fears in life...a health crisis that can rip your lives in two... the loss of everything you always KNEW & enjoyed, changed forever in a heartbeat....the emotional - the care giving aspect alone is enough to take one down to the depths, let alone the financial aspect of it .. 



> There is a book you should read: “The Millionaire Next Door”. Now you might not be a millionaire (or you might), but with what you and your husband have pulled off you just make get there. The book talks about the fact that a person’s income has little to do with their wealth/assets. Most people who make a high income, live paycheck to paycheck. Most millionaires (those who have at least a million in assets) are frugal and live in a normal middle-Middle Class neighborhood, drive an older car and buy their clothing at JC Pennies. You really ought to read the book. I think you would see yourselves in it.


 I deleted that post that you obviously read,







..... but yes...I probably would enjoy the book...always enjoyed the Suzie Orman show too... we are that family , if you knew how old our cars are...you might think lowly of us.. assume we live paycheck to paycheck.. but it just isn't so. 

Some would think we are crazy.. as we passed up $3,500 an acre (add that up) not wanting to sign a gas well lease.. (that's just the signing bonus)...all our neighbors did ...we are one of the landowners holding out.. they may come back... We just didn't want that on our property... though they say, if you get a well...we'd have more $$ than we'd know what to do with .....

..I read THE BAD..... the noise, the chemicals leeching into your ground, what it can do to your well, living on bottled water the rest of your life-a possibility..... probably brings an upped cancer risk ......we really enjoy where we live & just want to hold on to it.. didn't jump for the money... Sometimes I wonder if we didn't make a mistake on that though...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

techmom said:


> Elegirl deserves the "most patient person in a thread" award.
> 
> Thanks so much for persisting where I would have given up a long time ago...:rofl:
> 
> I don't find it fun talking to a brick wall, lol.


See I don't see these men as brick walls.. Ok....some of them can use more "tact" in trying to explain their views.. as we all could... how we say things goes a long way, no matter our gender...

They have a differing viewpoint just as I do on some of these issues... 

I very much miss Hambone's presence here.. many disliked him too... when he arrived here.. I even pmed him early on to say how much I appreciated his presence here... he sounded so much like someone we would hang with in real life.. 

I enjoyed his posts.. others hated him.. what can you do....


----------



## JCD

Elegirl,

I wanted to deal with that law you wanted my opinion on. I was going to read it in detail, go through all the details, and discuss the nuances with you.

But first, I thought about it for 10 seconds. And then I decided I was not going to discuss that law. Why? Because I have nothing to say on it? Because opposing it is indefensible? 

No.

What you posted is not a law. It is not even a bill. It is political theater. It is ammunition. 

In 2006, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. It was a squeaker in the Senate, but still, they had control with the defection of Jeffords.

The Dems did not pass this law in 2006. You think there weren't a few Republicans who wanted to seem 'pro women'? Usually, legislation has a few stragglers who are happy to cross the aisle. Usually. 

They did not pass this law in 2007.

They did not pass this law in 2008.

They did not pass this law in 2009 (57 Senate Ds, 256 Congress Ds. Plus this one big D in the White House. Veto proof!)

(Just a tangent while we go through this list: did Democrats hate women when they weren't passing this legislation? If we are going to be fair... )

They did not pass this law in 2010.

They did not pass this law in 2011.

They did not pass this law in 2012. 

Oh! In 2012, the REPUBLICANS took over the House in Congress. 

Suddenly, SUDDENLY, the Democrats brought up this 'critical' legislation. Because they were gearing up for 2014 and their chances were not good.


So in 2013, THIS legislation came on the docket. Democrats had an issue to prove 'they cared!' right when there was about as toxic a political environment as ever existed. In fact, I can't think of a WORSE time to try to pass this kind of legislation. (Coincidentally, there was a wave of studies, demonstrations and protests about campus rapes and wondering WHY the legislature wasn't acting to deal with this. Hey, the PRESIDENT cared. After all...he gave a speech! (after ignoring it for 6 years) No relation I am sure to Democratic political prospects )

So why is it ammo? Because by trying to pass it, every feminist talking head now had an 'issue' to ask 'why do Republicans hate women?*' on the T.V. talk shows right on the eve of an election which had Democrats looking for cases of liquor or nooses.

I mean...in 2009 to 2011, the Democrats could have passed *anything *they wanted. I don't have any proof. You'll just have to take my word for it. Somehow for *6 years*, the feminists could have put pressure on Congress for this very law to pass. *Cricket cricket*

So...before I explain to you why Republicans don't hate women by not passing this legislation, you are going to have to convince me that FEMINISTS** cared for this legislation as anything except a partisan talking point to help one party.

I mean, you could argue that suddenly wage disparity just 'became this issue right then', but not credibly.

*And these leaders who are not leaders have you asking me the exact same question...

** Excuse me, the leadership and celebrities of several influential and well womaned*** feminist organizations

*** Hey, if it's 'well manned' for a ship, why can't a feminist group be 'well womaned'?


----------



## wmn1

Mr.Fisty said:


> Oh, I do agree that false reports happens, but also a lot more is not being reported. Studies show that around 15 percent of women will suffer from rape. I think it is a very low percentage of cases that get prosecuted. There are many women and men that fear reporting because of feeling shame.


I agree. Also, prosecutors seem tentative to go after the false accusers due to not wanting to discourage true victims from coming forward out of fear of legal prosecution if their case becomes weak.

I've had n less than seven prosecutors tell me they wouldn't go after a false accuser and the damage that such accusations make destroys lives.

However, we all agree what a sadistic crime rape is.


----------



## wmn1

Faithful Wife said:


> So you actually follow and listen to feminists? If you don't, how would you possibly expect to "see" feminist groups protesting these issues?
> 
> Get on twitter and follow anyone who is a feminist and you'll see tweets all day long about exactly these foreign issues...as well as other human rights issues in other countries. Try actually looking into something before you state it isn't happening, unkay?



First of all, you make a couple of bad assumptions here.

1) I do listen to everyone and am very well versed in the world of politics and social issues.

2) I never said that individuals on Twitter don't protest. I was referring to the lack of response from the big groups or the lack of protest regarding these issues. 

The Democrats' 'War on Women' Myth Belittles the Plight of Iraqi Women - US News

Feminists Stay Silent Amidst Genocidal War on Women | CatholicVote.org

Female Democrats Silent on Sex Scandals


Perhaps it's you who doesn't look into things, unkay ??? whatever unkay means


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> Did I say that that anyone here defended the Chinese Government on their abortion practices?
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of protests do you want to see? Do you think that if large numbers of people held a huge protest in the USA that the Chinese or Middle Eastern Countries would care at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ******* No but they may know that we support them and that may embolden more groups around the world to act. Staying silent doesn't embolden anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that these countries are famous for killing their own people if they dare to protest.
> 
> What is happening is that women's organizations in the USA and Europe are supporting local women's organizations in most countries.
> 
> 
> 
> ****** And that is failing in hostile countries because systematic abuse against women continues wholesale and the support that we send such groups often gets pilfered by the ideological tyrants who are causing the problems in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also work with organizations like Amnesty International and others that have a strong voice world wide. For example, they have been instrumental in stopping the execution (by hanging or stoning) many rape victims who were convicted for the crime of being a rape victim.
> 
> 
> 
> **** Oh the same Amnesty International that condemned Obama's raid on Bin Laden ??? How Irrelevant is Amnesty International? « Commentary Magazine I am not saying they don't do some things good but they are hardly the beacon of light that some may think they are
> 
> 
> 
> It's best to help the local people work to change their own governments and society. The local people are not going to listen to Americans coming in and telling them that they have to change or else.
> 
> 
> 
> **** Oh, very wrong. They do listen to us when we are there in force or when we put a good government or system in place rather than cut and run like we did in Iraq and to an extent Afghanistan. Women's rights were actually progressing there wehn we had a presence there. Then Obama withdrew everyone and it all went to he#@.
> 
> We saw how well that went in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> *** see above
> 
> Here is just one organization working to support women's organizations world wide:
> 
> Global Fund for Women
> 
> They provide support to thousands of organization in 170 countries world wide.



I know there are good organizations out there. I applaud the ones who go beyond politics (the same politics which have made NOW and Planned Parenthood a complete joke) and make progress where they can


----------



## wmn1

JCD said:


> Elegirl,
> 
> I wanted to deal with that law you wanted my opinion on. I was going to read it in detail, go through all the details, and discuss the nuances with you.
> 
> But first, I thought about it for 10 seconds. And then I decided I was not going to discuss that law. Why? Because I have nothing to say on it? Because opposing it is indefensible?
> 
> No.
> 
> What you posted is not a law. It is not even a bill. It is political theater. It is ammunition.
> 
> In 2006, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. It was a squeaker in the Senate, but still, they had control with the defection of Jeffords.
> 
> The Dems did not pass this law in 2006. You think there weren't a few Republicans who wanted to seem 'pro women'? Usually, legislation has a few stragglers who are happy to cross the aisle. Usually.
> 
> They did not pass this law in 2007.
> 
> They did not pass this law in 2008.
> 
> They did not pass this law in 2009 (57 Senate Ds, 256 Congress Ds. Plus this one big D in the White House. Veto proof!)
> 
> (Just a tangent while we go through this list: did Democrats hate women when they weren't passing this legislation? If we are going to be fair... )
> 
> They did not pass this law in 2010.
> 
> They did not pass this law in 2011.
> 
> They did not pass this law in 2012.
> 
> Oh! In 2012, the REPUBLICANS took over the House in Congress.
> 
> Suddenly, SUDDENLY, the Democrats brought up this 'critical' legislation. Because they were gearing up for 2014 and their chances were not good.
> 
> 
> So in 2013, THIS legislation came on the docket. Democrats had an issue to prove 'they cared!' right when there was about as toxic a political environment as ever existed. In fact, I can't think of a WORSE time to try to pass this kind of legislation. (Coincidentally, there was a wave of studies, demonstrations and protests about campus rapes and wondering WHY the legislature wasn't acting to deal with this. Hey, the PRESIDENT cared. After all...he gave a speech! (after ignoring it for 6 years) No relation I am sure to Democratic political prospects )
> 
> So why is it ammo? Because by trying to pass it, every feminist talking head now had an 'issue' to ask 'why do Republicans hate women?*' on the T.V. talk shows right on the eve of an election which had Democrats looking for cases of liquor or nooses.
> 
> I mean...in 2009 to 2011, the Democrats could have passed *anything *they wanted. I don't have any proof. You'll just have to take my word for it. Somehow for *6 years*, the feminists could have put pressure on Congress for this very law to pass. *Cricket cricket*
> 
> So...before I explain to you why Republicans don't hate women by not passing this legislation, you are going to have to convince me that FEMINISTS** cared for this legislation as anything except a partisan talking point to help one party.
> 
> I mean, you could argue that suddenly wage disparity just 'became this issue right then', but not credibly.
> 
> *And these leaders who are not leaders have you asking me the exact same question...
> 
> ** Excuse me, the leadership and celebrities of several influential and well womaned*** feminist organizations
> 
> *** Hey, if it's 'well manned' for a ship, why can't a feminist group be 'well womaned'?






Very very well put, JCD. The 'War on Women' garbage that the Democrats promoted (and which got exposed as a fraud this year finally) was just a political ploy and the Dems lack of action on these issues and the Feminists silence on them support the argument that it was a political strategy and power play rather than an effort to fix real situations.

Thanks for the breakdown above. You are 100% correct in my opinion


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

SimplyAmorous said:


> See I don't see these men as brick walls.. Ok....some of them can use more "tact" in trying to explain their views.. as we all could... how we say things goes a long way, no matter our gender...
> 
> They have a differing viewpoint just as I do on some of these issues...
> 
> I very much miss Hambone's presence here.. many disliked him too... when he arrived here.. I even pmed him early on to say how much I appreciated his presence here... he sounded so much like someone we would hang with in real life..
> 
> I enjoyed his posts.. others hated him.. what can you do....


From what I can remember, he very anti-working Mother. Which is just as bad as the people who look down on you for being a SAHM.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> Men kill men, all men are equal basically.
> So even if men and women were equal, there would still be murders.


And let's not forget that women also kill and rape.

So no, I wouldn't say that equality will solve rape or violence problems. Why I hope it will do is allow us to start blaming the perpetrators, rather than the victims.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> The reason why today, what happened in this case is even considered a crime is that there have been people pushing for change in the attitudes about sex crimes. This was largely lead by the woman’s movement.


Yes. Very true.


----------



## wmn1

ocotillo said:


> Yes. Very true.


I am very well versed in this field and there are tremendous amounts of men who are involved in this effort as well. 

Topics such as DV or sex crimes are issues that involve individuals rather than something that is gender specific and while I won't try to claim that men aren't the perpetrators more often than the victims, because they are the aggressors in the majority of the cases, I feel it's wrong to generalize the issue (especially in DV) as being gender specific. 

In my 21 years of work in this field, I have handled thousands of cases. Many were falsified, most were not. Most of the victims were women but hundreds and hundreds of cases had male victims and unfortunately, the majority of the legal effort and resources treat it as gender specific. It's not. 

An interesting read here.

Male rape in America: A new study reveals that men are sexually assaulted almost as often as women.

I am not saying that the women's movement didn't bring much light to the issue, because they have. But this above article shows the biases that exist when trying to confront the problems caused by this type of conduct


----------



## always_alone

wmn1 said:


> I
> In my 21 years of work in this field, I have handled thousands of cases. Many were falsified, most were not. Most of the victims were women but hundreds and hundreds of cases had male victims and unfortunately, the majority of the legal effort and resources treat it as gender specific. It's not.


It is my understanding that in the US, fewer men than women are raped, but the rates of domestic violence are virtually the same.

Women victims tend to be blamed; male victims discounted altogether.

How do you suppose we move past this?

Surely it is not by attacking feminists for making mountains out for molehills and addressing the very real problems that women face?

Remember that globally and historically, the overall picture and stats are quite different, and so it isn't too surprising that most efforts so far have been aimed at empowering women.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marriedman321 said:


> In real life, unfortunately it is.. I mean outside of arguing about feminism on message boards..


Your "real life" is really ****ing twisted. You don't even know when someone is into you, and you have to push past resistance to get any. I cannot even imagine how that is fun.


----------



## ocotillo

wmn1 said:


> I am very well versed in this field and there are tremendous amounts of men who are involved in this effort as well.


Are we talking about the same thing? From the balance of your comments I'm not so sure.

I'm referring only to the concept of statutory rape. Because of the physical nature of PIV sex, it has historically been a male only crime. English Common Law and Colonial Law are littered with examples.

I would agree that efforts in the late 19th century to get the age of consent raised involved a coalition of feminists, religious conservatives and working class men's organizations, but lobbying to get gender specificity written out of these laws is largely credited to second wave feminism. (At least in the textbooks that I own.)

If you disagree with that, I would like to hear more. I'm not decrepitly old, but I don't remember the idea having a lot of traction among men.


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> It is my understanding that in the US, fewer men than women are raped, but the rates of domestic violence are virtually the same.
> 
> 
> ***** Agreed. The numbers are getting closer to even on DV, women do get sexually assaulted more than men though few realize how many men do get attacked.
> 
> 
> Women victims tend to be blamed; male victims discounted altogether.
> 
> How do you suppose we move past this?
> 
> 
> ***** In my field, at least on the street, we have to remember two issues. First is the Equal Protection Amendment. Too much is prone to partisan politics and special interests. The politicians who create the laws go with the special interests rather than doing the right thing. For example, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul opposed VAWA because they felt it created a special class of victims and IMO, they were right to do so. Justice is supposed to be blind and Government is not meant to use tax dollars to discriminate. Every case has to be individually looked at and the law be applied as though race, gender and other factors do not exist. We need to look at the action and evidence rather than institutionalizing things.
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it is not by attacking feminists for making mountains out for molehills and addressing the very real problems that women face?
> 
> 
> ****** IN DV for example, many men won't come forward to report. I have been on the scenes of hundreds of spousal abuse incidents where the guy got attacked and he refused services (criminal charges and restraining orders) because men typically are embarrassed that they were assaulted by their wives or girlfriends. So men face problems too. Plus, they get into the system and the courts and advocacy groups discount them to an extent. The DV problem is very prevalent for women as well and while they get a number of benefits that guys don't get, many women underreport too. I personally don't blame people who don't report. Many would prefer to handle situations in house and don't want to bust up a marriage or their livelihoods over an incident or two. Prolonged abuse cases get reported over time at a much greater rate. I have a dim view on feminists because they IMO attack, attack and attack and paint men in a very bad light and I take exception to that. So I am prone to attacking feminists from time to time. I am a person who believes in the individual and not what gender you are. To be fair, I take exception to how the men in the Middle East treat women. And no I don't make mountains out of molehills. I do believe that men and women should help each other in their respective causes.
> 
> 
> Remember that globally and historically, the overall picture and stats are quite different, and so it isn't too surprising that most efforts so far have been aimed at empowering women.


I agree with these efforts abroad but I have significant problems when people translate an international issue with the way things are here in the US. I believe in our system here but not in the way it is managed. Our systems have protections but I do feel that special interests, overreaching government, bad individuals and lack of understanding by many of what our system is about undermines the framework that has been put into place.


----------



## wmn1

ocotillo said:


> Are we talking about the same thing? From the balance of your comments I'm not so sure.
> 
> I'm referring only to the concept of statutory rape. Because of the physical nature of PIV sex, it has historically been a male only crime. English Common Law and Colonial Law are littered with examples.
> 
> I would agree that efforts in the late 19th century to get the age of consent raised involved a coalition of feminists, religious conservatives and working class men's organizations, but lobbying to get gender specificity written out of these laws is largely credited to second wave feminism. (At least in the textbooks that I own.)
> 
> If you disagree with that, I would like to hear more. I'm not decrepitly old, but I don't remember the idea having a lot of traction among men.



I was saying that there are tremendous amounts of men fighting to protect people from the crime of rape. 

I agree with your comments about PIV but also feel that sexual assaults against men are underreported and men's mentality in regards to this issue (i.e. a bunch of guys sitting around in a circle laughing about the prospects of getting sexually abused y Katy Perry for example) don't help highlight the problem here.


----------



## wmn1

NobodySpecial said:


> Your "real life" is really ****ing twisted. You don't even know when someone is into you, and you have to push past resistance to get any. I cannot even imagine how that is fun.



ummm.. he got banned. he can't respond


----------



## SimplyAmorous

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> From what I can remember, he very anti-working Mother. Which is just as bad as the people who look down on you for being a SAHM.


I guess we all see what we want to see...I didn't focus on this aspect of his personality ... it was more how he talked about his marriage, his children... .spoke much about the enjoyment of raising them.. I found his posts very loving and uplifting.. 

He was one who had a horrible marriage early on...then gave up on women.. said he'd never marry again...then he met his wife & it changed his world.... . he was a more Traditional type man.. yes.. he appreciated his wife being in the Home.. but like myself & H..... she wanted that role /they were on the same page.. if he spoke he feels it's wrong *for* *all*.. I am not aware of this.... or glossed over it .. but since his posts resonated so much with *our lifestyle*.. this is what stood out to me personally..


----------



## Anonymous07

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> no one I know (as opposed to idiots on the internet) has every suggested that the victims are to blame. All they suggest is that they can take precautions to avoid the rapists (a very different statement).


So if she doesn't take those precautions, it's her fault for getting raped? 

The mentality sounds a lot like victim blaming.



richardsharpe said:


> There are two different issues:
> Whether a rape occurred, and whether there is enough evidence to convict someone for rape.
> 
> If he actually raped her, then pretty much everyone (including his mother) would be happy to see him in prison. If she *claimed* he raped her, then people will disagree on the appropriate standard of proof.


Actually, that's not true. The parents of the 2 guys who raped my cousin defended their sons all the way through the case proceedings. We would hope for things to go the way you say, but it's not always reality. All the guys had to do was say it was "consensual" and they got away with it, even though my cousin had bruising on her wrists, vaginal tearing, and their DNA was found. They told the cops she "liked it that way".  The parents always said their sons were innocent, never thinking otherwise with all the evidence against them.


----------



## wmn1

Anonymous07 said:


> So if she doesn't take those precautions, it's her fault for getting raped?
> 
> The mentality sounds a lot like victim blaming.
> 
> 
> 
> ***** he never said that


----------



## Anonymous07

It's the thought process of many that women need to do x, y, and z to protect themselves from being raped, so if they don't do all of that, then many think they put themselves at too much risk(making it their "fault") instead of actually blaming the man who raped the woman. It's also this common thought process that leads to many women never coming forward to say they have been raped because others will say that she should have done things differently(don't drink, don't wear those clothes, etc.). The woman is blamed for own her rape. 

When my cousin's case went public, I was shocked at how many people blamed her for what happened. She went to the bar and got drunk(not true, she was drugged), she wore more revealing clothing(so? God forbid someone show cleavage. doesn't give a man a right to rape her), she should not have gone out of the bar with the guy friend(their families knew each other), and so on. It's really sad people think that way.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always_alone
I've always taken it as a given that rape is a horrible thing. Maybe I'm wrong in assuming everyone already agrees on this and it doesn't need to be said.

For the record, I consider rape to be a very serious crime, and the typical penalty of long jail sentences seems appropriate.

The second part is difficult: I simply don't have any good ideas on how to stop someone from wanting to rape. Since I don't have this desire, I just don't know what would convince someone who did.

That leaves the option to be preventing rape. I have a few extreme ideas - universal surveillance for example, but none that are really practical. Despite my feelings about rape, I also have very strong feelings about civil liberties and an not willing to reduce the legal standards of proof for this. (though I'm happy to discuss the issue). 



always_alone said:


> snip
> 
> Why can't the conversation ever be about what a horrible thing rape is, and what steps we might take to stop people from committing it?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening marriedman321
I've never had a woman say "no no" when I was touching her. If she indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I can usually pick up on that long before she has to say "no". Certainly I would stop if she did. 

Maybe its just that my goal for sex is different. I don't want to convince a reluctant woman to have sex, I want her to desire me so much that SHE is the one pushing for more. Sex is fun, but the ego boost of being irresistible to a woman is a lot more fun IMHO. 




marriedman321 said:


> it depends.. It is hardly ever this clear with young girls involved..
> 
> You see, often times they don't want to appear to be easy, so they do not verbally consent.. If a guy asks her "Can i have sex with you", he might as well just put his clothes back on and go home..
> 
> So many girls live in their own type of fantasy, and being a **** is perhaps the last thing they want to be.. So they can blame it on alcohol, never really consent, or afterwards twist it in their own mind that they were raped if they do not like how the guy acts after..
> 
> If a friend asks "Did you have sex with Joe", they will says "i don't know, or no, or maybe, or i can't remember etc" Even if they clearly remember having sex.
> 
> Example..
> 
> Man grab girl and passionately kisses.. She does the usual "No, no" when he touches more of her..
> 
> They continue and he fingers her.. before you know it they are having sex.. Not much if any resistance..
> 
> Now there are 2 outcomes after..
> 
> A. he finishes and hugs her, kisses her, and wants to see her again.. = not rape..
> 
> B. He runs out the door after finishing inside.. = Rape


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
If for no other reason than my own safety, I would never engage in sex with a woman who gave mixed consent signals. 

First: that to me says "crazy person", and a good rule in life is never to have sex with a crazy person.

Second: Even if I was sure she really wanted sex, I am setting myself up for a felony sex offense conviction. 



marriedman321 said:


> In real life, unfortunately it is.. I mean outside of arguing about feminism on message boards..


----------



## wmn1

Anonymous07 said:


> It's the thought process of many that women need to do x, y, and z to protect themselves from being raped, so if they don't do all of that, then many think they put themselves at too much risk(making it their "fault") instead of actually blaming the man who raped the woman. It's also this common thought process that leads to many women never coming forward to say they have been raped because others will say that she should have done things differently(don't drink, don't wear those clothes, etc.). The woman is blamed for own her rape.
> 
> When my cousin's case went public, I was shocked at how many people blamed her for what happened. She went to the bar and got drunk(not true, she was drugged), she wore more revealing clothing(so? God forbid someone show cleavage. doesn't give a man a right to rape her), she should not have gone out of the bar with the guy friend(their families knew each other), and so on. It's really sad people think that way.


I don't disagree with you. People should be able to live free and express themselves without the fear of being raped. 
Rapists are criminal and should be jailed.

With that said, Sharpe never said or insinuated what ha was accused of and I still stand by my statement that there still exist retalitory rape claims that, when proven false, never get prosecuted after destroying somebody's life. Again, I am a case by case person. I know people who got raped and I have worked for them. I know nobody who has raped anyone.

One last point. I think what people are saying when they 'seem' to blame the rape victim (which they are not doing by the way) is that it is still each individual in society's obligation to protect themselves and think reasonably. I wouldn't go into SW Detroit without being armed with an ak-47 and at least 2 handguns. If I did, I wouldn't be protecting myself. A number of rape cases I have dealt with professionally, the raped victim got drunk or drugged up with strange guys and got raped. The rape is a crime (although some cases got tossed because the person couldn't remember the crime itself) but had they taken steps to protect themselves beforehand, like not trusting strange guys at their place while trashed, it wouldn't have happened. That in no way justifies any criminal conduct. But people have to protect themselves in this increasingly immoral world. 

Is this blaming someone for getting raped ???? Absolutely not. Noone defends a crime like that. Is it feasible or reasonable for someone to say "Why did this happen ?" and analyze it ? Yes it is. However, when I see accusations on this board blaming people for stating their opinions and attacking them for blaming victims, I question why we lower our standards here to attack people for what they didn't say, for what they don't believe and especially when they are on here trying to help people.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> .
> 
> The second part is difficult: I simply don't have any good ideas on how to stop someone from wanting to rape. Since I don't have this desire, I just don't know what would convince someone who did.


How about shutting down fraternities, which seem to be turning in to a training ground for rape?

How about educating young people on the importance of consent, and to just walk away if they are uncertain or confused, rather than letting them get all of their sex ed from porn?

How about actually prosecuting and convicting rapists, instead of always accepting that just because they said it was consensual and "she likes it rough"?

These are just a few ideas, all of which seem preferable to me than blaming women for becoming victims.


----------



## wmn1

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening marriedman321
> I've never had a woman say "no no" when I was touching her. If she indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I can usually pick up on that long before she has to say "no". Certainly I would stop if she did.
> 
> Maybe its just that my goal for sex is different. I don't want to convince a reluctant woman to have sex, I want her to desire me so much that SHE is the one pushing for more. Sex is fun, but the ego boost of being irresistible to a woman is a lot more fun IMHO.


again he got banned and can't defend himself. Just saying ....


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> What you posted is not a law. It is not even a bill. It is political theater. It is ammunition.


Just so you know that I’m not ignoring your post…. I have started to look up all those acts, dates and what went on. I want to understand this before I reply.



JCD said:


> So...before I explain to you why Republicans don't hate women by not passing this legislation, you are going to have to convince me that FEMINISTS** cared for this legislation as anything except a partisan talking point to help one party.


You still don’t get it. I don’t know enough about the history of this bill, or why anyone did or did not support it. So right now I’m not convinced one way or the other. I asked about it because others on here were talked about it. I think you said it was a bad bill. So I wanted to find out what YOU thought it was a bad bill.

But you are insisting on taking the discussion in a deferent direction. So I’m going to look up and verify all that you claim here. Then I will reply, and in the middle of all that, I need to cook a turkey, a bunch of pies, and enjoy a holiday. So I probably will not have a reply until later this week.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening anonymous07
I didn't say, or intend to imply that. If I wander into a gang area wearing the wrong colors and am shot, it is NOT my fault. Still, it would be unwise for me to do that.

The moral "blame" always lies with the criminal. 





Anonymous07 said:


> So if she doesn't take those precautions, it's her fault for getting raped?
> 
> The mentality sounds a lot like victim blaming.
> 
> snip
> .


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> How about shutting down fraternities, which seem to be turning in to a training ground for rape?
> 
> 
> **** and penalizing law abiding people who don't rape and want this experience ? I think it's wrong and unconstitutional what you suggest. Prosecution should be the answer, and btw I don't like frats
> 
> 
> 
> How about educating young people on the importance of consent, and to just walk away if they are uncertain or confused, rather than letting them get all of their sex ed from porn?
> 
> 
> *** Not sure where porn comes into it but educating people on consent is a good step in the right direction
> 
> 
> How about actually prosecuting and convicting rapists, instead of always accepting that just because they said it was consensual and "she likes it rough"?
> 
> 
> If it's consensual, there's no rape. Rapists are prosecuted, sometimes with life terms. In fact, they have 'rape shield laws' in place which protects rape victims even more. BTW, I don't like rape shield laws because I believe constitutionally, anyone who is facing mega prison time, even the worst deviants in society, should have a fair trial and be able to defend themselves. None-the-less, I disagree with your assertion that these cases aren't prosecuted, we have a legal system with standards and if you are advocating abandoning those standards or claiming that cops and prosecutors aren't going all out to get the 'bad' guy, then I think that is a morbid view on your part.


----------



## Anonymous07

wmn1 said:


> The rape is a crime (although some cases got tossed because the person couldn't remember the crime itself) but had they taken steps to protect themselves beforehand, like not trusting strange guys at their place while trashed, it wouldn't have happened.


That part is off putting. It's her "fault" she put herself in that situation. 

Although most rape cases(and those of sexual assault, molestation) happen with someone the victim knew. My cousin knew both of her attackers(friends with one, acquaintance with the other - obviously never foresaw anything like this). They went to high school together and their families knew each other. A good friend had an uncle who attempted to rape her(again, obviously she never thought something like that would happen). The cases of those who are raped by strangers get a lot more press, but they are less common. I wouldn't think to protect myself so strongly against my friends or others I know.


----------



## always_alone

wmn1 said:


> One last point. I think what people are saying when they 'seem' to blame the rape victim (which they are not doing by the way) is that it is still each individual in society's obligation to protect themselves and think reasonably.


Yes, absolutely. We all must take precautions for our own safety. And trust me, women are taught from a very young age: do not trust strange men, do not walk alone, particularly at night, do not drink to excess, and whatever you do, do not let your drink out of your sight for even a second. Do not dress too skimpily, do not provoke or send out false signals, walk with your keys clutched between your fingers, always be alert, aware of dark corners and shadows, and so on.

Are we always able to follow all of these rules? No, sometimes we are lax. But even if we were to, it is often someone who we thought we could trust who lets us down.

This is why the concern about blaming the victim. When I was raped, I was not drunk, did not have one drink even, was dressed in ordinary shirt, not low cut, and jeans, was not provocative in any way. When I reported it, I was told that I must've done something to deserve it, must've consented, must be making false accusations, must've asked for it somehow. Never mind the bruises, never mind that I almost died at his hands. Never mind anything that I said or the facts of the case.

This from the police, the prosecutors, and others in the community. And, in the end, of course, he was not convicted.


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> I am very well versed in this field and there are tremendous amounts of men who are involved in this effort as well.
> 
> Topics such as DV or sex crimes are issues that involve individuals rather than something that is gender specific and while I won't try to claim that men aren't the perpetrators more often than the victims, because they are the aggressors in the majority of the cases, I feel it's wrong to generalize the issue (especially in DV) as being gender specific.
> 
> In my 21 years of work in this field, I have handled thousands of cases. Many were falsified, most were not. Most of the victims were women but hundreds and hundreds of cases had male victims and unfortunately, the majority of the legal effort and resources treat it as gender specific. It's not.
> 
> An interesting read here.
> 
> Male rape in America: A new study reveals that men are sexually assaulted almost as often as women.
> 
> I am not saying that the women's movement didn't bring much light to the issue, because they have. But this above article shows the biases that exist when trying to confront the problems caused by this type of conduct


For a very long time, women hid rape because the victim was usually blamed. it would usually ruin a woman's life to say anything at all. Attitudes have changed a lot. Things are better but far from perfect.

If it's true that males are raped almost as often as women are, then this has to come out and more effort and funds need to go to it.

On the issue of domestic violence. I know that there are women who abuse their SO/husbands. I know men this has happened to and have helped those I know get out of the situation. 

It's my belief that those who provide support to victims of domestic violence and abuse need to change their mission to providing support for anyone regardless of gender. The dialogue about this needs to change so that male victims come forward and get the help they need. It does not matter if the ratio of DV is male/female ... 10/90 or if it's 50/50. DV is serious and needs to be addressed.

The same applies to rape and sexual assault of anyone, regardless of gender.


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> It is my understanding that in the US, fewer men than women are raped, but the rates of domestic violence are virtually the same.
> 
> Women victims tend to be blamed; male victims discounted altogether.
> 
> How do you suppose we move past this?
> 
> Surely it is not by attacking feminists for making mountains out for molehills and addressing the very real problems that women face?


I think that the way to change this is that we use the work done bring rape of women to the forefront, as starting point to bring rape of men to the forefront. 




always_alone said:


> Remember that globally and historically, the overall picture and stats are quite different, and so it isn't too surprising that most efforts so far have been aimed at empowering women.


I agree. The major reason that the rape of women has been addressed first it because it was led by women, mostly women who had been raped and were not going to sit quietly anymore.

Male victims of rape need to let society know loud and clear what they have been through.


----------



## always_alone

wmn1 said:


> If it's consensual, there's no rape.


Obviously. What I was saying is that just because the accused asserts that it was consensual does not make it so.

Yet the accused is typically believed over the accuser. And while there are some successful prosecutions, the fact remains that for the most part rapists (actual, not alleged) get off scott free.


----------



## Anonymous07

wmn1 said:


> If it's consensual, there's no rape. Rapists are prosecuted, sometimes with life terms. In fact, they have 'rape shield laws' in place which protects rape victims even more. BTW, I don't like rape shield laws because I believe constitutionally, anyone who is facing mega prison time, even the worst deviants in society, should have a fair trial and be able to defend themselves. None-the-less, I disagree with your assertion that these cases aren't prosecuted, we have a legal system with standards and if you are advocating abandoning those standards or claiming that cops and prosecutors aren't going all out to get the 'bad' guy, then I think that is a morbid view on your part.


It is incredibly difficult to convict someone of rape. It is why a number of women never even come forward, since most rapist get away with it. I gave my cousin's case as an example. The two guys claimed it was consensual sex and that she basically "liked it rough" to explain away the bruising and vaginal tears she had. Nothing in those guys' lives changed(one is in the academy to become a cop!!), but my cousin has had to deal with the aftermath.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

In texas, over 20,000 rape kits went uninvestigated. Now that Texas is trying to catch up, they arrested a few serial rapist. Of course, they are seriously still behind. Also, don't forget that at these frat parties, they are slipping drugs into female's drinks. Somehow date rape drug is easy for them to get.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Victim blaming
Main article: Victim blaming
"Victim blaming" is holding the victim of a crime to be in whole or in part responsible for the crime. In the context of rape, this concept refers to the just world fallacy and attitudes that certain victim behaviours (such as flirting or wearing sexually provocative clothing) may encourage rape.[63] In extreme cases, victims are said to have "asked for it" by not behaving demurely.


----------



## EleGirl

As often happens, the discussion of rape turns to focusing on rape when the victim has had too much to drink as though getting women to stop drinking would stop rape.

In most cases of rape, the rapist is someone that the victim knows. Usually someone they have good reasons to trust.

In only 10% of rapes is the rapist a stranger to the victim. 

Apparently, most of the time, when woman are away from home, they are very good at not doing things that puts them at high risk. Rape is a crime of opportunity. 

The place that a woman is at the highest risk of rape is in her own home and homes of family and friends. It’s in the places where women are told and believe they can let their guard down.


----------



## NobodySpecial

My message to my son is don't be that asshat trying to get sex OFF someone. The absences of a No is not a Yes. Only accept an enthusiastic yes. Otherwise the sex is going to be crappy anyway, and you might as well use your hand. Yes I have told my 13 year old son this.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Well back on topic about Feminism. It is about having the same choices as men in society. We are getting closer, but not quite there yet. We learned that radical voices are often the loudest, and I am guessing it is for ratings. I

In my opinion, most women are feminist whether they believe it or not. When they empower themselves and have a say what happens to their life, that is feminism. No one should tell you what a feminist is, and it should be something each of us define by ourself. Putting all feminist under one tent, is like calling all men selfish a$$ for being men. We do have a tribal mentality, and people can view feminist being divided into their own tribes. Some may be a tribe of one. I think that the best goal for feminist is to create a society where feminism becomes obsolete, because everyone would be treated on their merits. Wouldn't that be a neat dream, everyone is judged on their own merits, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, religion, and so on, unless your a martian. Damn those illegal aliens.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr.Fisty said:


> Well back on topic about Feminism. It is about having the same choices as men in society. We are getting closer, but not quite there yet. We learned that radical voices are often the loudest, and I am guessing it is for ratings. I
> 
> In my opinion, most women are feminist whether they believe it or not. When they empower themselves and have a say what happens to their life, that is feminism. No one should tell you what a feminist is, and it should be something each of us define by ourself. Putting all feminist under one tent, is like calling all men selfish a$$ for being men. We do have a tribal mentality, and people can view feminist being divided into their own tribes. Some may be a tribe of one. * I think that the best goal for feminist is to create a society where feminism becomes obsolete, because everyone would be treated on their merits. Wouldn't that be a neat dream, everyone is judged on their own merits, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, religion, and so on*,


You are right, this should be the ultimate goal. We aren't there yet.

I like to think that a large % of those who are so strongly speaking against feminism, yet saying that they support equal rights for women and everyone, are really trying to say what you so eloquently said here. Some seem impatient to rush things by saying that all the work is done, so stop it already. But no it's not done. We have not come to this point.



Mr.Fisty said:


> unless your a martian. Damn those illegal aliens.


:rofl:


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> For a very long time, women hid rape because the victim was usually blamed. it would usually ruin a woman's life to say anything at all. Attitudes have changed a lot. Things are better but far from perfect.
> 
> ***** True.
> 
> 
> 
> If it's true that males are raped almost as often as women are, then this has to come out and more effort and funds need to go to it.
> 
> 
> *** True
> 
> On the issue of domestic violence. I know that there are women who abuse their SO/husbands. I know men this has happened to and have helped those I know get out of the situation.
> 
> It's my belief that those who provide support to victims of domestic violence and abuse need to change their mission to providing support for anyone regardless of gender. The dialogue about this needs to change so that male victims come forward and get the help they need. It does not matter if the ratio of DV is male/female ... 10/90 or if it's 50/50. DV is serious and needs to be addressed.
> 
> 
> *** agreed 1000%
> 
> The same applies to rape and sexual assault of anyone, regardless of gender.



**** agreed 1000%


I wish these crimes never happened. People get into relationships and friendships to trust and get violated. It's sad and the system needs to work to protect them. 

Good post Ele


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always-alone
I'm OK with shutting down fraternities, though as some poster claimed, thats only 10%. Certainly I'm happy with shutting down any fraternity where there is an assault. Shutting down all fraternities might just create a new structure with the same behavior, so maybe only shut down the bad ones. 

I'd like to see trip-advisor like review of fraternity parties. A place where women (or anyone else0 could anonymously report bad behavior that doesn't rise to the level of a crime, but indicates that worse might be going on.

Education is fine, maybe I again assume that everyone who cares already knows.

Rapes are hard to prosecute. If there are witnesses or physical evidence then they should be prosecuted. Often though it is very difficult to show lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. 



always_alone said:


> How about shutting down fraternities, which seem to be turning in to a training ground for rape?
> 
> How about educating young people on the importance of consent, and to just walk away if they are uncertain or confused, rather than letting them get all of their sex ed from porn?
> 
> How about actually prosecuting and convicting rapists, instead of always accepting that just because they said it was consensual and "she likes it rough"?
> 
> These are just a few ideas, all of which seem preferable to me than blaming women for becoming victims.


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> Obviously. What I was saying is that just because the accused asserts that it was consensual does not make it so.
> 
> Yet the accused is typically believed over the accuser. And while there are some successful prosecutions, the fact remains that for the most part rapists (actual, not alleged) get off scott free.


Don't agree. The accuser has the entire support of government agencies behind them. The deal is the burden is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and this is good in cases and bad too. It is the law. I have seen innocent people jailed and I have seen guilty people go free. But the system is designed to protect people from bad prosecutions and to ensure people get the resources they need if victimized. 

It's not perfect. I have won cases and lost cases on both sides of the aisle. 

Regardless, our system is still the best in the world IMO and my heart has been drained with both success and failure


----------



## wmn1

Anonymous07 said:


> It is incredibly difficult to convict someone of rape. It is why a number of women never even come forward, since most rapist get away with it. I gave my cousin's case as an example. The two guys claimed it was consensual sex and that she basically "liked it rough" to explain away the bruising and vaginal tears she had. Nothing in those guys' lives changed(one is in the academy to become a cop!!), but my cousin has had to deal with the aftermath.


unfortunately, it is the word of one as opposed to the word of another. And it is the jury that determines that. 

I feel badly for all victims of rape, including your cousin. 

I am not sure what transpired in that case but we have our laws and we have our system and this society does the best it can to deal with such issues. Not perfect but better than most.

I am still stunned that in the Middle East, they kill women for adultery. While I strongly believe in divorce in such cases, sometimes, things get stupid.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always_alone
The problem is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Imagine you are in the jury box. The woman says she was raped and has a reasonable and self consistent story of what happened. The man says that she falsely accused him after the fact and and has a reasonable and self consistent story. (remember that the alleged crime happened months or years ago, so both could have polished their stories).

There is no clear physical evidence beyond evidence that they had sex. 


How sure do you need to be? You think she is right, but on what odds of being wrong will you destroy his life? 1/10? 1/100? 1/1000? 

I've asked myself this many times. Its tough. Personally I put "beyond a reasonable doubt" at maybe 1/1000, but even that would mean that 1000 factually innocent people are in prison in the US. 



always_alone said:


> Obviously. What I was saying is that just because the accused asserts that it was consensual does not make it so.
> 
> Yet the accused is typically believed over the accuser. And while there are some successful prosecutions, the fact remains that for the most part rapists (actual, not alleged) get off scott free.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Just so you know that I’m not ignoring your post…. I have started to look up all those acts, dates and what went on. I want to understand this before I reply.
> 
> 
> You still don’t get it. I don’t know enough about the history of this bill, or why anyone did or did not support it. So right now I’m not convinced one way or the other. I asked about it because others on here were talked about it. I think you said it was a bad bill. So I wanted to find out what YOU thought it was a bad bill.
> 
> But you are insisting on taking the discussion in a deferent direction. So I’m going to look up and verify all that you claim here. Then I will reply, and in the middle of all that, I need to cook a turkey, a bunch of pies, and enjoy a holiday. So I probably will not have a reply until later this week.


First off, I am just a hack troll on the internet who will probably have a goat for Thanksgiving. You go enjoy your family and have a very happy Thanksgiving. This is...entertainment. Light sparring to keep the wits sharp (though they touch on important beliefs we both have, I'm sure)

I want to be very clear. Anon Pink put out a different bill then you put out. 'The Paycheck Fairness Act', or something like that. (And, btw, THAT was posted in 2014. Not in 2009. Not in 2010.)

I took a look at THAT bill and it seemed to strongly imply (I am no lawyer) that while the courts could do their thing, the Secretary of Labor could also be used as a cudgel to beat up a business. Note, I did not say a GUILTY business. 

See...I like the rule of law and court protections.

also believe in EVERYONE being able to be a bad actor. Telling me a Democrat president, or a feminist organization won't try to abuse power doesn't work for me. Woodrow Wilson had a very bad record on the Bill of Rights, for example. So did FDR.

I did not take the time to read your bill because a) I had already acknowledged my mistake, and b) having admitted my mistake, you kept yelling at me about it. So it got pushed down my priority schedule. 

Now, if there were prior bills with similar language put forth during 2006 to 2011, that means that feminists REALLY want this kind of bill passed.

So, the question remains. Why didn't Democrats pass those bills? They had the power. And having asked that, are you (generic) going to make the same 'anti woman' accusations against the Democrats as you are the Republicans for their lack of support? Because talking a good talk isn't being 'pro woman'.
(They do more than talk on abortion, I will certainly grant)

And on campus rape. If this is a do or die scenario, why aren't varying feminist organizatinos pressing the administration to ban drinking and the sale of alcohol on campus? Why aren't they insisting on no co-ed dorms? Why aren't they insisting on CCTV everywhere?

Because they (women in general) seem to value the ability to drink, get laid, and 'dance the dance' with the opposite sex as well as maintain their privacy far more than they actually fear getting raped. Even with all this horrible news, the women are still flocking to the 'rape rooms' of academia without slowing down. If a campus changed their laws to do such things as I suggested, they would probably come dead last on 'most popular schools in America' for both genders.

This is a revealed preference. 

Why do you think that is? It's almost like they don't believe the rhetoric. Cause if you told me that I had a 1 in 5 chance of being crippled visiting Detroit, guess where I'm not going? I'd be going to Bryn Mawr.

And if they don't believe the rhetoric, why should I?


----------



## Westwind

I sat on a drunk driving jury where it was beyond a reasonable doubt and I am sure we got it right; however, a rape trial would really bother me. I would be trying to read body language and looking at physical evidence like trauma and DNA and what the relationship was like. I would want to convict because of the type of crime, but that would not be rational.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> First off, I am just a hack troll on the internet who will probably have a goat for Thanksgiving. You go enjoy your family and have a very happy Thanksgiving. This is...entertainment. Light sparring to keep the wits sharp (though they touch on important beliefs we both have, I'm sure)
> 
> I want to be very clear. Anon Pink put out a different bill then you put out. 'The Paycheck Fairness Act', or something like that. (And, btw, THAT was posted in 2014. Not in 2009. Not in 2010.)
> 
> I took a look at THAT bill and it seemed to strongly imply (I am no lawyer) that while the courts could do their thing, the Secretary of Labor could also be used as a cudgel to beat up a business. Note, I did not say a GUILTY business.
> 
> See...I like the rule of law and court protections.
> 
> also believe in EVERYONE being able to be a bad actor. Telling me a Democrat president, or a feminist organization won't try to abuse power doesn't work for me. Woodrow Wilson had a very bad record on the Bill of Rights, for example. So did FDR.
> 
> I did not take the time to read your bill because a) I had already acknowledged my mistake, and b) having admitted my mistake, you kept yelling at me about it. So it got pushed down my priority schedule.
> 
> Now, if there were prior bills with similar language put forth during 2006 to 2011, that means that feminists REALLY want this kind of bill passed.
> 
> So, the question remains. Why didn't Democrats pass those bills? They had the power. And having asked that, are you (generic) going to make the same 'anti woman' accusations against the Democrats as you are the Republicans for their lack of support? Because talking a good talk isn't being 'pro woman'.
> (They do more than talk on abortion, I will certainly grant)
> 
> And on campus rape. If this is a do or die scenario, why aren't varying feminist organizatinos pressing the administration to ban drinking and the sale of alcohol on campus? Why aren't they insisting on no co-ed dorms? Why aren't they insisting on CCTV everywhere?
> 
> Because they (women in general) seem to value the ability to drink, get laid, and 'dance the dance' with the opposite sex as well as maintain their privacy far more than they actually fear getting raped. Even with all this horrible news, the women are still flocking to the 'rape rooms' of academia without slowing down. If a campus changed their laws to do such things as I suggested, they would probably come dead last on 'most popular schools in America' for both genders.
> 
> This is a revealed preference.
> 
> *Why do you think that is? It's almost like they don't believe the rhetoric. Cause if you told me that I had a 1 in 5 chance of being crippled visiting Detroit, guess where I'm not going? I'd be going to Bryn Mawr.*
> 
> And if they don't believe the rhetoric, why should I?


The changes of a women who is partying at a frat house being raped is NOT 1 in 5. It's fraction of that... a vey small fraction. This post of rape falls into the less than 10% of all rapes category.

Now I did talk to all of my children about the risk of at places where there is drinking and the possibility of being drugged. They were well aware of the issue and how to stay alert and keep as safe as possible. Both my daughter and my sons. Like all things, it applies to both genders.


----------



## EleGirl

This is timely....

San Diego State fraternities halt parties after anti-rape march fracas

The suspension involves 14 fraternities, but all 44 fraternity, sorority and community groups involved in the Greek system plan to participate, he said. About 3,000 of the campus' 34,000 enrolled students are part of Greek life.

On Friday, a Take Back the Night anti-rape march by about 35 people from the Concerned Students and Take Back the Night groups was met by egg-throwing, sex toy-waving members of two fraternities, according to Concerned Students coordinator Jordan Busse. 

Busse said that the next night, a woman was reported to have been sexually assaulted at a fraternity house. San Diego State University police confirmed there was a sexual assault report but declined to identify the fraternity involved.

"Aggressive and violent and abusive behavior from fraternity members goes unchecked," Busse said. "This year there have been 14 sexual assaults at SDSU, five of them at fraternities and not one arrest has been made."


----------



## wmn1

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> The problem is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
> 
> Imagine you are in the jury box. The woman says she was raped and has a reasonable and self consistent story of what happened. The man says that she falsely accused him after the fact and and has a reasonable and self consistent story. (remember that the alleged crime happened months or years ago, so both could have polished their stories).
> 
> There is no clear physical evidence beyond evidence that they had sex.
> 
> 
> How sure do you need to be? You think she is right, but on what odds of being wrong will you destroy his life? 1/10? 1/100? 1/1000?
> 
> I've asked myself this many times. Its tough. Personally I put "beyond a reasonable doubt" at maybe 1/1000, but even that would mean that 1000 factually innocent people are in prison in the US.



I agree completely and it is the law. I am on the prosecution's side more often than not on a professional level but guarantee you innocent people are in jail and guilty ones walk. However, we can't let emotions get in the way of justice and we must allow a system to work, just like in Ferguson


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> The problem is "beyond a reasonable doubt"


One of he problems is that there just is no "beyond reasonable doubt" when the starting assumptions are invariably something along the lines of she shouldn't have been drinking, she must've been wearing something provocative, or must've led him on, or given him mixed signals, or asked for it in some way.

Heck, most of time time you can't even get to charges and a trial with these assumptions, let alone a conviction.

Things are getting better, but this is still a very real problem. To accuse someone of rape is to open yourself up to an endless slew of humiliation and being raked over the coals about your sexual past (because virginity is relevant to rape, don'tcha know), and character (because if you like to party, you're asking for it).

You picked one of the blurriest examples possible. You do realize that most scenarios are not like that at all? But that bruises and other physical evidence are seen as her just liking it rough?


----------



## wmn1

JCD said:


> First off, I am just a hack troll on the internet who will probably have a goat for Thanksgiving. You go enjoy your family and have a very happy Thanksgiving. This is...entertainment. Light sparring to keep the wits sharp (though they touch on important beliefs we both have, I'm sure)
> 
> I want to be very clear. Anon Pink put out a different bill then you put out. 'The Paycheck Fairness Act', or something like that. (And, btw, THAT was posted in 2014. Not in 2009. Not in 2010.)
> 
> I took a look at THAT bill and it seemed to strongly imply (I am no lawyer) that while the courts could do their thing, the Secretary of Labor could also be used as a cudgel to beat up a business. Note, I did not say a GUILTY business.
> 
> 
> ***** It was another case of government overreach. This administration and many in the congress have tried to seize as much control as they can (not trying to provoke a political argument here) and this act would have done that. It is highly insane that the mor$$s who wrote this bill and supported it don't have paycheck fairness in their own staffs. The admin got pummeled for that. Finally, "Paycheck Fairness" is a bunch of bs. There are people who outperform others, there are businesses and in government where seniority counts towards compensation and there are recruiting incentives. Paycheck fairness or whatever they want to term it actually lifts up one group of people while making things unfair for another. It's like the free 'contraceptive' bs. Free for some but who pays for it ? Working people who pay taxes and whose insurance premiums go up to cover it. Again somke and mirrors and I agree with you JCD.
> 
> 
> 
> See...I like the rule of law and court protections.
> 
> 
> *** Me too
> 
> 
> 
> also believe in EVERYONE being able to be a bad actor. Telling me a Democrat president, or a feminist organization won't try to abuse power doesn't work for me. Woodrow Wilson had a very bad record on the Bill of Rights, for example. So did FDR.
> 
> 
> ****** I agree completely and this current administration has abused power just as badly.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not take the time to read your bill because a) I had already acknowledged my mistake, and b) having admitted my mistake, you kept yelling at me about it. So it got pushed down my priority schedule.
> 
> Now, if there were prior bills with similar language put forth during 2006 to 2011, that means that feminists REALLY want this kind of bill passed.
> 
> So, the question remains. Why didn't Democrats pass those bills? They had the power. And having asked that, are you (generic) going to make the same 'anti woman' accusations against the Democrats as you are the Republicans for their lack of support? Because talking a good talk isn't being 'pro woman'.
> (They do more than talk on abortion, I will certainly grant)
> 
> 
> 
> **** They didn't because it would have been politically costly and they used it as fodder to target the GOP as being anti-woman which as we know is a farce. They had all the power from 2009-11 and didn't pass it themselves. You are right here.
> 
> 
> 
> And on campus rape. If this is a do or die scenario, why aren't varying feminist organizatinos pressing the administration to ban drinking and the sale of alcohol on campus? Why aren't they insisting on no co-ed dorms? Why aren't they insisting on CCTV everywhere?
> 
> Because they (women in general) seem to value the ability to drink, get laid, and 'dance the dance' with the opposite sex as well as maintain their privacy far more than they actually fear getting raped. Even with all this horrible news, the women are still flocking to the 'rape rooms' of academia without slowing down. If a campus changed their laws to do such things as I suggested, they would probably come dead last on 'most popular schools in America' for both genders.
> 
> This is a revealed preference.
> 
> Why do you think that is? It's almost like they don't believe the rhetoric. Cause if you told me that I had a 1 in 5 chance of being crippled visiting Detroit, guess where I'm not going? I'd be going to Bryn Mawr.
> 
> And if they don't believe the rhetoric, why should I?




***** I agree with your last assessment as well.


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> The changes of a women who is partying at a frat house being raped is NOT 1 in 5. It's fraction of that... a vey small fraction. This post of rape falls into the less than 10% of all rapes category.
> 
> Now I did talk to all of my children about the risk of at places where there is drinking and the possibility of being drugged. They were well aware of the issue and how to stay alert and keep as safe as possible. Both my daughter and my sons. Like all things, it applies to both genders.


I agree with your second paragraph. 

I am a person who feels strongly that everyone plays the primary role in protecting themselves. That means think before you do and be prepared for all consequences. There are sickos in the world and the police or the system will not always be there to stop them until it's too late. I am heavily trained in this area so I practice what I preach. 

I will give you an example. Last year, we were fending off a gang fight/riot. It was really ugly. The in the middle of it all, some guy who looked like Lance Armstrong, goes barreling between the police and the thugs like he was taking a stroll in the Alps. Both sides were stunned which probably saved the guy from injury because he easily could have been hurt. 

Some people have no clue and while they don't deserve to be victimized, those who don't even try to protect themselves, their actions play a role in their ultimate demise. I highly recommend to everyone to take a street awareness class taught by veteran law enforcement.


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> One of he problems is that there just is no "beyond reasonable doubt" when the starting assumptions are invariably something along the lines of she shouldn't have been drinking, she must've been wearing something provocative, or must've led him on, or given him mixed signals, or asked for it in some way.
> 
> Heck, most of time time you can't even get to charges and a trial with these assumptions, let alone a conviction.
> 
> Things are getting better, but this is still a very real problem. To accuse someone of rape is to open yourself up to an endless slew of humiliation and being raked over the coals about your sexual past (because virginity is relevant to rape, don'tcha know), and character (because if you like to party, you're asking for it).
> 
> 
> 
> ****** It's a two way street. You are right that rape victims are opened up to scrutiny. Those being investigated for rape or charged with it have their lives completely ruined, lose their jobs, their friends and face mega jail time. This is the reason prosecutors and law enforcement are very vigilant but also careful in how hard they push these cases.
> 
> I WAS FALSELY ACCUSED! | This is the story of my personal nightmare with a false child sexual assault allegation…
> 
> Law graduate falsely accused boyfriend of rape and assault as excuse, jury told | UK news | The Guardian
> 
> Date rape cases can be can of worms
> 
> The last link is excellent.
> 
> Look, I get it. Most cases aren't falsified and legitimate cases should be hammered home. However, easier said than done but as we saw in the Duke Lacrosse case, going on emotions and with a rogue prosecutor creates tons of victims on the other side as well.
> 
> Our country is no longer our country if we develop legal systems comparable to 3rd world countries.
> 
> 
> 
> You picked one of the blurriest examples possible. You do realize that most scenarios are not like that at all? But that bruises and other physical evidence are seen as her just liking it rough?



Not true. It actually bolsters a case.


----------



## ChristianGrey

The only time Feminism is put to test is when law and order breaks down and the place is taken over by men with guns, otherwise its like well fed people discussing virtues of Dieting.


----------



## always_alone

wmn1 said:


> ****** It's a two way street. You are right that rape victims are opened up to scrutiny. Those being investigated for rape or charged with it have their lives completely ruined, lose their jobs, their friends and face mega jail time. This is the reason prosecutors and law enforcement are very vigilant but also careful in how hard they push these cases.


Those who are charged with theft, fraud, embezzlement, murder, assault, and so on, can have their lives ruined as well. But we don't scrutinize the victims for what they are wearing, or excuse perpetrators because the victim was drunk.

Yet there are also false allegations for these sorts of crimes, and sometimes innocent people go to jail.

Why do you suppose we treat rape so differently?


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> Those who are charged with theft, fraud, embezzlement, murder, assault, and so on, can have their lives ruined as well. But we don't scrutinize the victims for what they are wearing, or excuse perpetrators because the victim was drunk.
> 
> Yet there are also false allegations for these sorts of crimes, and sometimes innocent people go to jail.
> 
> Why do you suppose we treat rape so differently?



they don't. People's substance abuse does work against them as victims in assault cases all the time.

Again, you are misunderstanding or lack knowledge regarding one of the pillars of our legal system. "Beyond a reasonable doubt' became the standard to ensure that innocent people didn't go to jail, even if guilty ones went free. Do some research behind why this standard exists and you will have a better understanding of why cases are hard to prosecute and justifiably so. However, my jurisdiction has a good record of frying rape perpetrators while screening out falsified claims. One of the articles I sent you (The Massachusetts one) explains what occurs with pretty good depth.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> First off, I am just a hack troll on the internet who will probably have a goat for Thanksgiving.


Enjoy that goat! :rofl:


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> I agree with your second paragraph.
> 
> I am a person who feels strongly that everyone plays the primary role in protecting themselves. That means think before you do and be prepared for all consequences. There are sickos in the world and the police or the system will not always be there to stop them until it's too late. I am heavily trained in this area so I practice what I preach.
> 
> I will give you an example. Last year, we were fending off a gang fight/riot. It was really ugly. The in the middle of it all, some guy who looked like Lance Armstrong, goes barreling between the police and the thugs like he was taking a stroll in the Alps. Both sides were stunned which probably saved the guy from injury because he easily could have been hurt.
> 
> Some people have no clue and while they don't deserve to be victimized, those who don't even try to protect themselves, their actions play a role in their ultimate demise. I highly recommend to everyone to take a street awareness class taught by veteran law enforcement.


Point taken.

But... a person can arm themselves with an AK-47 and several handguns if they are going to be in S Detroit. But the weapons only help him if he sees an attack in time to use his weapons. It's most likely, if a thug wants to attack someone who is so heavily armed, they will just do it from a distance first to disable their victim. With firearms that's pretty easy. All the protection in the world only help under optimal conditions.


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> Point taken.
> 
> But... a person can arm themselves with an AK-47 and several handguns if they are going to be in S Detroit. But the weapons only help him if he sees an attack in time to use his weapons. It's most likely, if a thug wants to attack someone who is so heavily armed, they will just do it from a distance first to disable their victim. With firearms that's pretty easy. All the protection in the world only help under optimal conditions.



unless they are sophisticated, and many aren't, (but a few are), you will still have the advantage. I know from experience, even off duty.
Have a great Thanksgiving Ele


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> The changes of a women who is partying at a frat house being raped is NOT 1 in 5. It's fraction of that... a vey small fraction. This post of rape falls into the less than 10% of all rapes category.


No. My point is that oft cited chestnut of '1 in 5 girls in college are 'sexually assaulted' with the news piece frequently punching up the danger of rape instead of acknowledging that 'sexual assault' by the legal and technical definition, involves anything from an unsolicited and unwelcome kiss, to a danger free grope...to a DANGEROUS grope...to full on rape.

Quite the spread.

But I am not talking about 'frat parties'. I am discussing college. And if I believed that I had a one in five chance of being seriously sexually assaulted or raped, I'd be going to an all girls school or agitating for an all girl dorm. And campuses would be complying because right now, the girls are bringing in the coin.

They don't. They aren't.


Instead, campuses are trying to do the OPPOSITE of discouraging guys. Frankly, I've heard tell that boys are getting a leg up because if the ratio of boys to girls falls too low, the faculty thinks the girls won't be as inclined to select that school.

What should this tell me? Talk is cheap.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Point taken.
> 
> But... a person can arm themselves with an AK-47 and several handguns if they are going to be in S Detroit. But the weapons only help him if he sees an attack in time to use his weapons. It's most likely, if a thug wants to attack someone who is so heavily armed, they will just do it from a distance first to disable their victim. With firearms that's pretty easy. All the protection in the world only help under optimal conditions.


Believe it or not, very few strapping 6'6" tall gentlemen with steely glint in their eyes, and a sense of personal awareness get mugged.

Generally it is people who are the opposite of strong and aware. Criminals prey on weakness, not strength.

The thing I've taught my kids to do more than learn the peaceful art of kicking someone's kidneys through their nose is 'be aware of who is around you and who is paying attention to you.'

Because most criminals are ambush predators.


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> unless they are sophisticated, and many aren't, (but a few are), you will still have the advantage. I know from experience, even off duty.
> 
> Have a great Thanksgiving Ele


I know I mentioned this before but most probably do not remember... I spent a considerable amount of my youth in a war zone. As a child, like my parents and siblings had to engage in that war to stay alive. 

So, I know that even an unsophisticated person with a firearm can get very lucky.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> No. My point is that oft cited chestnut of '1 in 5 girls in college are 'sexually assaulted' with the news piece frequently punching up the danger of rape instead of acknowledging that 'sexual assault' by the legal and technical definition, involves anything from an unsolicited and unwelcome kiss, to a danger free grope...to a DANGEROUS grope...to full on rape.
> Quite the spread.


Since you are critical of grouping rape (penetration) with all other kinds of sexual assualt, do you even know what percentage of that total number of sexual assaults for each type of assault?

“One in four college women report surviving rape or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime.”

When I was 21, one night I came home from work at about midnight. When I was getting out of my car a guy about my same age walked up and asked me directions to a nearby street. As I was giving him directions, he started strangling me. I yelled bloody murder so he then had one hand on my neck and one over my mouth. While he was strangling me, he was also dragging me to an empty field with high weeds across the street. After about 10 minutes of this some neighbors came out and the SOB ran away. (I cannot think of words harsh enough to call this guy.) 

I was left with bruises on my neck, my mouth torn up, scratches all my arms, legs and face. Now I don’t’ think anyone would argue his intent. This was an attempted rape/murder.

But in the police report is was an assault. Sure maybe an unwanted kiss might be reported as a sexual assault. But most murders/rapes in which a woman successfully fights the guy off is just an assault.

The police who showed up two hours later never did one thing to find the guy who attacked me. 



JCD said:


> to a danger free grope...to a DANGEROUS grope...


What is the difference between a danger free grope and dangerous grope? Is this a rape that does not happen so the perp “only” gets to grope her before she gets away?

Gropes are not just some little silly things like some guy stealing a little kiss at the school dance. First off, the woman being groped did not consent. I can tell you that she feels assaulted, violated and scared. It is unwanted touch. She has no idea what else the guy will do next. I’ve been groped many times… try riding crowded buses in any large city in this world, crowded commuter trains or going to the October Fest in Munich. I can tell you that having some big, ugly, harry German guy grab my crotch was not some inconsequential thing. It is scary.

To get a clearer picture of how people downplay this… let’s look at assault/battery. Now these are not cases that include a man groping a woman’s private parts. Instead they usually are men threatening or touch either men or women. But most cases of assault and/or batter are male to male. 

In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person: 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm. 

It does not even require any kind of touch at all because all that is required is that the victim feel that they are threatened or in immediate harm.

Punishments can range anywhere from fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense and the offender's criminal history. 

So why exactly is assault/battery a serious crime, but groping a women is not? Groping is the same as assault/battery except that it involves touching a person in a sexual manner.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-penalties-and-sentencing.html




JCD said:


> But I am not talking about 'frat parties'. I am discussing college. And if I believed that I had a one in five chance of being seriously sexually assaulted or raped,


First, you use of the statistic 1 in 5 (or 1 in 4 depending on the source) is wrong. It is not 1 in 5 (or 4) are raped/sexually-assaulted while in college. It is that the college women report that is has happened at some time in their life-time. That’s a very different than what you claim.



JCD said:


> But I am not talking about 'frat parties'. I am discussing college. And if I believed that I had a one in five chance of being seriously sexually assaulted or raped, I'd be going to an all girls school or agitating for an all-girl dorm. And campuses would be complying because right now, the girls are bringing in the coin.
> Instead, campuses are trying to do the OPPOSITE of discouraging guys. Frankly, I've heard tell that boys are getting a leg up because if the ratio of boys to girls falls too low, the faculty thinks the girls won't be as inclined to select that school.
> 
> What should this tell me? Talk is cheap.


Do you realize that women in women-only-colleges go out with college guys and other guys in their community just as much as women in co-ed colleges do? So exactly how is segregation by gender going to help? Will we then only allow women in college to go out with chaperones? Do we put the same restrictions on men in college? Or do only put restrictions on women college students (who are not the rapists)?

What does segregation of women mean for the rest of the lives of these women? Are the then segregated and not allowed to work around men? 

What are you suggesting here? Are you suggesting that we adopt the type or social structure that Saudi Arabia has? In Saudi, they use the threat of rape and sexual assault as a way to explain why women are not allowed to mix with men anywhere outside the home. Women are only allowed to be around male family members at home because presumably that keeps women safe. In public they must be accompanies by a male family member. But of course, that does not protect women from rape in Saudi since most rapes are in private homes. Women in Saudi are raped as often as women in the USA.

How far to you take the segregation of women from men?

This would of course make it so that women are no longer able to get the same education men get. Without an equal education, women will not be able to compete for jobs, earn equal pay, have equal financial rights, equal rights to have businesses.

In the past, society used the threat of rape to control women. In some societies even today rape is used as a punishment for women. For example some tribes in the Indian Subcontinent, Africa and the Middle East use rape as punishment for any female to dares to do anything outside their social norms. I’ve read of tribal judges handing down punishment of gang rapes for women in these cases. And they never lack a volunteer group of local men more than willing to dish out the punishment.

Instead of women giving in to the threat of rape and segregating women, I have a very different solution. Women all get concealed weapons permits and go armed. They also attend martial arts classes for self-defense. To me that’s a solution. Having women hid is a gender segregated sub-society is not a solution.

Above I talked about the groping that goes on pretty often on any crowded busses and commuter trains. The girls I went to high school with in Europe and I came up with a solution that worked very well. We wore high heels on public transportation, steal spiked heels were best. So whether we were using commuter buses/trains to commute to/from school or to travel up to Germany for skiing, etc., we would do this. When a guy started groping one of us. We put our hand around to grab hand. We’d turn and smile at the guy. Since we had his hand we knew exactly who he was. These stupid, idiot men got all excited about that and would smile. Then, OPPS, we’d trip, and somehow landed with our heel right on the top of his foot and dig in as hard as we could. Now that was not an assault, after all we just tripped. The perverts on our bus route learned to leave the girls from our high school alone. There were a few times when other bus passengers knew exactly what was going on .. and they laughed and clapped.

The solution is not to tell woman that we have to run off in fear to women only schools, women only dormitories and women only work places in a parallel society so that we will not be raped. Because when this happens, we are just like Saudi Arabia. When this happens, women’s right to an education equal to the education that men gets is lost. Women’s right to equal jobs, equal pay, equal financial rights, even buying a house, opening a business are all lost.


Do no suggest that this is what we should be working towards. What should be worked towards is for the non-predator members of society is to eliminate the predators.


You have mentioned several times that you want to know why feminists are not fighting for women only colleges and dormitories. Well now you know. Because that only leads up back to Saudi type society. 

I agree that women should not go out in public and get drunk unless they know that they are with people they can trust. I only agree with it because there are a number of men who are perpetrators and dangerous and we don’t know who they are. So women should not trust any man she does not know very well. But then again, a woman is most likely to be raped by a man who knows her. So exactly what men can women trust?

I’m not suggesting that all men are predators. Instead I’m suggesting some small number of men are predators and women have no clue who these men are. Men don’t even know which men are predators and which are not.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

JCD said:


> No. My point is that oft cited chestnut of '1 in 5 girls in college are 'sexually assaulted' with the news piece frequently punching up the danger of rape instead of acknowledging that 'sexual assault' by the legal and technical definition, involves anything from an unsolicited and unwelcome kiss, to a danger free grope...to a DANGEROUS grope...to full on rape.
> 
> Quite the spread.
> 
> *But I am not talking about 'frat parties'. I am discussing college. And if I believed that I had a one in five chance of being seriously sexually assaulted or raped, I'd be going to an all girls school or agitating for an all girl dorm. And campuses would be complying because right now, the girls are bringing in the coin.*
> 
> They don't. They aren't.
> 
> 
> Instead, campuses are trying to do the OPPOSITE of discouraging guys. Frankly, I've heard tell that boys are getting a leg up because if the ratio of boys to girls falls too low, the faculty thinks the girls won't be as inclined to select that school.


Not that this has anything to do with the discussion.. but I am terrified for my daughter to go to college in the future the way so many young people conduct themselves today.. like getting drunk is a right of passage... I think the whole scene is atrocious.. a friend of ours drives bus for a large state campus & we've heard far too many stories (always a point of discussion when he visits) ....from his having to stop sex on the bus (like seriously [email protected]#) from a girl begging him to DO HER , from one trying to get on his bus in her underwear...he sees it all & he knows what goes on.. he's had to stop his bus because a girl was passed out in the grass...he couldn't just leave her there.. he knows what someone else MIGHT DO to her. 

I am with any poster who feels they should be harder, tougher, more strict and shut down these fraternity houses or whatever goes on.. that causes headlines...so less people get victimized .... when people can't handle being responsible ...others have to step in.. make laws.. ruin some of the FUN..


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Believe it or not, very few strapping 6'6" tall gentlemen with steely glint in their eyes, and a sense of personal awareness get mugged.
> 
> Generally it is people who are the opposite of strong and aware. Criminals prey on weakness, not strength.
> 
> The thing I've taught my kids to do more than learn the peaceful art of kicking someone's kidneys through their nose is 'be aware of who is around you and who is paying attention to you.'
> 
> Because most criminals are ambush predators.


All this talk of steely glint eyes, AK47s, etc is just silly. Yea most heavily armed people don’t get mugged. Whether they stand 4’5” for 6’6”. And most women take precautions and never get raped when they are away from their homes.

A few women do get raped no matter what they do. And some people armed to the hilt do get killed. 

My father taught all of his 8 children a lot more than kicking in someone’s nose & kidneys. By the time I was 10, I could handle any firearm 22, 9mm up to a 45, a lot of rifles that I cannot remember the caliber of, and his shotguns. He had to because that’s life or death in a war. 

The first rule of staying alive is to never let anyone get near enough so that you have to kick in their nose and/or kidneys. I don't need to look into the steely glinting eyes of a strapping 6'6" tall man to stop him. Why bother to mug them when there is a much easier way…. before he knows what hit him. All that needs to happen is to get a good bead on him from a distance that is within range of the thugs’ firearm. Then POW in the back.. maybe the back of the head. I could do it if I were so inclined. I could do it when I was 10 years old and I could do it now. A lot of thugs in the ghetto can do that.

When I was 10, a guy climbed over our compound wall, over broken shards of glass embedded in the top of the 12’ wall (he used a mat to cover the shards) and he entered our house from a back door in the garage. I was the first to see him enter at one end of the house, I blew the guys knee out. That’s what I aimed at. I sat there with the loaded hand gun waiting for him to dare to get up. He laid there in agony until my parents returned. My father had him taken away.. who knows what happed to the guy. The guy was a member of a political faction that was breaking into homes and slaughtering families of the opposition. 

I told you that I spent a lot of my childhood in a war zone. I have a clue. Hollywood type words of "tall gentlemen with steely glint in their eyes" mean nothing in the real world. What matters in the real world is that anyone who can aim and hit their target, can take out anyone within range of their firearm.

And anyone who is a sexual predator can find some woman somewhere to rape when that’s what he’s set out to do. When a predator is determined, he will find someone even if that woman has been very careful. My point is that a person can take all the precautions and still fall prey to a predator.

(Sorry all. I had a childhood that was very different than what most people in the USA do. It was more like living in the war torn part of Somalia. I seldom talk about it. I think you can see why.)


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> All this talk of steely glint eyes, AK47s, etc is just silly. Yea most heavily armed people don’t get mugged. Whether they stand 4’5” for 6’6”. And most women take precautions and never get raped when they are away from their homes.
> 
> A few women do get raped no matter what they do. And some people armed to the hilt do get killed.
> 
> My father taught all of his 8 children a lot more than kicking in someone’s nose & kidneys. By the time I was 10, I could handle any firearm 22, 9mm up to a 45, a lot of rifles that I cannot remember the caliber of, and his shotguns. He had to because that’s life or death in a war.
> 
> The first rule of staying alive is to never let anyone get near enough so that you have to kick in their nose and/or kidneys. I don't need to look into the steely glinting eyes of a strapping 6'6" tall man to stop him. Why bother to mug them when there is a much easier way…. before he knows what hit him. All that needs to happen is to get a good bead on him from a distance that is within range of the thugs’ firearm. Then POW in the back.. maybe the back of the head. I could do it if I were so inclined. I could do it when I was 10 years old and I could do it now. A lot of thugs in the ghetto can do that.
> 
> When I was 10, a guy climbed over our compound wall, over broken shards of glass embedded in the top of the 12’ wall (he used a mat to cover the shards) and he entered our house from a back door in the garage. I was the first to see him enter at one end of the house, I blew the guys knee out. That’s what I aimed at. I sat there with the loaded hand gun waiting for him to dare to get up. He laid there in agony until my parents returned. My father had him taken away.. who knows what happed to the guy. The guy was a member of a political faction that was breaking into home and slaughtering families of the opposition.
> 
> I told you that I spent a lot of my childhood in a war zone. I have a clue. Hollywood type words of "tall gentlemen with steely glint in their eyes" mean nothing in the real world. What matters in the real world is that anyone who can aim and hit their target, can take out anyone within range of their firearm.
> 
> And anyone who is a sexual predator can find some woman somewhere to rape when that’s what he’s set out to do. And when a predator is determined, he will find someone even if that woman has been very careful. My point is that a person can take all the precautions and still fall prey to a predator.
> 
> (Sorry all. I had a childhood that was very different than what most people in the USA do. It was more like living in the war torn part of Somalia. I seldom talk about it. I think you can see why.)


First, thanks for the anecdote. Sorry you had to live through that, and rest assured I will send you AMPLE warning before I ever think of visiting your house 

What I am saying is that rapists are ambush predators. They are looking for the weak, the clueless, the drunk.

Now, no one is 100% immune to bad actions. 

One can mitigate risk. Some people EMBRACE risk...and saying so is not 'hating' on them, or 'excusing' bad actions.

It is simply saying someone is behaving foolishly. This is a totally separate issue from the wrong doing of a criminal.

What I find so offensive about the argument by women about this the idea that society should essentially make them immune to the consequences of foolishness.

"A virgin carrying a bag of gold across the city at midnight" was the standard of Medieval safety. But generally, to get there, you needed to have a very oppressive government to have that.

This guy, for example, was said to have achieved it.










Thanks no. I would rather put a small amount of burden on women to not behave idiotically.

Most of them don't. Most of them are VERY careful, at least with strangers.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for dudes who pick up rattlesnakes either.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Thanks no. I would rather put a small amount of burden on women to not behave idiotically.


I have no problem with women doing things that make them not vulnerable to predators. 

From something posted on this thread, men are now saying that they are raped and/or sexually molested as much as woman are. It usually involved alcohol. So, men should not be drinking when they are out.


As I have stated earlier on this thread, I had that talk with my daughter and both of my sons on this topic.. not once, many times.



JCD said:


> Most of them don't. Most of them are VERY careful, at least with strangers.


That's right. 



JCD said:


> I don't have a lot of sympathy for dudes who pick up rattlesnakes either.


The expectation is that if a person picks up a rattle snake they WILL BE BITTEN. Shoot, they will usually be bitten before get their hands on the raddle snake. The probability of this happening is almost 100%.

When a person goes to a party and drinks, there is not an expectation of rape. The possibility of rape is very small for any one woman at any one party.

The analogy of a person handling rattles just does not work.


----------



## DanaS

SimplyAmorous said:


> Not that this has anything to do with the discussion.. but I am terrified for my daughter to go to college in the future the way so many young people conduct themselves today.. like getting drunk is a right of passage... I think the whole scene is atrocious.. a friend of ours drives bus for a large state campus & we've heard far too many stories (always a point of discussion when he visits) ....from his having to stop sex on the bus (like seriously [email protected]#) from a girl begging him to DO HER , from one trying to get on his bus in her underwear...he sees it all & he knows what goes on.. he's had to stop his bus because a girl was passed out in the grass...he couldn't just leave her there.. he knows what someone else MIGHT DO to her.
> 
> *I am with any poster who feels they should be harder, tougher, more strict and shut down these fraternity houses or whatever goes on.. that causes headlines...so less people get victimized .... when people can't handle being responsible ...others have to step in.. make laws.. ruin some of the FUN..*


Hey now, if we are going to shut down the fraternities I think we should have the sororities shut down to, believe me they are just as bad. I have heard plenty of going ons from both of them from my husband who was in college not to long ago and my daughter and they're both filled with all kinds of degeneracy...No offense to those that have been in one/go to one.


----------



## EleGirl

DanaS said:


> Hey now, if we are going to shut down the fraternities I think we should have the sororities shut down to, believe me they are just as bad. I have heard plenty of going ons from both of them from my husband who was in college not to long ago and my daughter and they're both filled with all kinds of degeneracy...No offense to those that have been in one/go to one.


I posted the below article a few pages back. That's exactly what is going on in San Diego State.. Well they are asking the all of the Greek system to suspend so that they can clean house and do some training to clean up the mess that's going on....





EleGirl said:


> This is timely....
> 
> San Diego State fraternities halt parties after anti-rape march fracas
> 
> *The suspension involves 14 fraternities, but all 44 fraternity, sorority and community groups involved in the Greek system plan to participate, he said. About 3,000 of the campus' 34,000 enrolled students are part of Greek life.*
> On Friday, a Take Back the Night anti-rape march by about 35 people from the Concerned Students and Take Back the Night groups was met by egg-throwing, sex toy-waving members of two fraternities, according to Concerned Students coordinator Jordan Busse.
> 
> Busse said that the next night, a woman was reported to have been sexually assaulted at a fraternity house. San Diego State University police confirmed there was a sexual assault report but declined to identify the fraternity involved.
> 
> "Aggressive and violent and abusive behavior from fraternity members goes unchecked," Busse said. "This year there have been 14 sexual assaults at SDSU, five of them at fraternities and not one arrest has been made."


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> I have no problem with women doing things that make the vulnerable to predators.


Could you clarify that statement?




> The expectation is that if a person picks up a rattle snake they WILL BE BITTEN. Shoot, they will usually be bitten before get their hands on the raddle snake. The probability of this happening is almost 100%.
> 
> When a person goes to a party and drinks, there is not an expectation of rape. The possibility of rape is very small for any one woman at any one party.
> 
> The analogy of a person handling rattles just does not work.


I am saying here that I am not just dinging women for doing stupid things. If I guy does something blatantly stupid, I will ding him just as much.

In the vast majority of cases, you are correct. Women go to parties in AMAZING numbers and don't get raped! Millions of women go to FRATERNITY parties and don't get raped. (Not that you would know this from how the news is being reported. And I _like_ that women feel free enough to dress provocatively and are willing to actually conversationally interact with men (I spend a lot of time overseas where getting women to talk to you is...difficult because of the safety fears)

I am 100% on board with having a safeish life. 

I have a problem when stated feminist state that it is a woman's right to behave in the most idiotic ways possible without consequence. And this comes at the expense of MY civil rights. Very prickly on that issue. 

So this leads back to why I do not trust feminists (at least the ones I hear about) I don't have an issue with wage equity. Hey, take that law and sell it. Win the war of words, preferably when you have a SPLIT Congress (selling only to one party...not a great idea.)

However when they turn a blind eye toward male civil rights, happily supporting Affirmative Consent which essentially gives a tacit opening to stripping a guy of his civil rights in a Kangaroo College Court...that means the feminists saying this are not only not looking out for my interests, they are AGAINST my interests...and my civil rights.

Just to bring this away from rape and back to why feminism is not 'misunderstood'. It is understood too well.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> I have no problem with women doing things that make them *not *vulnerable to predators.





JCD said:


> Could you clarify that statement?


Opps... I forgot the work NOT... NOT.. NOT

Fixed it in the post above. Glad you caught that.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> When I was 21, one night I came home from work at about midnight. When I was getting out of my car a guy about my same age walked up and asked me directions to a nearby street. As I was giving him directions, he started strangling me. I yelled bloody murder so he then had one hand on my neck and one over my mouth. While he was strangling me, he was also dragging me to an empty field with high weeds across the street. After about 10 minutes of this some neighbors came out and the SOB ran away. (I cannot think of words harsh enough to call this guy.)
> 
> I was left with bruises on my neck, my mouth torn up, scratches all my arms, legs and face. Now I don’t’ think anyone would argue his intent. This was an attempted rape/murder.
> 
> The police who showed up two hours later never did one thing to find the guy who attacked me.


I want to put a qualifier here which is not intent on diminishing what happened to you AT ALL. Okay? Are we clear on that? This was wrong and it was awful. It was an attempted rape.

It happened when you were 21. I have zero problem acknowledging that police of that era (early 60's?) were not in the 'rape' business, they did not deal with it effectively, they did not particularly want to investigate it and there were no incentives to deal with this matter effectively. I think feminists are right to be critical of past police work.

That was then. This is now. I do not believe we have a perfect system but we have a BETTER system then the *legal brush off *you were frankly victimized by. And yes, a large part of this is due to feminism. I am not pro rape.



> But in the police report is was an assault. Sure maybe an unwanted kiss might be reported as a sexual assault. But most murders/rapes in which a woman successfully fights the guy off is just an assault


This argument has a lot of teeth. Not exactly sure how to respond except to say that I do not think this is just. I do no support this as a policy. And I wonder how often this happens these days.




> What is the difference between a danger free grope and dangerous grope? Is this a rape that does not happen so the perp “only” gets to grope her before she gets away?
> 
> Gropes are not just some little silly things like some guy stealing a little kiss at the school dance.


You misunderstand what I am attempting to say. I am discussing the weakness of polling questions.

But sorry, YES, an unsolicited kiss can be considered a 'sexual assault'. Because this is not based on 'law' (though the law could construe a kiss as a sexual assault, particularly in California)

Example 1: Jill, Patty and some male friends (non sexual) are playing Frisbee in the quad. Hank during one of the tackles cops a feel of Jill's boob. She pushes him off with a sniff of disdain and perhaps a few strong words. She was never in fear but she was still, asked years later, sexually assaulted and can, when asked that question by a pollster who happens to want to punch up the numbers, can measure it as such.

Example 2: Patty goes on a date. Date goes in for a kiss. She isn't in the mood for a kiss but she gives him one anyway. He's a close friend of a friend and sometimes social things happen. He misconstrues it and goes in for a feel. She again takes righteous umbrage....and it can (and probably will) be polled as a sexual assault.

Because it is. I have no issue with that. However, in neither case is there a 'sense of danger' ergo, not a dangerous grope. A smelly German who is a stranger and outweighs you by 50 pounds...I'd be scared of him too! Which is why I differentiated. 


But I understand in a 'crime of violence' there is a wide range of covered activities from a glare to outright murder, and stating that a generic term like 'crime of violence' can cover a lot of ground...well...so can the term 'sexual assault.'

Acknowledging this is not controversial.





> First, you use of the statistic 1 in 5 (or 1 in 4 depending on the source) is wrong. It is not 1 in 5 (or 4) are raped/sexually-assaulted while in college. It is that the college women report that is has happened at some time in their life-time. That’s a very different than what you claim.


This is part of my point. If you asked a 'man on the street' how many women were raped in college, you probably have a pretty fair chance of getting a 'one in four'. Because this is less about education and more about pushing a fear to push a law (or...push out Republicans. See the timing of this 'issue' which wasn't so widely covered for 6 years. Why is that?)



> Do you realize that women in women-only-colleges go out with college guys and other guys in their community just as much as women in co-ed colleges do? So exactly how is segregation by gender going to help? Will we then only allow women in college to go out with chaperones? Do we put the same restrictions on men in college? Or do only put restrictions on women college students (who are not the rapists)?


This is not about 'big bad JCD' wanting to segregate women. 

This is JCD saying: I am observing how rape is reported...and I am looking at how women are ACTING!

They are not acting like college is a place for self imposed burkas. (I will probably tell my son to forget dating in college) They are marching about rape...in short skirts and tank tops.

They march on rape...and then get a couple of girlfriends and go down to Cancun for Spring Break to get wasted in a foreign country.

Noting this mixed message is not being pro segregation. 



> Women in Saudi are raped as often as women in the USA.


You ask me to support my claims and then you say things like this. There is no way in hell you can have an accurate assessment of this fact. To say the Saudi system is not pro good rape statistics is like saying that bikinis are not big sellers in Alaska in December.



> Instead of women giving in to the threat of rape and segregating women, I have a very different solution. Women all get concealed weapons permits and go armed. They also attend martial arts classes for self-defense. To me that’s a solution. Having women hid is a gender segregated sub-society is not a solution.


My daughters can join you.


> Above I talked about the groping that goes on pretty often on any crowded busses and commuter trains. The girls I went to high school with in Europe and I came up with a solution that worked very well. We wore high heels on public transportation, steal spiked heels were best. So whether we were using commuter buses/trains to commute to/from school or to travel up to Germany for skiing, etc., we would do this. When a guy started groping one of us. We put our hand around to grab hand. We’d turn and smile at the guy. Since we had his hand we knew exactly who he was. These stupid, idiot men got all excited about that and would smile. Then, OPPS, we’d trip, and somehow landed with our heel right on the top of his foot and dig in as hard as we could. Now that was not an assault, after all we just tripped. The perverts on our bus route learned to leave the girls from our high school alone. There were a few times when other bus passengers knew exactly what was going on .. and they laughed and clapped.


I like THESE sorts of solutions much better than snatching civil rights from the male gender and if some lout decided he wanted to 'teach those girls a lesson,' I'd finish my applauding and give the girls a hand.

Because that is part of my role as a civic minded person.



> The solution is not to tell woman that we have to run off in fear to women only schools, women only dormitories and women only work places in a parallel society so that we will not be raped.
> 
> 
> You have mentioned several times that you want to know why feminists are not fighting for women only colleges and dormitories. Well now you know. Because that only leads up back to Saudi type society.


One, I never said that women SHOULD be forced into this. I never said this was an answer. I never suggested this as an answer. You *want* me to have offered this as an answer because it makes it easier to dismiss me.

I said if I were a woman facing this 'catastrophe of rape' that supposedly awaits on campus, I would take some steps to avoid that situation and I enumerated HOW I would avoid that situation. Ways we can see as a 'revealed preference' by women. They are not, as stated above, acting all that terrified.





> I agree that women should not go out in public and get drunk unless they know that they are with people they can trust. I only agree with it because there are a number of men who are perpetrators and dangerous and we don’t know who they are. So women should not trust any man she does not know very well. But then again, a woman is most likely to be raped by a man who knows her. So exactly what men can women trust?


You got me. I could float a theory that women and society have generally operated well enough to avoid most 'stranger rape' and instead have more familial rape.

BUT...rape in general has dropped for the last 20 years, I believe? Funny how that news is not being trumpeted to the skies. That is VERY good news!




> I’m not suggesting that all men are predators. Instead I’m suggesting some small number of men are predators and women have no clue who these men are. Men don’t even know which men are predators and which are not.


Which is why this affirmative consent rule is bunk. Colleges will use is to sweep the issue under the rug and move these questionable guys to elsewhere.

I think a very small percentage of guys are actual rapists and women need to get their big girl panties on and actually REPORT THEM and not go crying to their girlfriends until they lodge a complaint a YEAR LATER!

The average rapist does it something like 7 times or more. Even raising the conviction rate a single percent will spare hundreds of women!


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> I am saying here that I am not just dinging women for doing stupid things. If I guy does something blatantly stupid, I will ding him just as much.
> 
> In the vast majority of cases, you are correct. Women go to parties in AMAZING numbers and don't get raped! Millions of women go to FRATERNITY parties and don't get raped. (Not that you would know this from how the news is being reported. And I _like_ that women feel free enough to dress provocatively and are willing to actually conversationally interact with men (I spend a lot of time overseas where getting women to talk to you is...difficult because of the safety fears)
> 
> I am 100% on board with having a safeish life.


OK…. I agree



JCD said:


> I have a problem when stated feminist state that it is a right to behave in the most idiotic ways possible.


I’m not sure that I have ever heard anyone state that it’s right to behave in the most idiotic ways possible.

Well except for people like my schizophrenic nephew. But he also says he’s a god, or becoming a god, or something like that. I guess he can do whatever he wants since he’s a god after all. 

And except for someone I sadly know who is an out of control drug addict and his friends. But we know that those types of people ignore all kinds of rules of society. All they want are their drugs.



JCD said:


> And this comes at the expense of MY civil rights. Very prickly on that issue.


How does women, going to parties, come at the expense of your civil rights? Or how does people doing idiotic things come at that expense of your civil rights?
 



JCD said:


> So this leads back to why I do not trust feminists (at least the ones I hear about) I don't have an issue with wage equity. Hey, take that law and sell it. Win the war of words, preferably when you have a SPLIT Congress (selling only to one party...not a great idea.)


Laws such as the equal pay laws and sexual discrimination at work laws are not written in a way that is for women only. They are for all people. 

I searched and found 3 cases of men winning class suits. 2 of these are for pay and employment sex discrimination and one is for sexual harassment. I’m glad that the laws exist now so that these men got their days in court.

Men win sex discrimination class action lawsuit against Lawry’s Restaurants Inc. for only hiring female servers - $1,025,000 settlement 

Big Settlements InTwo Male Sex Discrimination Cases : Employee Rights Post

Six male employees win sexual harassment lawsuit against Cheesecake Factory, Inc , male-on-male sexual harassment occurred at one of the chain's restaurants and that supervisors ignored complaints.
Cheesecake Factory sued by workers - Los Angeles Times

18 Men win sex discrimination pay case against university… they included a total of 26 men in the class action… all received back pay
BBC News - Men win sex discrimination pay case against university 

To fight a good law for the sole purpose of playing party politics makes us all lose. I’m tired of our politicians, who we all pay, just screwing around in threaten. 

You accuse the Dems of theatre. Well the Republicans are using theater too. This is why I have little use for either party. They all suck. I have little sympathy for one pan calling the other black.





JCD said:


> However when they turn a blind eye toward male civil rights, happily supporting Affirmative Consent which essentially gives a tacit opening to stripping a guy of his civil rights in a Kangaroo College Court...that means the feminists saying this are not only not looking out for my interests, they are AGAINST my interests...and my civil rights.


This is only in California, right? 

In my way of thinking “No Means No” and “Affirmative Consent” are two sides of the same coin. Both have problems, huge problems. It seems pretty stupid to change from one to the other as both approaches have huge holes. At least with “No Means No” there is existing case law that works out some of the kinks.

No one knows how this is going to play out. It’s going to take a long time to work out and manifest in society and the courts.

The “No Means No” laws are not working very well either. Women are raped and yet cannot get any just for it most of the time. Yet innocent guys get caught up in it too. 

Men are claiming that they are raped about as often as women are. Men are also claiming that they are raped almost as often as women. They say that 40% of the time the perps are women in “made to penetrate” sexual assaults. Apparently American men are have the highest rate of being rape victims in the world, by many many times.

Women and men are equally at risk with Affirmative Consent. So perhaps this will help men.

If we believe the media, movies and what we read here on TAM and other places on the internet casual sex the norm in our society. Add some alcohol and drugs and it sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah. I’m wondering if people the step back start thinking way more carefully about who they have sex with and the circumstances of their sexual encounters.

Shoot we could create some kind of temporary marriage like the Shia Muslims have. A marriage contract which states a time limit on the marriage… as little as one hour or up to as many hours or days that the two people desire. Then consent is clearly stated and agreed upon.


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> I know I mentioned this before but most probably do not remember... I spent a considerable amount of my youth in a war zone. As a child, like my parents and siblings had to engage in that war to stay alive.
> 
> So, I know that even an unsophisticated person with a firearm can get very lucky.


Maybe so and I respect that position. It had to be horrible to grow up in a war zone. You must have seen it all there. 

Let me tell you my experience. 

For over two decades, I have worked the streets in one of the highest crime neighborhoods and bordering two others in the country. I consistently deal with victims, and have been in tons of life and death situations myself. Considering this area's brutal gun control laws, I constantly see victims who aren't allowed to arm themselves and many do get robbed, raped and murdered or assaulted and it's unfortunate. They can't protect themselves to the level that they should be able to. 

I am also a big proponent of concealed carry over open carry because you are to an extent a target but not from far range. Places like Detroit might be bad but the gangs don't have snipers set up from 1000 yards to take the shot. Most killings are close in and yes you will be a target if you are open carrying or the smaller criminals may leave you alone. But then again, you'll be a target anyway based on how you look and conduct yourself.

For example, right before my Mother died, I had to move some things from her apartment. My Mom gave up any wealth she had and died broke. She lived in a nasty area of one of the biggest slum cities in the US (and refused help to get out). One day, while leaving her place (remember the argument about people putting themselves in bad positions --- this time I had little choice but to be in one), I was walking through a courtyard with my wife (who I demanded not be there with me but she insisted) and my brother. We were simply walking to the car with a couple boxes in our hands. We were soon surrounded by 7 thugs one who had a switchblade in his right hand. Knowing where I was, I was packing 2 guns, a Glock and a pocket gun. It didn't even need to have someone of my experience to know what 'the deal was'. I immediately pulled out my Glock and pointed it center mass at the closest guy (the guy with the blade) than muzzled at least 3 other of the ****roaches and all of a sudden, they all scurried off in various directions. One of the cardinal rules of firearm safety is to keep your finger off the trigger unless ready to fire. My finger was on the trigger and the guy with the blade was lined up in my sights. The only thing that saved him was my brother clumsily getting in my way at the exact wrong time.We secured our stuff in the car, reported it and left. 

I have had the opportunity (or misfortune) of growing up in Newark, NJ. I lived in East LA for a year, lived in the Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and DC areas pretty much my entire life. While not Fallujah or Baghdad (though the dozens of combat vets who I work with say that parts of Detroit and Chicago are right there with those places), I have seen enough, lived enough and experienced enough to know how to protect yourself and how to be the innocent victim who was clueless as to their situation. I choose the former. 

I think the reason we got on this topic was the discussion of victims and whether or not they were taking adequate steps to protect themselves. I can assure you in dealing with tons of sex assault and rape cases that many didn't take adequate steps to protect themselves and while they in no way shape or form deserved what happened to them, it was preventable in some if not many of the cases. We have to be vigilant but we have to be our own first line of defense and I think that you and I both know that and I am hopeful that many others learn this to be true before they too become victims.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DanaS said:


> Hey now, if we are going to shut down the fraternities I think we should have the sororities shut down to, believe me they are just as bad. I have heard plenty of going ons from both of them from my husband who was in college not to long ago and my daughter and they're both filled with all kinds of degeneracy...No offense to those that have been in one/go to one.


:iagree: with you.. when I spoke the word Fraternities.. I meant anything & everything that is causing these kinds of drunken irresponsible ongoing headlines... 

15 Frightening Facts about Sororities and Fraternities - Zen College Life

Just a few of these...



> *3*. Fraternity men have a higher risk for committing sexual assault Research has shown that fraternity men are at greater risk for committing sexual assault due to their alcohol consumption, sexual outlook and group attitudes toward women. Although fraternity members also have a higher risk for committing rape than other college men, most of them don't rape.
> 
> *4.* The fraternity or sorority house is the largest on-campus venue for drinking .More students engaged in drinking at fraternity and sorority houses than any other on-campus venue or residence hall. According to the Harvard School of Public Health's College Alcohol Study, 75% of students living in fraternity and sorority houses were heavy drinkers, compared to 45% of students who lived in non-Greek housing and 35% of the overall student population.
> 
> *7. *Sorority members are more likely to be victims of sexual assault. Sorority members have a greater risk of being sexually assaulted in college than non-members. According to the National Institute of Justice, nearly a quarter of sexual assault victims are sorority members. These women also face a higher risk for violence in dating relationships than other female students.
> 
> *8.* More students engage in heavy drinking at fraternity and sorority parties than at off-campus parties and bars
> Fraternity and sorority parties see more cases of heavy drinking than any other off-campus party or bar in college. According to the Harvard School of Public Health's College Alcohol Study, 32% of students who drink had attended a fraternity or sorority party during the year, and 13% of the students who attended these parties had at least five drinks in one sitting.
> 
> *11. *Fraternity and sorority members suffer more alcohol-related consequences than their peers
> According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, fraternities and sororities are more likely to suffer alcohol-related consequences than non-Greek students because they drink more. These consequences range from poor test performance, alcohol-related injuries, arguments, assault, property damage and sexual assault. In fact, Greek leaders and those living in a sorority or fraternity house experience the most negative consequences because of their own drinking habits and those of other students.


 .. all we can do is teach our children to not be a part of this culture of our youth...resist peer pressure .... sad so many throw caution to the wind & want to learn the hard way... Though I am an overly cautious person in regards to places & things like this.. so for me to hear others defend any part of it...I just shake my head.. but OK...

I've always been into minimizing as much risk as humanly possible.. (expect for taking the risk of being a stay at home Mom of course...but financially we have minimized that risk)... We will avoid even driving through bad sections of the big city (what if our car breaks down?)... I don't shop at night alone (what if a lurker is looking for a female alone to grab)... we buy the most expensive tires for our vehicles for winter driving.. 

I always have "What If's" planted in my head.... this is not paranoia.. it's just doing all one can do to minimize being screwed in life.. 

Our son was asked to go shopping this am for Black Friday, he was going to be picked up at 5am.... I seen a FB post that the roads are so bad, they had to close down a street in the next town...." if you don't have to go out, stay home, don't risk your lives", she said..... I woke him up at 2 am & explained how I felt.. I'll take him shopping another day... he listened.. 

Most wouldn't care.. most went shopping.. these things won't stop the mad Black Friday shopper...some will be in bad accidents today...their lives never the same.. a good friend of mine is lying in the hospital bed after a 8 hr surgery days ago to restore her hip... she was just going to work...roads were slick that morning.. driver in the other lane came barreling into her head on (thank God for air bags)... it wasn't her fault...she may have had the best of tires, took every precaution...sometimes it's someone elses choices (driving drunk, driving too fast, bald tires) which collide with our lives... ..... if we can avoid some of these awful situations (comparing the partying frat / sororities)....I'm all for that.


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> All this talk of steely glint eyes, AK47s, etc is just silly. Yea most heavily armed people don’t get mugged. Whether they stand 4’5” for 6’6”. And most women take precautions and never get raped when they are away from their homes.
> 
> A few women do get raped no matter what they do. And some people armed to the hilt do get killed.
> 
> My father taught all of his 8 children a lot more than kicking in someone’s nose & kidneys. By the time I was 10, I could handle any firearm 22, 9mm up to a 45, a lot of rifles that I cannot remember the caliber of, and his shotguns. He had to because that’s life or death in a war.
> 
> The first rule of staying alive is to never let anyone get near enough so that you have to kick in their nose and/or kidneys. I don't need to look into the steely glinting eyes of a strapping 6'6" tall man to stop him. Why bother to mug them when there is a much easier way…. before he knows what hit him. All that needs to happen is to get a good bead on him from a distance that is within range of the thugs’ firearm. Then POW in the back.. maybe the back of the head. I could do it if I were so inclined. I could do it when I was 10 years old and I could do it now. A lot of thugs in the ghetto can do that.
> 
> When I was 10, a guy climbed over our compound wall, over broken shards of glass embedded in the top of the 12’ wall (he used a mat to cover the shards) and he entered our house from a back door in the garage. I was the first to see him enter at one end of the house, I blew the guys knee out. That’s what I aimed at. I sat there with the loaded hand gun waiting for him to dare to get up. He laid there in agony until my parents returned. My father had him taken away.. who knows what happed to the guy. The guy was a member of a political faction that was breaking into homes and slaughtering families of the opposition.
> 
> I told you that I spent a lot of my childhood in a war zone. I have a clue. Hollywood type words of "tall gentlemen with steely glint in their eyes" mean nothing in the real world. What matters in the real world is that anyone who can aim and hit their target, can take out anyone within range of their firearm.
> 
> And anyone who is a sexual predator can find some woman somewhere to rape when that’s what he’s set out to do. When a predator is determined, he will find someone even if that woman has been very careful. My point is that a person can take all the precautions and still fall prey to a predator.
> 
> (Sorry all. I had a childhood that was very different than what most people in the USA do. It was more like living in the war torn part of Somalia. I seldom talk about it. I think you can see why.)


Criminal or militias in war torn parts of the world often don't have to play by any set of rules. Throughout the vast, vast majority of this country, even the criminals know two things

1) Prey on the weak and don't mess with armed people
2) If they get caught, there will be at least some consequences for their actions.

This is because we have structure here and being 'armed' and knowing what is safe and what is not go a whole lot farther here as a result of having better structure. I am sure having an Ak-47 or AR-15 in Mogadishu doesn't mean as much as having one in Memphis because of the lawlessness in Somalia and the fact that so many people there have them so you are but one of many in a lawless country. Further, they actually have snipers in those places. But this is not there. 

believe it or not, there are areas in this country as well that are nearly lawless. The Arizona-Mexico border in southern Maricopa and Pima Counties and certain areas of Detroit and Chicago. And yes, if travelling those areas, I would strongly suggest being armed to the teeth. Noone is going to be open carrying an Ak-47 in Otterbein Indiana because there is no need for it and you will draw the attention of tons of cops everywhere. However, having one accessible and legally in your trunk is not a bad idea if you are in an area of significant concern. 

Sexual predators rely on three things

1) Surprise
2) Seeking out unsuspecting and weak victims
3) Cover

While anyone can be a victim anywhere, you can take the necessary steps to prevent yourself from being one.

Sure, I can be armed and walk through Walmart today and get shot although the POS better find me first and shoot me in the back because I am not going to be the one who hears shots, sees the gunmen and join a stampede out the door or throw a box of cheerios at him hoping that does the trick. So by being armed and aggressive, I limit my own vulnerabilities. 

In the case of sexual assault, rape etc... self defense training is helpful. Hanging out with people you know, walking around in crowds at night, being armed (even with a taser or pepper spray if you can't get a gun), staying away from areas of concealment like narrow paths etc.. help tremendously. 

NOONE HERE suggested that one can make themselves victim proof. People here are suggesting that there are ways to protect yourself from being a victim and that those who don't take those precautions create for themselves a higher probability that they will be a victim. That is easy enough to understand.


CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not

Reduce the Risk of Becoming a Rape Victim | Police & Public Safety | UNC Charlotte

Protecting Yourself From Stranger Rape and Date Rape - HealthyPlace

You Should Read This: Sexual Assault and its Supernumeraries | Wesleying ( a little language here but some very good thoughts)


----------



## wmn1

SimplyAmorous said:


> :iagree: with you.. when I spoke the word Fraternities.. I meant anything & everything that is causing these kinds of drunken irresponsible ongoing headlines...
> 
> 15 Frightening Facts about Sororities and Fraternities - Zen College Life
> 
> Just a few of these...
> 
> 
> 
> .. all we can do is teach our children to not be a part of this culture of our youth...resist peer pressure .... sad so many throw caution to the wind & want to learn the hard way... Though I am an overly cautious person in regards to places & things like this.. so for me to hear others defend any part of it...I just shake my head.. but OK...
> 
> I've always been into minimizing as much risk as humanly possible.. (expect for taking the risk of being a stay at home Mom of course...but financially we have minimized that risk)... We will avoid even driving through bad sections of the big city (what if our car breaks down?)... I don't shop at night alone (what if a lurker is looking for a female alone to grab)... we buy the most expensive tires for our vehicles for winter driving..
> 
> I always have "What If's" planted in my head.... this is not paranoia.. it's just doing all one can do to minimize being screwed in life..
> 
> Our son was asked to go shopping this am for Black Friday, he was going to be picked up at 5am.... I seen a FB post that the roads are so bad, they had to close down a street in the next town...." if you don't have to go out, stay home, don't risk your lives", she said..... I woke him up at 2 am & explained how I felt.. I'll take him shopping another day... he listened..
> 
> Most wouldn't care.. most went shopping.. these things won't stop the mad Black Friday shopper...some will be in bad accidents today...their lives never the same.. a good friend of mine is lying in the hospital bed after a 8 hr surgery days ago to restore her hip... she was just going to work...roads were slick that morning.. driver in the other lane came barreling into her head on (thank God for air bags)... it wasn't her fault...she may have had the best of tires, took every precaution...sometimes it's someone elses choices (driving drunk, driving too fast, bald tires) which collide with our lives... ..... if we can avoid some of these awful situations (comparing the partying frat / sororities)....I'm all for that.


and you're right. If action is to be taken against Frats, they need to be taken against Sororities too.

However, I am against generalized punishment. While I don't like the Greek system, if one frat has an issue, don't banish 15 of them, banish the one.


----------



## JCD

Just as an aside, I don't think this should be about gun rights or arming society. 

I'm not even fond of this rape tangent. This is about feminism.

It is like Obamacare or any other controversial and complex bit of legislation.

The bill reads something like

1) Lollipops and rainbows
2) back massages and oral sex.
3) Seven sharp kicks to the groin or for ladies, 15 hours of labor.

When you sell a law or a movement only with points 1 and 2 and ignore number 3, you aren't being totally honest.

So wage equity. Right on! Equal jobs. Okay. Affirmative action! Um...hey...now you are not talking equality any more. Now you are doing better. Affirmative consent and sexual harassment laws. Wait a minute! Let's talk about equity again! Cause those last bits can EASILY and FREQUENTLY be twisted into 'non equity'.


----------



## JCD

Elegirl,

You said: 



> I’m not sure that I have ever heard anyone state that it’s right to behave in the most idiotic ways possible.


No. No one specifically says 'I am in favor of women behaving stupidly.'

But...if White Bread Sally, straight from a suburban enclave near you, decides she is going to wear a spray-on pair of hot shorts, and decides to visit the local chapter of Hell's Angels without company and without telling anyone where she is going, traveling with a guy who has 'SlvtRyder' stitched on the back of his jacket, and drinks and does Ecstasy in large quantities because she 'wants a bit of adventure'...and I even make so mild a statement as 'tut tut'...somehow this observation, not matter HOW BLOODY STUPID she acts...is 'blaming the victim'.

I understand the principle. I know women who are prostitutes. They can be raped. I know a woman can say yes to sex and then say no. They can also be raped. Being stupid or being ****ty isn't an 'excuse to be raped'. But throwing rocks at a sleeping tiger is also a very stupid act with very direct consequences.

The semantic difference between not allowing ANY criticism of a woman's behavior and 'not holding a woman responsible for her stupidity' is a very narrow gap indeed.


I hold the ramifications of that stance can be pretty obnoxious and at times nonsensical.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> It happened when you were 21. I have zero problem acknowledging that police of that era (early 60's?) were not in the 'rape' business, they did not deal with it effectively, they did not particularly want to investigate it and there were no incentives to deal with this matter effectively. I think feminists are right to be critical of past police work.


It was in 1970, just to be clear. 

Apparently it’s not really all that different today.


JCD said:


> I think a very small percentage of guys are actual rapists and women need to get their big girl panties on and actually REPORT THEM and not go crying to their girlfriends until they lodge a complaint a YEAR LATER!


Yes, very few men are rapists. But most rapists have a lot of victims. (We are only talking about men who rape adult women. Child molesters, pedophiles, etc., are not included.)

One of the major reasons that women today do not report rape is that women know that it’s highly unlikely that anything will come of them reporting the rape. The conviction rates for reported rapes is about 7.5%. It’s the lowest conviction rate for any violent crime. Even today, when women report a rape, they are generally not taken seriously. Sure the police might take a report. A rape kit might be done. But it ends there very often. Police departments around the county don’t have the resources to process the rape kits already have. A huge percentage are never processed.

What difference would it make if every women reported it when they were raped?

Out of every 100 rapes...............................If all rapes were reported
40 are reported to the police........................100 would be reported to the police
10 lead to an arrest..................................25 would lead to arrest
8 get prosecuted......................................20 would get prosecuted
4 lead to a felony conviction.........................10 would lead to a felony conviction
3 rapists will spend even a single day in prison.......7.5 would ever see a day in prison
97 go free.............................................92.5 would go free



https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates


JCD said:


> women need to get their big girl panties on and actually REPORT THEM and not go crying to their girlfriends until they lodge a complaint a YEAR LATER!


There is this new report out that men are raped just about as often as women. But men almost never come forward and report it. The report rate is WAY below the 40% of women who report rapes to police. 

Why not tell men to get their big boy boxer shorts on and actually REPORT THEM and not sit around ruminating in misery and NEVER reporting them?! 

See who that works? It’s the old if you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones.


JCD said:


> The average rapist does it something like 7 times or more. Even raising the conviction rate a single percent will spare hundreds of women!


Actually reporting more rapes would not raise the conviction rate because our system cannot even handle the number of rape cases reported each year, as thousands of rape kits go unprocessed and reported cases are ignored.

Only three states, Illinois, Texas and Colorado, require law enforcement to count, track and test their untested kits. There is no federal law mandating a nationwide movement toward this either. Congress tried to pass a law mandating that all rape kits be processed and provide funds for this, but it was voted down.

How important is the processing of even old rape kits?

100 serial rapists and 10 convicted rapists were identified after only 1,600 rape kits out of the 11,000 rape kit backlog from Detroit Crime Lab are finally processed. Fourteen prosecutions have resulted from what is being called the "Detroit Rape Kit Project",

It is estimated that there are 400,000 unprocessed rape kits nationally. And new ones are added to the pile very day.

100 serial rapists identified after rape kits from Detroit Crime Lab are finally processed - WXYZ.com


----------



## wmn1

JCD said:


> Just as an aside, I don't think this should be about gun rights or arming society.
> 
> I'm not even fond of this rape tangent. This is about feminism.
> 
> It is like Obamacare or any other controversial and complex bit of legislation.
> 
> The bill reads something like
> 
> 1) Lollipops and rainbows
> 2) back massages and oral sex.
> 3) Seven sharp kicks to the groin or for ladies, 15 hours of labor.
> 
> When you sell a law or a movement only with points 1 and 2 and ignore number 3, you aren't being totally honest.
> 
> So wage equity. Right on! Equal jobs. Okay. Affirmative action! Um...hey...now you are not talking equality any more. Now you are doing better. Affirmative consent and sexual harassment laws. Wait a minute! Let's talk about equity again! Cause those last bits can EASILY and FREQUENTLY be twisted into 'non equity'.


To me, it's all non-equality.

Wage laws - If we are talking about 2 highly performing people with the same responsibilities and tenure, living in the same market or region, then maybe equality is needed. If a guy makes $15000 more a year working in NYC than a woman with a similar background and experience is making in Topeka Kansas, then I feel this is ok. If a woman is making $18000 more than a guy in Denver Colorado but happens to have been in the same job for a decade longer and both are high performing, there is nothing wrong with this. Leaving it up to the Government and one size fits all is not a fair system.

Affirmative Action and quotas - Again not fair. Job offers should be based on individual credentials. It is completely moronic that we as a society tries to cure discrimination by discriminating even more. 


Equal jobs - In most cases, yes. 


Affirmative consent _ I agree with the author on this 

Affirmative consent: a crime against liberty | Down with campus censorship! | Liberties | Love and sex | spiked


DV Laws -- You know there is a significant problem with the enforcement of DV laws when the Federal legislation is VAWA (Violence against women act) where it specifies it as a one way street when it is actually a two way street. No fairness here.

Sexual Harassment -- Too gray, too vague. No fairness here. 
America's Overprotective Sexual Harassment Law | Cato Institute

I was accused of sexual harassment because I look at a female co-workers chest area. Forget the fact that she was wearing a shirt that said "INFIDEL" on it and all I was doing was reading the shirt. But she was 'offended'. Five minutes later, two guys who she actually likes came in and commented on the shirt and she laughed. I won the case. But because the jurisdiction has an active policy of not going after false complainants, i.e. they can ruin you with the government's help, but you are on your own if you were wronged, my attorney and I were able to threaten a lawsuit and had action taken against her. I believe sexual harassment is a two way problem. I believe it is a serious problem but I also believe that it is and always will be abused by people who use it as a weapon. It is used to intimidate people who are ethical and complaint. Fortunately, most people ignore things because they see the laws as overbearing and don't want to be 'that person' who noone talks to or associates with. 


12 problems with feminism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsixEG06Jmk (
starts after 25 seconds)


Feminism Or Sexism? Depends. Is It Beyonce's VMAs or Vergara's Emmys?

Women are fine with sexism¿ as long as it benefits them, scientists reveal | Daily Mail Online


Is feminism sexist? | Debate.org




Oh BTW, I can't stand sexist men either. The repulse me jut as much but that would be getting off the topic


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Elegirl,
> No. No one specifically says 'I am in favor of women behaving stupidly.'
> 
> But...if White Bread Sally, straight from a suburban enclave near you, decides she is going to wear a spray-on pair of hot shorts, and decides to visit the local chapter of Hell's Angels without company and without telling anyone where she is going, traveling with a guy who has 'SlvtRyder' stitched on the back of his jacket, and drinks and does Ecstasy in large quantities because she 'wants a bit of adventure'...and I even make so mild a statement as 'tut tut'...somehow this observation, not matter HOW BLOODY STUPID she acts...is 'blaming the victim'.
> 
> I understand the principle. I know women who are prostitutes. They can be raped. I know a woman can say yes to sex and then say no. They can also be raped. Being stupid or being ****ty isn't an 'excuse to be raped'. But throwing rocks at a sleeping tiger is also a very stupid act with very direct consequences.
> 
> The semantic difference between not allowing ANY criticism of a woman's behavior and 'not holding a woman responsible for her stupidity' is a very narrow gap indeed.
> 
> I hold the ramifications of that stance can be pretty obnoxious and at times nonsensical.


The reason that women keep saying that no matter what the victim does, she is not responsible for being raped is because of the type of thing you keep doing. 

By focusing the dialog about rape on how the victim behaves and what she wears, it completely ignores the reality of 90% of the rapes.

What is the point of ignoring the vast majority of rapes? These are rapes that don’t occure when women are drinking to frat parties or wearing skimpy clothing? 

Why is it that you are only interested in talking about the most sensational, but least likely rapes? 

The usual reason that these rapes are the ones that are discussed is because they are the ones used to blame the victim.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> This is not about 'big bad JCD' wanting to segregate women.
> 
> This is JCD saying: I am observing how rape is reported...and I am looking at how women are ACTING!


So all women who go to college are acting like slvts, and [email protected]? Then it must hold that all males in college are slvts and [email protected] as well. 

Less than 12% of college students are fraternizes/sororities. These are the major source of the problem.

If you think that the vast majority of college women are as you accuse them of being, then it holds that the vast majority of college guys are like that too. And this includes your children when they go to college.

My son is a college student working on his master’s degree. He and his friends are not anything like you seem to think. I have several nieces and nephews in college or who recently graduated. None of them are either. These are wonderful, hardworking students as are the vast majority of college students.

This is so insulting to the vast majority of college kids who are serious students, who work hard and who lead good lives.



JCD said:


> They are not acting like college is a place for self imposed burkas. (I will probably tell my son to forget dating in college) They are marching about rape...in short skirts and tank tops… and then get a couple of girlfriends and go down to Cancun for Spring Break to get wasted in a foreign country.


What? So now women in college are supposed to act like it’s a place for self-imposed burkas? WTH?

The way a woman dresses has nothing to do with whether or not she is raped. 

Only a small percentage of college women attend rape marches.

Only a small percentage of college women go on those Spring 
Break trips and get wasted. Most don’t have the money to do.

And if they did have the money have no interest doing that.



JCD said:


> Noting this mixed message is not being pro segregation.


YOu seem to do this constalty. You take the actions and words of just a few women and then you extrapolate as though it’s the action and words of all women. You apparently have a very big problem realizing that women are individuals. We do not have some group consciousness that makes us all think and act the same.

Let me explain this more clearly.

---Mary marched in an anti-rape march wearing jeans and a blouse.

---Jane marched in that same anti-rape march wearing short skirts and a tank top.

---Sally has never marched in any kind of march for anything. 

--Emily went on a trip to Cancun and got wasted.

There is no mixed message here. For a mixed message to exist, all four of these women would have had to do all of the above things. But instead they are individuals, acted independently, thought independently and don’t even know each other.




EleGirl said:


> Women in Saudi are raped as often as women in the USA.





JCD said:


> You ask me to support my claims and then you say things like this. There is no way in hell you can have an accurate assessment of this fact. To say the Saudi system is not pro good rape statistics is like saying that bikinis are not big sellers in Alaska in December.


Yes I know that the Saudi Gov does not publish good rape statistics. They do not publish them because it makes denial easy. Plus women will not go to the gov to report rapes. But there are underground, safe places for women victims of rape in Saudi. And there do exist statistics collected by the doctors and people who work with the rape victims. But I also know that there are people who are collecting them and studying them. 


JCD said:


> I like THESE sorts of solutions much better than snatching civil rights from the male gender and if some lout decided he wanted to 'teach those girls a lesson,' I'd finish my applauding and give the girls a hand.
> 
> Because that is part of my role as a civic minded person.


No one is snatching civil rights from the male gender. This is such a ludicrous claim.



JCD said:


> One, I never said that women SHOULD be forced into this. I never said this was an answer. I never suggested this as an answer. You *want* me to have offered this as an answer because it makes it easier to dismiss me.


No I don’t want you to have offered this as an answer. If this is not a solution that you want or that you think is the right solution, then why have you brought up several times that you don’t usnderstand why women are not demanding that dorms and colleges for women only be established? This is your idea. You brought it up. YOu apparently think it’s the solution that should be in place.



JCD said:


> I said if I were a woman facing this 'catastrophe of rape' that supposedly awaits on campus, I would take some steps to avoid that situation and I enumerated HOW I would avoid that situation. Ways we can see as a 'revealed preference' by women. They are not, as stated above, acting all that terrified.


I’ve covered this. 1 in 5 college women are not raped during their college years on campus. That’s a life-time number. While rapes are too high on campus. Even one rape is too high. Remember that 90% of rapes occur in the woman’s home or the home of a friend or relative. So a woman is far more at risk at home then on campus.

You keep taking a life-time number of sexual assaults (most being assaults as minors) and claiming that they all those rapes occur on campus while all college women are acting like out of control, drunk, drugged, slvts just asking for it. It is you who is putting out crossly exaggerated claims to cause hysteria. 



JCD said:


> You got me. I could float a theory that women and society have generally operated well enough to avoid most 'stranger rape' and instead have more familial rape.
> 
> BUT...rape in general has dropped for the last 20 years, I believe? Funny how that news is not being trumpeted to the skies. That is VERY good news!


That’s odd because I’ve heard over and over in the news that all violent crime, to include are has gone done over the last decade. It’s been mentioned at least once a month in the news because we get monthly reports on that A lot of the sites that talk about sexual abuse and rape talk about that was well. 

But the most sites emphasizes what the current situation. It makes sense. We are not dealing with the past today, we are dealing with current issues. It does not make sense to ignore what is going on currently because our current rate is lower than decades ago.




JCD said:


> Which is why this affirmative consent rule is bunk. Colleges will use is to sweep the issue under the rug and move these questionable guys to elsewhere.


What? You are saying that affirmative consent rules will drive sexual predators off campuses. And you don’t like that? So you want the predators to stay on campuses and prey on college women?


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Just as an aside, I don't think this should be about gun rights or arming society.
> 
> I'm not even fond of this rape tangent. This is about feminism.
> 
> It is like Obamacare or any other controversial and complex bit of legislation.
> 
> The bill reads something like
> 
> 1) Lollipops and rainbows
> 2) back massages and oral sex.
> 3) Seven sharp kicks to the groin or for ladies, 15 hours of labor.
> 
> When you sell a law or a movement only with points 1 and 2 and ignore number 3, you aren't being totally honest.
> 
> So wage equity. Right on! Equal jobs. Okay. Affirmative action! Um...hey...now you are not talking equality any more. Now you are doing better. Affirmative consent and sexual harassment laws. Wait a minute! Let's talk about equity again! Cause those last bits can EASILY and FREQUENTLY be twisted into 'non equity'.


Oh the rape tangent is very helpful.. it illumines a lot. Sadly


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> It was in 1970, just to be clear.
> 
> Apparently it’s not really all that different today.
> 
> Yes, very few men are rapists. But most rapists have a lot of victims. (We are only talking about men who rape adult women. Child molesters, pedophiles, etc., are not included.)
> 
> One of the major reasons that women today do not report rape is that women know that it’s highly unlikely that anything will come of them reporting the rape. The conviction rates for reported rapes is about 7.5%. It’s the lowest conviction rate for any violent crime. Even today, when women report a rape, they are generally not taken seriously. Sure the police might take a report. A rape kit might be done. But it ends there very often. Police departments around the county don’t have the resources to process the rape kits already have. A huge percentage are never processed.
> 
> What difference would it make if every women reported it when they were raped?
> 
> Out of every 100 rapes …………………………………………..If all rapes were reported
> 40 are reported to the police ……………………………………..100 would be reported to the police
> 10 lead to an arrest…………………………………………………25 would lead to arrest
> 8 get prosecuted……………………………………………………..8 would get prosecuted
> 4 lead to a felony conviction………………………………………..4 would lead to a felony conviction
> 3 rapists will spend even a single day in prison…………………….7.5 would ever see a day in prison
> 97 go free……………………………………………………………92.5 would go free
> 
> https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
> 
> There is this new report out that men are raped just about as often as women. But men almost never come forward and report it. The report rate is WAY below the 40% of women who report rapes to police.
> 
> Why not tell men to get their big boy boxer shorts on and actually REPORT THEM and not sit around ruminating in misery and NEVER reporting them?!
> 
> See who that works? It’s the old if you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones.
> 
> Actually reporting more rapes would not raise the conviction rate because our system cannot even handle the number of rape cases reported each year, as thousands of rape kits go unprocessed and reported cases are ignored.
> 
> Only three states, Illinois, Texas and Colorado, require law enforcement to count, track and test their untested kits. There is no federal law mandating a nationwide movement toward this either. Congress tried to pass a law mandating that all rape kits be processed and provide funds for this, but it was voted down.
> 
> How important is the processing of even old rape kits?
> 
> 100 serial rapists and 10 convicted rapists were identified after only 1,600 rape kits out of the 11,000 rape kit backlog from Detroit Crime Lab are finally processed. Fourteen prosecutions have resulted from what is being called the "Detroit Rape Kit Project",
> 
> It is estimated that there are 400,000 unprocessed rape kits nationally. And new ones are added to the pile very day.
> 
> 100 serial rapists identified after rape kits from Detroit Crime Lab are finally processed - WXYZ.com


some interesting numbers including trends in rape and why they are not reported as often as they should be. 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf


pages 14 and on

Look at the reasons.


Also on a passing thought, I believe rape kits should be tested by hospitals, not crime labs. Many jurisdictions do this now and it seems effective.


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> Oh the rape tangent is very helpful.. it illumines a lot. Sadly


 I don't agree. I agree with JCD that the rape tangent is sidetracking the issue. I am guilty of sidetracking as well. 

However, I will say one last thing and retreat back to the CWI forum I am mostly on.

I have dealt with hundreds of rape and sex assault victims who would not report. 

Their top reasons to me;

1) They still love their spouse and couldn't live without them emotionally so they were willing to overlook it. If not in a relationship, they almost always reported it unless somehow it brought them 'shame' like for example in the case of a business exec who was doing drugs and didn't want to be tied to the party or people she was hanging out with. her career came #1. With the guys who get assaulted, it's a macho thing. They have this self esteem thing going where they will be ridiculed if it is mad eknown. This occurs with DV cases as well.
2) Many won't report due to immigration ststus and fear of deportation.
3) Many believe that their own security and business should be kept in house and feel they can do more damage to their lives if the breadwinner gets locked up or lose their jobs.
4) Many believe the act was consensual but that one person got overzealous and the vic took the responsibility on themselves. 
5) because they lacked an ID of the perpetrator. 

These are the reasons I've always been told by the vics themselves. 

It's not that police aren't doing their jobs, there is a myriad of reasons for this. 

Finally, lack of physical evidence crushes cases. It's his word vs my word type things in court that can't beat the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold so it ties a prosecutor's hands in many cases and often times people plea down.

None-the-less, take care. Back to CWI I go


----------



## always_alone

wmn1 said:


> Sexual predators rely on three things
> 
> 1) Surprise
> 2) Seeking out unsuspecting and weak victims
> 3) Cover
> 
> While anyone can be a victim anywhere, you can take the necessary steps to prevent yourself from being one.


All this talk of AK47s and Detroit is mostly beside the point. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows and trusts.

Not because a woman is walking at midnight in a skimpy outfit in the worst neighborhood in Detroit.

Not because she decided to ride off with a Hell's Angel do do some E in the ****tiest outfit known to woman kind.

Not because she is drunk out of her mind wandering the streets of Mexico.

But because someone she thought she could trust takes advantage of that trust to force her to have sex with him.

Self defence training is awesome. Everyone should have it. But this idea that women who have been raped are just a bunch of drunken ****s who took no precautions to protect themselves is offensive in the extreme. Nothing more than victim blaming.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> So all women who go to college are acting like slvts, and [email protected]? Then it must hold that all males in college are slvts and [email protected] as well.
> 
> Snip!




I got as far as this and I pretty much lost it there. 

You take me to task for using actual statements and 'spreading them across all women'. Okay. Maybe. At least I am TAKING actual statements instead of mere inferences! And frankly, I've been pretty good at clarifying my remarks. 

You seem intent on distorting my words to paint me as black as possible.

So let us give you simple declarative sentences.

The media is hyping campus rape.

Statistically rapes across the board have been going down. This is called a 'contradiction'.

I observed that by their behavior, women on campus are acting like it's *business as usual*. And no, that does not mean they are wh0res or slvts. It means they are not acting like campuses are cesspools of rape. They are not making choices as if this is a major fear in their lives. If you can show me stats that suddenly there is a spike in female university applications, I'll reconsider. That's it.


Now, go back to what I wrote and see if what was written was consistent with what I JUST said. You will find it so.

It is NOT consistent with what you decided to infer.

If you think what I am saying is evil (which seems to be most of it) maybe you need to ask for clarification. I showed you that modicum of respect.


----------



## always_alone

The upshot of this thread is that yes, feminism is misunderstood by many.

And is still just as relevant and necessary as ever.


----------



## NobodySpecial

This is a sad thread. There are no mixed messages sent by attire or anything else. If you hear messages in your head that someone wants to sleep with you by what they wear, you need to check with a mental health specialist. The ONLY message that means that someone wants to sleep with YOU is a strong positive assertion to that fact. Period.


----------



## JCD

As far as 'why focus on these piddling numbers of rapes' which involve inebriation, it is very simple

Well, women can actually DO something about that kind of rape! I can't protect them (nor can they protect themselves) from their boyfriend in the intimacy of their own place. It's almost impossible to forecast a stranger rape. Very little which can be done there.

In these 'limited number of rapes', the actions of one or more people CAN make a difference. And it can actually involve more than the actions of just the woman. MEN can get into the picture too.

Quick anecdote: I went out partying with some people I knew. I did NOT know them well. One was a couple and it was two 'single' men and one single female. 

She got BLASTED. I mean FALLING DOWN drunk. We had to carry her to her room. I didn't know this other guy. In fact, he had a bit of a reputation of liking the ladies a bit too much in my opinion.

As the 'senior' guy there, I made sure we took her to her room, that we brought the other woman in with us, and that we all left together while her key was left behind. 

Small actions to cover her virtue, and more importantly to me, my reputation. This is another example of civic action by others. Granted, it does not have that solidarity of sisterhood patina. Credit has to go to a (ugh!) man.

But somehow *I* am the problem in female rape by asking how smart it was to get staggering drunk with relative strangers.

This was an _avoidable _situation of vulnerability and observing that is not 'anti women'.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> This is a sad thread. There are no mixed messages sent by attire or anything else. If you hear messages in your head that someone wants to sleep with you by what they wear, you need to check with a mental health specialist. The ONLY message that means that someone wants to sleep with YOU is a strong positive assertion to that fact. Period.


This is not a good argument.

Because any man who has dated or partied can tell you that there is a distinct subgroup of women who find it entertaining to 'positively assert' that they are into a guy...and then, having lead him down the primrose path, want to slam the garden gate in his face and laugh on the other side. We have a few pungent comments for such women as well.

And additionally, women can put out positive assertions of interest and may do so, but still not want to seal the deal for varying good reasons at the very last moment.

People are also NOT telepathic and most women are coy about saying 'let's fvck!' So no, I think there is a good bit of room for mixed messages.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> This is not a good argument.
> 
> Because any man who has dated or partied can tell you that there is a distinct subgroup of women who find it entertaining to 'positively assert' that they are into a guy...and then, having lead him down the primrose path, want to slam the garden gate in his face and laugh on the other side. We have a few pungent comments for such women as well.


Is there someone on this thread asserting that false allegations don't happen? 



> And additionally, women can put out positive assertions of interest and may do so, but still not want to seal the deal for varying good reasons at the very last moment.


So are you asserting that there is a point of no return where a woman no longer has the right to change her mind? Thankfully the law disagrees with you.



> People are also NOT telepathic and most women are coy about saying 'let's fvck!' So no, I think there is a good bit of room for mixed messages.


One of the best parts of feminism is the move toward freedom of sexuality for women so someday this might be able to change.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> Is there someone on this thread asserting that false allegations don't happen?
> 
> 
> 
> So are you asserting that there is a point of no return where a woman no longer has the right to change her mind? Thankfully the law disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the best parts of feminism is the move toward freedom of sexuality for women so someday this might be able to change.


No. They way you structured the argument is you want this an unquestionable black and white issue, with the onus essentially put on the man to determine positive intent instead of the women for DISPLAYING positive intent.

But your last phrase is sort of an agreement that women need to own some responsibility to BE CLEAR about what they do and don't want.

So that is half a loaf.

But it is also in a small part a cop out. You don't need 'someday' feminism to tell your daughters right now to "be clear if you do or do not want sex". NOR, not to put too fine a point on it, for you (generic) to act that way yourself.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> No. They way you structured the argument is you want this an unquestionable black and white issue, with the onus essentially put on the man to determine positive intent instead of the women for DISPLAYING positive intent.
> 
> But your last phrase is sort of an agreement that women need to own some responsibility to BE CLEAR about what they do and don't want.
> 
> So that is half a loaf.
> 
> And you don't need feminism to tell your daughters "be clear if you do or do not want sex". NOR, not to put too fine a point on it, for you to act that way right this minute.


But you seem to think that simply wearing an outfit CAN be effectively communicating desire for sex with a specific person. You seem to want to have it every way.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> But you seem to think that simply wearing an outfit CAN be effectively communicating desire for sex with a specific person. You seem to want to have it every way.


Tell me...when you sit down at home and put on (whatever it is you watch), do you watch it in a miniskirt, a leopard leotard, a set of 4 inch heels and give your hair that tousled look? No?


Do you wear such an outfit when you are having brunch with the girls? No?

You wear such things to say 'look at me'. And the target audience is not limited to males, but pretty male centric.

This is not the same as saying that a mini skirt says 'I want to have sex', but it certainly says, "I want attention and I _may_ be open to possibilities today'.

Which is why you get hit on more in a mini skirt than a pair of sweats.

To say otherwise is disingenuous.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Truth is, either gender can stop whenever they want. I've seen a$$holes lead a girl on only to walk away with another girl. Guys can play games too. It is common knowledge that men are more narcissistic than women. The right to say no goes to both gender. If someone were in a homosexual relationship, each party has the right to say no. Personally, if someone were playing games, I would simply remove myself from the game. Nothing is worth my integrity.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

So wait, if a lesbian couple dress sexy for each other, a man will get the impression that she is saying something more. Sow about sometimes women dress sexy, because they want to feel beautiful and nothing else. Your making an assumption that she dresses like that to have men want to sleep with her.


----------



## JCD

Mr.Fisty said:


> So wait, if a lesbian couple dress sexy for each other, a man will get the impression that she is saying something more. Sow about sometimes women dress sexy, because they want to feel beautiful and nothing else. Your making an assumption that she dresses like that to have men want to sleep with her.


This is true if you want to ignore large chunks of what I wrote.

Here, let me put them down again.



> You wear such things to say 'look at me'. And the target audience is not limited to males, but pretty male centric.
> 
> 
> This is not the same as saying that a mini skirt says 'I want to have sex', but it certainly says, "I want attention and I *may* be open to possibilities today'.


And please note: there is a large amount of distance between 'beautiful' and 'sexy'. Why are you conflating the two?


That 'may'...it's a qualifier. So is the phrase 'pretty male centric', i.e. maybe NOT male centric. But I'd bet that way.

Edited to add: It is pretty dishonest for a woman to pretend that she does NOT know what message she is sending when wearing such clothes unless she is 15 or so.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Still, aren't you making the assumption that if a woman dresses sexy, it doesn't mean she wants sex. No offense, but I go clubbing, and nearly everyone dresses sexy there, and I don't make the assumption she wants sex. Instead of believing she may want it, ask. She may be looking for a specific guy. I go clubbing with my friends that are girls, sometimes there boyfriends don't come along, and they dress sexy, and they are not looking for any action. They just want to dance and have fun. They don't dance with strangers either, just us guy friends or each other.


----------



## JCD

I said, they may dress sexy and not want sex. I said they do want attention. 

So yes, a girl can go not looking for action. But if she didn't want attention, she has a HOST of sartorial choices which garner LESS attention.

And let me qualify 'attention'. This means 'wants to be looked at'. Not necessarily 'wants to be hit on constantly' though this is a risk she has to possibly face.


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> All this talk of AK47s and Detroit is mostly beside the point. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows and trusts.
> 
> Not because a woman is walking at midnight in a skimpy outfit in the worst neighborhood in Detroit.
> 
> Not because she decided to ride off with a Hell's Angel do do some E in the ****tiest outfit known to woman kind.
> 
> Not because she is drunk out of her mind wandering the streets of Mexico.
> 
> But because someone she thought she could trust takes advantage of that trust to force her to have sex with him.
> 
> Self defence training is awesome. Everyone should have it. But this idea that women who have been raped are just a bunch of drunken ****s who took no precautions to protect themselves is offensive in the extreme. Nothing more than victim blaming.



I said I would leave this thread but I knew a post like this would come afterwards so , while trying to be respectful, it seems to me that you are willing to state a problem but seem somewhat opposed to someone taking the steps to ensure that they won't be the next victim.

The answer IS SIMPLE. This isn't utopia we live in and noone is arguing that rape is somehow not wrong. However, if one doesn't protect themselves, they greatly increase the chances of being the next victim. That is as simple as saying 1 + 1 = 2. 

Any btw, it's not offensive and you are putting words in my mouth. I never cited people being drunk here or ever claimed that anyone somehow 'deserved' to be raped. That is hogwash. Not protecting yourself in a world of miscreants and becoming a greater cahnce of being a victim is called REALITY !!!. 

You obviously do not believe in people protecting themselves nor do you believe in people improving themselves to the point that the help in their own prevention of becoming the next victim or their friends as well.

I actually do know rape victims. IA number of them have gone on and taken self defense classes, some are now armed, some train others to make sure it doesn't happen to them. All admirable women. They just don't come on to a website like this and say it shouldn't happen but offer no advice on how to prevent it. 

The US in 2014 isn't some version of the movie "Minority Report" where we can predict future crime and prevent it. There are evil people in society and simply saying that it shouldn't happen doesn't prevent it from happening. 

I would think this is self evident.


----------



## JCD

Elegirl, where are you getting (making up) those stats on 40% vs 100% reporting rates.

Cause it looks like you are making stuff up.

But let's look at what they say:



> Why Will Only 3 Out of Every 100 Rapists Serve Time?
> 
> 
> The majority of *sexual assault *are not reported to the police (an average of 60% of assaults in the last five years were not reported).1 Those rapists, of course, will never spend a day in prison. But even when the crime is reported, it is unlike to lead to an arrest and prosecution. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison.


So...is it sexual assault or is it rape?

So I actually pulled UP the BJS stats it cites for it's '40%' number.

Guess what?

It is rape AND sexual assault. In 2002, it was 55% reporting, in 2010, it was 49% and in 2011 it dropped to 27% for some reason.

Now, if you told me that 60% of RAPES were unreported, I think that's a shame. If you tell me sexual assaults are unreported...I am much less outraged.

And if RAIIN plays a number swap to make it sound like much more rapes are under reported as they did here...well, now they've lost my trust.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Elegirl, where are you getting (making up) those stats on 40% vs 100% reporting rates.
> 
> Cause it looks like you are making stuff up.
> 
> But let's look at what they say:
> 
> 
> 
> So...is it sexual assault or is it rape?
> 
> So I actually pulled UP the BJS stats it cites for it's '40%' number.
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> It is rape AND sexual assault. In 2002, it was 55% reporting, in 2010, it was 49% and in 2011 it dropped to 27% for some reason.
> 
> Now, if you told me that 60% of RAPES were unreported, I think that's a shame. If you tell me sexual assaults are unreported...I am much less outraged.
> 
> And if RAIIN plays a number swap to make it sound like much more rapes are under reported as they did here...well, now they've lost my trust.


Rapes are a form of sexual assault.


The numbers in the 100% column I derived using actual math based on the rates in the 40% column. Not making stuff up at all. It’s call using math to extrapolate based on known data.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> I got as far as this and I pretty much lost it there.
> 
> You take me to task for using actual statements and 'spreading them across all women'. Okay. Maybe. At least I am TAKING actual statements instead of mere inferences! And frankly, I've been pretty good at clarifying my remarks.
> 
> You seem intent on distorting my words to paint me as black as possible.


Your words on this topic are very disturbing to put it mildly.



JCD said:


> So let us give you simple declarative sentences.
> 
> The media is hyping campus rape.
> Statistically rapes across the board have been going down. This is called a 'contradiction'.


The numbers for overall rape are down. I’ve not seen any numbers for whether or not rape on campuses is up or down. One rape on campus is one too many.



JCD said:


> I observed that by their behavior, women on campus are acting like it's *business as usual*. And no, that does not mean they are wh0res or slvts. It means they are not acting like campuses are cesspools of rape. They are not making choices as if this is a major fear in their lives. If you can show me stats that suddenly there is a spike in female university applications, I'll reconsider. That's it.


In the post I was responding you, you ranted on about how terrible college women behave. You said that college women behave so terribly that you are going to advise you son to not date any of them. You said that college women to on Spring Break to places like Cancun and engage in all kind of debauchery. You have NO qualifiers. You painted ALL women in college as behaving this way.




JCD said:


> Now, go back to what I wrote and see if what was written was consistent with what I JUST said. You will find it so.
> 
> It is NOT consistent with what you decided to infer.


You clearly stated that all college women act in a manner so bad that you will counsel your son to not date in college. You clearly trashed every women in college.



JCD said:


> If you think what I am saying is evil (which seems to be most of it) maybe you need to ask for clarification. I showed you that modicum of respect.


You have been going for page after page saying this stuff and have had plenty of opportunity to change your tone.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> I said, they may dress sexy and not want sex. I said they do want attention.
> 
> So yes, a girl can go not looking for action. But if she didn't want attention, she has a HOST of sartorial choices which garner LESS attention.
> 
> And let me qualify 'attention'. This means 'wants to be looked at'. Not necessarily 'wants to be hit on constantly' though this is a risk she has to possibly face.


Ah I get it. A woman should only dress sexy if she's going out to get attention so that she can find some guy to have sex with.

If she's not going out for sex, she ends to not dress sexy.

Really? :scratchhead:


----------



## EleGirl

I said I was done here before and let myself get sucked in again. I need to see a shrink for why I did that.

There are a lot of men and women on this thread who have posted a lot of good input and thoughts.

But a few.. well let's just say I'm very disturbed by what these few have posted.


:banghead:


----------



## Catherine602

JCD said:


> Elegirl, where are you getting (making up) those stats on 40% vs 100% reporting rates.
> 
> Cause it looks like you are making stuff up.
> 
> But let's look at what they say:
> 
> 
> 
> So...is it sexual assault or is it rape?
> 
> So I actually pulled UP the BJS stats it cites for it's '40%' number.
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> It is rape AND sexual assault. In 2002, it was 55% reporting, in 2010, it was 49% and in 2011 it dropped to 27% for some reason.
> 
> Now, if you told me that 60% of RAPES were unreported, I think that's a shame. If you tell me sexual assaults are unreported...I am much less outraged.
> 
> And if RAIIN plays a number swap to make it sound like much more rapes are under reported as they did here...well, now they've lost my trust.


I always wonder what happened to men like you. You have a mother who nurtured you, sisters who I bet treat you like family and love you, aunts who doted on you and a wife who bore the son's who you are trying to turn to your dark vision. Yet you clearly hate women. What happened to make you that way? 

BTW You can't control the lives of your son's by feeding them hate and bitterness. My advice is to guide your son's by example. Be the type of man and father you would like them to be - offer a positive outlook and gentle leadership that affirms their sense of youthful optimism. They may see your efforts to control them as a bid to steal their life force because you have given up on your own.


----------



## Catherine602

EleGirl said:


> Ah I get it. A woman should only dress sexy if she's going out to get attention so that she can find some guy to have sex with.
> 
> If she's not going out for sex, she ends to not dress sexy.
> 
> Really? :scratchhead:


There are so many body parts and configurations that it is hard to know how to avoid looking like rape bait. Being a woman seems to be the starting point. There are a few ways to avoid getting unwanted male attention, stay indoors locked in an all female section of the house, go out with bodyguards fully covered from head to toe, or create a culture where humans don't take what does not belong to them no matter how entitled they feel.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Catherine602 said:


> I always wonder what happened to men like you. You have a mother who nurtured you, sisters who I bet treat you like family and love you, aunts who doted on you and a wife who bore the son's who you are trying to turn to your dark vision. Yet you clearly hate women. What happened to make you that way?
> 
> BTW You can't control the lives of your son's by feeding them hate and bitterness. My advice is to guide your son's by example. Be the type of man and father you would like them to be - offer a positive outlook and gentle leadership that affirms their sense of youthful optimism. They may see your efforts to control them as a bid to steal their life force because you have given up on your own.


Go back to post *#558 *...sounds like a good example to me.. I don't see him as someone who hates women, nor do I get this with wmn1's comments....



> *JCD said*: Quick anecdote: I went out partying with some people I knew. I did NOT know them well. One was a couple and it was two 'single' men and one single female.
> 
> She got BLASTED. I mean FALLING DOWN drunk. We had to carry her to her room. I didn't know this other guy. In fact, he had a bit of a reputation of liking the ladies a bit too much in my opinion.
> 
> As the 'senior' guy there, I made sure we took her to her room, that we brought the other woman in with us, and that we all left together while her key was left behind.
> 
> Small actions to cover her virtue, and more importantly to me, my reputation. This is another example of civic action by others. Granted, it does not have that solidarity of sisterhood patina. Credit has to go to a (ugh!) man.
> 
> But somehow I am the problem in female rape by asking how smart it was to get staggering drunk with relative strangers.
> 
> This was an avoidable situation of vulnerability and observing that is not 'anti women'.


----------



## Catherine602

SimplyAmorous said:


> Go back to post *#558 *...sounds like a good example to me.. I don't see him as someone who hates women, nor do I get this with wmn1's comments....


This story of JCD shows any respect or even that he likes women, quite the opposite. The message of his story seems to be that women are stupid to trust men and they should know that an unprotected vj is naturally up for grabs by any and all takers. Men are either animals or hero's (JCD and his buddy). The hero's are reluctant, contemptuous and self-congratulatory. The animals are contained by the hero's

I don't subscribe to the belief that vj's are public property when the owner is vulnerable. The default position in a civilized society is to protect the vulnerable and to help fellow humans in need. In this regard, women are members of the human race. JCD did exactly what he should have done, no extra props needed. 

If instead JCD helped a drunk man to bed so that he would not be robbed and beaten, would that be heroic? Would the drunk have been chastised for passing out and leaving his personal belongings unprotected? Would it be a blot on his character and that of every man?


----------



## wmn1

Catherine602 said:


> I always wonder what happened to men like you. You have a mother who nurtured you, sisters who I bet treat you like family and love you, aunts who doted on you and a wife who bore the son's who you are trying to turn to your dark vision. Yet you clearly hate women. What happened to make you that way?
> 
> BTW You can't control the lives of your son's by feeding them hate and bitterness. My advice is to guide your son's by example. Be the type of man and father you would like them to be - offer a positive outlook and gentle leadership that affirms their sense of youthful optimism. They may see your efforts to control them as a bid to steal their life force because you have given up on your own.



your personal attack against JCD is both unsupported and completely wrongheaded. Why can't people here join the debate rather than defame ?


----------



## wmn1

SimplyAmorous said:


> Go back to post *#558 *...sounds like a good example to me.. I don't see him as someone who hates women, nor do I get this with wmn1's comments....



I agree SA because we don't hate women (JCD or me and that shouldn't have to even be qualified because of a few who make baseless claims) but when some people have no arguments, they resort to personal attacks. It's sad but if this is how this thread is going to become, I hope the moderators shut it down.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ The interesting point seems to be that there are still people in the world that think that what a woman wears carries meaning about her intent with him and is, indeed, and invitation to something. It is my sad truth that my daughter will have to be aware of men who think that women are toys to be played with. Thankfully no woman is going to need to fear that from my son.

My hope for both of them is safe and joyful sex lives. But they will still face a lot of the stupid BS that I did. And I find that sad.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

What message are they sending? Sometimes a person wants to look sexy because they want to feel sexy. Not all women who dress sexy are sending a message or want to send a message. If you went to the clubs,most girls are dressed sexy because it is the setting, and no one should assume. Don't forget that guys can dress sexy too. I am a metro-sexual and I try and look good whereever I go. It is like going to the beach and assuming every girl there is sending a message. If your at a nude beach, you don't go there and assume every nude female or guy is sending anything. Since I have a lot of girlfriends, and they dress sexy when hanging out with me and their other guy friends, sometimes we do it for fun. When we have cookouts at the beach, we are all in swim trunks, and bikinis, and none of us are sending any message to the others. Even if we throw parties, we dress for the fun of it. I know that sometimes people dress for themselves, because it makes themselves feel good.


----------



## Mr.Fisty

Perhaps we should teach people not to assume anything. If me and my friends know better, I am sure it is something that can be taught. In fact if you go to the clubs, most men there don't assume that the women are sending anything. It is only a few men there out of like a few hundred. Most people at the clubs go in groups. So I can say honestly most men , don't assume a sexily dressed girl is sending any messages. That is like saying all the men there are sending a message because we dress up too.


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> I agree SA because we don't hate women (JCD or me and that shouldn't have to even be qualified because of a few who make baseless claims) but *when some people have no arguments, they resort to personal attacks.* It's sad but if this is how this thread is going to become, I hope the moderators shut it down.


You mean like this?



wmn1 said:


> after reading all of your posts on this thread, I need to ask you one question. What is it with your hostility with the male gender or women who are SAHM ?


----------



## Catherine602

wmn1 said:


> your personal attack against JCD is both unsupported and completely wrongheaded. Why can't people here join the debate rather than defame ?


Surely if you detect an attack, it is your responsibility to report the post. Reading something you don't like is not an attack. It may give you a bilious attack but it is not done with intent.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Your words on this topic are very disturbing to put it mildly.
> 
> 
> The numbers for overall rape are down. I’ve not seen any numbers for whether or not rape on campuses is up or down. One rape on campus is one too many.


And what price will you inflict to remove all rapes?

You want disturbing, rhetoric like that is VERY disturbing.




> In the post I was responding you, you ranted on about how terrible college women behave. You said that college women behave so terribly that you are going to advise you son to not date any of them. You said that college women to on Spring Break to places like Cancun and engage in all kind of debauchery. You have NO qualifiers. You painted ALL women in college as behaving this way.


All the emotional weight you put on this is put there BY YOU. Did I EVER say terrible? I did not! This is a free society. I am proud that our ladies are able to dress however the hell they want. I do not consider the occasional vacation a negative either, man or woman. I am juxtaposing how carefree girls act (short skirts, Cancun) vs. how non-carefree girls act. (No Cancun). That you are bringing a negative spin to Spring Break is on you.

You are correct on one point. I did not clarify WHY I would tell my son to think twice on dating in college. I apologize. This left you an incorrect impression. While I am sure that most women are delightful, the politics on campus are NOT boy friendly. All he needs is to meet the wrong hyper politicized scold who takes everything he does the wrong way, and his life could be severely damaged.




> You clearly stated that all college women act in a manner so bad that you will counsel your son to not date in college. You clearly trashed every women in college.[/qote]
> 
> Just like your 'I don't know what man to trust', statement, right back at you! Better safe than sorry. I care for my boy just like my girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been going for page after page saying this stuff and have had plenty of opportunity to change your tone.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. The *content* of my missives has been rather similar to Simply Amourous. She has been, to my mind, FAR more critical of the college experience than I have. And yet look at what 'tone' you bring to her compared to me.
> 
> But with me, you have been on a hair trigger to take umbrage as frequently as possible. You don't like my critiques of feminism. You don't like that I _dare_ indicate that in some instances, a woman needs to take responsibility for behaving stupidly.
> 
> If I state that women would act one way if they were really terrified of college, you suddenly ascribe to me, out of whole cloth, that I am an Iman in training, wanting to oppress women. And when I clarified that you were totally reading it the wrong way, you did not even note this, much less apologize. Also note this is more a ding on the media and (yes) vocal feminists who want an election issue than a slam on women. Because that is what we are talking about: FEMINISM. Not rape. Not guns. As stated three (3) times, women on campus are just behaving normally. I'm sorry you think a girl wearing a short skirt or taking a vacation is so evil. I certainly don't.
> 
> Where was this concern of rape for the last three election cycles? Nowhere. I am suspicious of this. Many posters want to pretend that there is no collusion between feminist spokeswomen and the Democrats. I will not, because I believe it. And I believe I've made the much better argument that (vocal) feminists are indeed that. That they do not represent all women is irrelevant. Why? You yourself said you won't call them on this. So you either don't care or you are just fine with it. These other small organizations are barely heard and usually only on'friendly' media outlets. And if the 'face' of feminism is in bed with one party, well, they created their own opposition and it is no ones fault but their own.
> 
> If women are acting in ways which are not to their benefit re rape, it is not a defense of negative actions to say 'men don't do it either'. For some sad reason, you think this is a zinger, even though the vast majority or rapes are female. Even if men are wrong the same way, this does not change the fact that the women acting this way are WRONG. Calling them on wrong action is not anti women. It IS anti stupid.
> 
> While you disagree with SA, when she writes, you actually _try_ to read her posts looking to understand even if you disagree. When you read mine, I have a suspicion your beverage of choice is onion juice and bitters.
> 
> I don't need you to agree with everything I say, or even like it. It would be nice to actually address what I say vs. your wholly negative inferences. And if I make a point with weight (ala why those bills were political theater) that you at least acknowledge that fact instead of pretend that conversation never happened.
> 
> As an intellectual exercise, try reading my posts with the assumption that I am not a MRA or an Afghan cleric.
Click to expand...


----------



## JCD

Principles I agree with you.

I think that extra funding should be put to getting these rape kits processed. Just a few rapists put away will have a heavy impact on the crime.

If in three years, women want to bring up the equal wage thing on a non-election year, that would be grand to have that debate. It would be nice to actually HAVE a debate instead of a political gotcha. Additionally, it would be good to note that such legislation has a cost to business besides higher wages. One could argue that it will negatively impact female jobs, but that it for another time.

I do not like the idea at ALL that the police will file a potential rape under assault. Were I a prosecutor, I would seek to change that. Not sure how I agitate to do that. I have daughters.

A rapist is a rapist and the 'provocation' of a short skirt is no excuse for his actions. It is also the responsibility of men to keep an eye out for predators and not enable male bad actions out of some stupid 'bros before ho's' mentality. This should not be a gender war.

Women are naturally at a disadvantage in body weight and upper body strength. Having some tilt toward helping them re assault etc/ is not a bad thing. I reserve the right to quibble at how much we place the 'tilt'.

There are a lot of negatives careerwise to having a uterus. There should be some 'tilt' there. Again, we need to quibble about the amount of tilt.

Is this tone any better?

Oh...and Elegirl, Oops. You edited your post. I withdraw my objections to your math. Before your numbers weren't justified and when I called you on it, your math was just wrong. You had not changed the numbers of prosecutions. You have since fixed it after I read the original post.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
with all the partial quotes etc, I thought I'd make my position clear.

1) rape is bad (should't need saying by there seems some confusion)

2)Rape is anytime someone has sex without giving consent at that time. This includes force, threats, deception, drugs or sleep.

2a) If follows from 2 that dress or incapacitation do not excuse rape.

3)It would be good to reduce the number of rapes by a lot

4) Some rapes are difficult to prosecute because it is difficult to show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. 

5) Some environments like frat parties seem to result is a large number of rapes. I don't mind prohibiting those activities if another solution can't be found.

6) despite 2a, there are actions women can take that will reduce their chance of being raped in some circumstances. It is up to them if they want to take those actions.

6a) since this seems a confusing issue: it is still rape even if the victim did not take the precautions in #6

7) despite 3, I do not want to reduce the legal protections of defendants. This will result in the acquittal of many rapists, but to me that is better than convicting a few innocent defendants.

8)other than my suggestion of universal surveillance, I don't know how to substantially reduce the rate of rapes. I am open to considering other people's suggestions.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> 8)other than my suggestion of universal surveillance, I don't know how to substantially reduce the rate of rapes. I am open to considering other people's suggestions.


One thing that I think would help to get rapists convicted is the processing of rape kits.

What happens is that if for some reason the police cannot go forward on an investigation, (maybe they cannot find the rapist or don't have a good description), the rape kit gets shelved. Thousands have sat in warehouses for decades.

Look at what happened in Detroit. They found about 12,600 unprocessed rape kits in storage, some dating back as far as the 1980's. So far they have processed 1,600 of these kits and identified 100 serial rapists and 10 convicted rapists. 

In New York City, since process their backlog of about 17,000 backlogged rape kids, their arrest rate as risen from 40% to 70%

Since most rapists are serial offenders, processing new rape kits against the DNA results from older ones can help identify rapists. In each new case, they can run the DNA and find other rapes committed by the same person. Each report will probably have differing sets of info about the perp. Put it together and the identity of the rapist can emerge.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Oh...and Elegirl, Oops. You edited your post. I withdraw my objections to your math. Before your numbers weren't justified and when I called you on it, your math was just wrong. You had not changed the numbers of prosecutions. You have since fixed it after I read the original post.


Yes I entered my math results incorrectly. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Principles I agree with you.


The principle of things is what matters the most. The rest is implementation and political.



JCD said:


> I think that extra funding should be put to getting these rape kits processed. Just a few rapists put away will have a heavy impact on the crime.


A bill was brought up in Congress to provide funding to police departs around the country for processing the backlog of rape kits. Unfortunately it was voted down on party lines. More political theatrics on both sides of the isles as I understand.


JCD said:


> If in three years, women want to bring up the equal wage thing on a non-election year, that would be grand to have that debate. It would be nice to actually HAVE a debate instead of a political gotcha.


If it’s a good act in 3 years, it’s a good act today. My view is that again, it’s just political theatrics on both sides.


JCD said:


> Additionally, it would be good to note that such legislation has a cost to business besides higher wages. One could argue that it will negatively impact female jobs, but that it for another time.


Many of the provisions in the bill were requested by business because in the past, the definition of allowable business reasons for differing pay rates was not clear and was costing a lot in legal fees to businesses. The rest of the bill simply make the legal rules and penalties in line with those for pay discrimination based on race or national origin. 



JCD said:


> I do not like the idea at ALL that the police will file a potential rape under assault. Were I a prosecutor, I would seek to change that. Not sure how I agitate to do that. I have daughters.


It happens. Not sure how they determine the difference, but unless the perp does the things are constitute a rape it’s not a rape I guess.



JCD said:


> A rapist is a rapist and the 'provocation' of a short skirt is no excuse for his actions. It is also the responsibility of men to keep an eye out for predators and not enable male bad actions out of some stupid 'bros before ho's' mentality. This should not be a gender war.
> 
> Women are naturally at a disadvantage in body weight and upper body strength. Having some tilt toward helping them re assault etc/ is not a bad thing. I reserve the right to quibble at how much we place the 'tilt'.


WE all have that right to add our voice to the dialogue.


JCD said:


> There are a lot of negatives career wise to having a uterus. There should be some 'tilt' there. Again, we need to quibble about the amount of tilt.


Agreed.


JCD said:


> Is this tone any better?


Yes, now the points you are making are clearly stated.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> One thing that I think would help to get rapists convicted is the processing of rape kits.
> 
> What happens is that if for some reason the police cannot go forward on an investigation, (maybe they cannot find the rapist or don't have a good description), the rape kit gets shelved. Thousands have sat in warehouses for decades.
> 
> Look at what happened in Detroit. They found about 12,600 unprocessed rape kits in storage, some dating back as far as the 1980's. So far they have processed 1,600 of these kits and identified 100 serial rapists and 10 convicted rapists.
> 
> In New York City, since process their backlog of about 17,000 backlogged rape kids, their arrest rate as risen from 40% to 70%
> 
> Since most rapists are serial offenders, processing new rape kits against the DNA results from older ones can help identify rapists. In each new case, they can run the DNA and find other rapes committed by the same person. Each report will probably have differing sets of info about the perp. Put it together and the identity of the rapist can emerge.


I agree with you, but I wanted to take a moment to point out a few problems which are not political.

Just running through the math, if we have 12600 untested kits, if every DNA test takes just three hours of time (and it can take a lot longer than that), we are looking at, running 24/7, 4.1 YEARS just to get all these old tests done. All done in incredibly scrupulous conditions to avoid a hint of contamination.

Meanwhile, these machines are tied up to not deal with *current* testing. So, just considering

a) the logistics

b) the likelihood of degraded samples because of time

c) the likelihood of contamination

d) the lack of timeliness

and e) the fact that witnesses, victim evidence, or even perpetrators in a ten year old case are less likely to be around,

One can understand why some law enforcement or politicians might find their efforts better spent with current cases.

If one runs sample 327 through the sampler and it is degraded and contaminated, it still takes whatever the time is (I've seen three hours...and I've seen 5-10 DAYS) whether the sample is good or not. That is time and money spent that is not spent on a more recent crime because the technician and machine are busy.

Because a serial rapist who is convicted of just one RECENT crime is just as much in jail as one who is arrested for a dozen crimes.

However...some effort and machines should be taken to process the backlog because as a matter of preference, I'd prefer the worst guys to never leave prison. 

Just mentioning that there are _reasons_ for preferring to focus on Mrs. Hodgkins today instead of Mrs. Degrazzio from 1986. It's a hard choice, but not necessarily an invalid one.

In a perfect world, both would get justice. Alas.


*Edited to fix:*


I am googling about DNA testing. 

Ignoring the 12 hours it takes to 'batch' a bunch of slides for testing, and ignoring the one or two WEEKS it takes for a qualified technician to double check and sign off on a test, it actually takes, for the series of tests, *24 hours* for a test to be done.

So just that one backlog would take *24 YEARS* to get all that testing done using today's technology and testing.

Um...not going to comment. I'll leave the numbers for themselves.


----------



## JCD

Elegirl,

It may be a good law, but currently, the toxic nature between the President and Congress proscribes pretty much anything. I am hoping things get better in two years.

This is not me wanting to just keep the status quo. This is me advocating a fair shot for the bill with as little party gymnastics as possible.

And just a quibble, it wasn't the Republicans which brought up this measure. It is the ACTING party who is starting the show. So let's be fair on that point. Now the vote needs to be owned by every Congresscritter, but when, how and why it is brought up all lay on the shoulders of the bill's initiators. Why didn't the Congresswoman(D) bring this up in 2010 when she had a better shot?

This is a fair question.


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> You mean like this?


yes and I got slammed by the moderator so why is it acceptable for Catherine to do it ???.. and I changed course immediately thereafter and got on the point of the topic btw


----------



## wmn1

Catherine602 said:


> Surely if you detect an attack, it is your responsibility to report the post. Reading something you don't like is not an attack. It may give you a bilious attack but it is not done with intent.


Simple answer. I don't report people because I strongly believe people have a right to speak their minds here. However, I have seen a lot of posters who give good input historically get reported and/or banned while the rest of us scratch our heads (NOT TAKING A SHOT AT THE MODERATORS HERE) and I suggested the same thing towards Ele a few days ago that you just did to JCD and got warned by a moderator which tells me it's not right. So if it's not right for me, it's not right for you. But as far as reporting you, no I am not a cheap shot that way. I'll just call you out on it instead. One post doesn't undo someone's history to me here.


----------



## JCD

Catherine602 said:


> I always wonder what happened to men like you. You have a mother who nurtured you, sisters who I bet treat you like family and love you, aunts who doted on you and a wife who bore the son's who you are trying to turn to your dark vision. Yet you clearly hate women. What happened to make you that way?
> 
> BTW You can't control the lives of your son's by feeding them hate and bitterness. My advice is to guide your son's by example. Be the type of man and father you would like them to be - offer a positive outlook and gentle leadership that affirms their sense of youthful optimism. They may see your efforts to control them as a bid to steal their life force because you have given up on your own.


Reported.

I have been banned for far less egregious offenses.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Ah I get it. A woman should only dress sexy if she's going out to get attention so that she can find some guy to have sex with.
> 
> If she's not going out for sex, she ends to not dress sexy.
> 
> Really? :scratchhead:


I took three posts to explain

-women have a variety of options how to dress, from grungy to beautiful to, yes, sexy.

-That how she dresses sends a message.

-That dressing sexy is a specific message which means (for the most part) 'look at me!'. They may *MAY* also be adding 'and I am open for an approach from the right kind of guy' but that isn't necessarily a given. Many guys will take a nibble but they'll also see how the woman is acting. I have seen tons of sexy women who put out the 'look but don't touch vibe' and I respect that.

And yet somehow, despite three explanations, you were still able to distort what I said into 'JCD thinks sexy dressed women are ready to put out'. HUH.

But I'll bite

Why does a woman dress 'sexy'? Not beautiful. Not attractive. Sexy.


----------



## JCD

Catherine602 said:


> Surely if you detect an attack, it is your responsibility to report the post. Reading something you don't like is not an attack. It may give you a bilious attack but it is not done with intent.


Have you in any way joined the debate? Have you asked for clarification if you find something disturbing? Have you really said anything except to slam me?

As it happens, I do not think I did anything 'heroic' either. That was proper behavior. I was with a guy who may NOT have behaved properly. Considering how I am being characterized, I would think that me acting properly WOULD be surprising. Certainly it must be to you.

However your and Elegirls posts seem intent on dragging me down. Elegirl at least has the sand to stand up and debate. I respect that. And OCCASIONALLY she even concedes a point.

Your posts? "You are a twisted freak. What made you that way?"

Gee...thanks oodles.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ The interesting point seems to be that there are still people in the world that think that what a woman wears carries meaning about her intent with him and is, indeed, and invitation to something.* It is my sad truth that my daughter will have to be aware of men who think that women are toys to be played with. Thankfully no woman is going to need to fear that from my son.*
> 
> My hope for both of them is safe and joyful sex lives. But they will still face a lot of the stupid BS that I did. And I find that sad.


Here is the thing.. going by what you said here.. Our sons are like yours.. very honorable young men.. their GF's fathers LOVE THEM, I always get a charge out of them telling me what their dad's say.....they are the good guys, they treat women with respect... . My Husband is not like these men who would take advantage of women who dress provocatively... 

Yes, life is about CHOICE ... Live it..

But here is the thing....when they see a woman dressing provocatively - things hanging out.. they will look upon her in a lessor light.. oh it will get their attention.. they will LOOK like any hot blooded man ... but they feel it sends a message...when a woman pushes the line *out in public* for all to view her wear...they will NOT look upon her as a "good girl".. but would ASSUME she is more of the promiscuous type.. which they would not want .... now if that insults anyone here.. I am sorry.. I am just speaking it as it is.. that HOW we present ourselves does carry some weight..and it attracts certain types of men..depending on what THEY are seeking.. something for a night.. or long term. 

Who do you think this is going to attract ???










I married a man who would not give the time of day to a woman who dressed like that... He waited patiently & treated me with the utmost respect in every way... he never pushed for sex even...a true gentleman...

Now..If my H or sons was on this thread..he/they would have done the same thing JCD did in that circumstance in his Post... and they would agree with all of wmn1's post as well... so if you all feel they hate women ... so does my Husband & sons .. we're all misogynists's... and to that I say >> :wtf: 

And People wonder WHY I have issues with feminism.. they judge us for our views... they argue with everything I say...if I feel *prevention* is of the utmost importance...giving my reasoned responses here ...they slam me.. they slam the men who suggest such things.. 

We have 1 daughter...she is the apple of my eye.. I will be FVCKING LIVID if she even entertains the idea of messing with a BAD BOY.. if she wants to go to bars & dress like the above.. we all know the type who will be all over her.... and it ain't the good guys!..... I WARN HER HOW MANY MEN ARE... and I would be doing her a grave disservice to not speak the truth in this matter...as her Father does as well..... there are hungry wolves out there wanting to devour her , use her and throw her away... and in this discussion.. I will most definitely speak on HOW SHE DRESSES and acts around a man.. absofreakinglutely ...

Unscrupulous men will do all they can to get into her pants -feeling she is a promiscuous willing woman....add booze...no telling how that night will end.. it's not wise. 

Now hold on. I didn't say she deserves to be RAPED.. but of course that's all any of you see when we even remotely suggest that a woman needs to be careful to the type she is hanging with, diligent, alert. 

Ya know what is really funny to me.. if some CHICK was dressed like this flirting with your man.. you'd be jumping up & down calling her more names than any man would..I've seen women do this ...it's almost laughable to me .. then they defend her right to dress any way she pleases...just so long as she is not knocking in your man's door that is. 

Everything we DO has consequences...I looked for an article that wouldn't be "in your face"..... Why do Girls Dress so Provocatively? .... it's not religious, it's not damning to women.. it's moderate and common sense.. so I feel anyway...



> Another part of the answer is that most women have come to realize that showing some of the more sexy parts of their body (tight jeans, cleavage, short dresses, etc.) will definitely get the attention of a lot of guys. Some girls don’t even realize how sexual they are dressing—they are just wearing what they think looks good. *But since guys are sexually driven by what they see, it becomes easy for them to objectify women based on how they are dressed.* All women like to feel beautiful and be told they are seen as being beautiful.
> *Just remember ladies, you get what you advertise for. If you are only advertising your body, guys will come after your body. If you advertise who you are on the inside, with such traits as kindness, gentleness, sensitivity, great personality, etc., they will be drawn to you for that.*


In one of those debate threads I read...this was the 1st answer.. is this more how you all feel... and I am crazy ?? 



> Sure why not I think one of the reasons for this question is about the claim that if they dress a certain way they are asking to be raped. That is just wrong. They should be aware of the way they dress but I don't see why they should be held accountable for other people's actions. *Heck they should be allowed to be naked if they please*.


 Oh we should be able to run around NAKED.. ha ha ha.. gotta love some people's reasoning..


----------



## wmn1

JCD said:


> Reported.
> 
> I have been banned for far less egregious offenses.


and BTW, I think you have conducted yourself with class on this thread and a great deal of knowledge.


----------



## wmn1

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is the thing.. going by what you said here.. Our sons are like yours.. very honorable young men.. their GF's fathers LOVE THEM, I always get a charge out of them telling me what their dad's say.....they are the good guys, they treat women with respect... . My Husband is not like these men who would take advantage of women who dress provocatively...
> 
> Yes, life is about CHOICE ... Live it..
> 
> 
> 
> **** agreed.
> 
> But here is the thing....when they see a woman dressing provocatively - things hanging out.. they will look upon her in a lessor light.. oh it will get their attention.. they will LOOK like any hot blooded man ... but they feel it sends a message...when a woman pushes the line *out in public* for all to view her wear...they will NOT look upon her as a "good girl".. but would ASSUME she is more of the promiscuous type.. which they would not want .... now if that insults anyone here.. I am sorry.. I am just speaking it as it is.. that HOW we present ourselves does carry some weight..and it attracts certain types of men..depending on what THEY are seeking.. something for a night.. or long term.
> 
> Who do you think this is going to attract ???
> 
> 
> **** agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I married a man who would not give the time of day to a woman who dressed like that... He waited patiently & treated me with the utmost respect in every way... he never pushed for sex even...a true gentleman...
> 
> Now..If my H or sons was on this thread..he/they would have done the same thing JCD did in that circumstance in his Post... and they would agree with all of wmn1's post as well... so if you all feel they hate women ... so does my Husband & sons .. we're all misogynists's... and to that I say >> :wtf:
> 
> 
> *** agreed and thanks
> 
> And People wonder WHY I have issues with feminism.. they judge us for our views... they argue with everything I say...if I feel *prevention* is of the utmost importance...giving my reasoned responses here ...they slam me.. they slam the men who suggest such things..
> 
> *** agreed
> 
> We have 1 daughter...she is the apple of my eye.. I will be FVCKING LIVID if she even entertains the idea of messing with a BAD BOY.. if she wants to go to bars & dress like the above.. we all know the type who will be all over her.... and it ain't the good guys!..... I WARN HER HOW MANY MEN ARE... and I would be doing her a grave disservice to not speak the truth in this matter...as her Father does as well..... there are hungry wolves out there wanting to devour her , use her and throw her away... and in this discussion.. I will most definitely speak on HOW SHE DRESSES and acts around a man.. absofreakinglutely ...
> 
> 
> ***** and I am sure with your direction, she will be prepared for the issues she has to deal with from here on out
> 
> Unscrupulous men will do all they can to get into her pants -feeling she is a promiscuous willing woman....add booze...no telling how that night will end.. it's not wise.
> 
> Now hold on. I didn't say she deserves to be RAPED.. but of course that's all any of you see when we even remotely suggest that a woman needs to be careful to the type she is hanging with, diligent, alert.
> 
> Ya know what is really funny to me.. if some CHICK was dressed like this flirting with your man.. you'd be jumping up & down calling her more names than any man would..I've seen women do this ...it's almost laughable to me .. then they defend her right to dress any way she pleases...just so long as she is not knocking in your man's door that is.
> 
> Everything we DO has consequences...I looked for an article that wouldn't be "in your face"..... Why do Girls Dress so Provocatively? .... it's not religious, it's not damning to women.. it's moderate and common sense.. so I feel anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> **** Very well written. Every action we take has consequences. Noone deserves to be raped and I think 100% of the people here have said that though some posters keep pretending that some disagree. However, every action we take has consequences and how those end up really depend on the steps individuals take to protect themselves, improve themselves and the support they give to those close to them. I work with some very attractive women who a predator would see a mile away. God help the predator if he should try to jump them off a path because he would get his arse kicked all the way back to Dallas. Why ? because they are trained, they have improved themselves and are aware and alert. They just took the bull by the horns and reduced their odds on being a victim 20 fold. This is a microcosm of my point though some believe I am a sexist for saying so
> 
> 
> In one of those debate threads I read...this was the 1st answer.. is this more how you all feel... and I am crazy ??
> 
> Oh we should be able to run around NAKED.. ha ha ha.. gotta love some people's reasoning..



**** Just like the pic you showed above, do they have a right to dress that way ? yes. Will it attract every dog around campus ? yes. Are some of those dogs the predators we talk about ? Yes. So did these tow women increase their exposure to bad guys ? Yes. Did their chances on becoming a victim go up ? Yes. 

Rights vs consequences. 


Great post SA


----------



## wmn1

JCD said:


> Have you in any way joined the debate? Have you asked for clarification if you find something disturbing? Have you really said anything except to slam me?
> 
> As it happens, I do not think I did anything 'heroic' either. That was proper behavior. I was with a guy who may NOT have behaved properly. Considering how I am being characterized, I would think that me acting properly WOULD be surprising. Certainly it must be to you.
> 
> However your and Elegirls posts seem intent on dragging me down. Elegirl at least has the sand to stand up and debate. I respect that. And OCCASIONALLY she even concedes a point.
> 
> Your posts? "You are a twisted freak. What made you that way?"
> 
> Gee...thanks oodles.



agreed with everything said here


----------



## JCD

SA,

Yeah. I take umbrage for women taking the stance that no matter how they act or how they dress, they should not bear the consequences. 

I can still understand the principle they espouse...and support it. 

For example, your picture. Honestly, those women look like Amsterdam sex workers, not 'normal' women. They have to have a certain look to attract customers

(Oops! No doubt they are dressing that way because the DON'T want to elicit a limbic male response... Sexy is NOT for men...or so I've been told.)

EVEN DRESSED THAT WAY, a woman's no should be a no. This is a principle of law I support. And I'm sure you won't argue that point.

But if they are treated differently...sorry, that is on them. If they have more guys hitting on them, or mistaking their message? Too bad! 

I think some of this outrage is ANY judgment on how a woman behaves...and I also understand that this is pushback to an earlier time when women were CONSTANTLY called on their behavior "Be a good girl for daddy! Don't ask questions. Don't act like a bad girl." et cetera ad nauseum. 

So I get the frustration and pushing back against such social controls EVEN HARDER . 

It would be impolitic of me to observe that the same ladies who staunchly guard a woman's right to dress like that picture...or even run around naked...don't actually ACT like that! See...there is political theory...and there is living with the consequences of your actions. So most feminists dress and live very respectable lives. Funny how that is, when the rubber meets the road. 

For myself, I will teach my girls to live free, to understand the impact of a little skin on a guys limbic system (both as a warning and as a tool) and how dishonorable (and potentially dangerous) it is to lead a man down the primrose path and slam the gate in his face. At best it's rude. Yes means yes. No means no.

I'm sure I'll get a flurry of posts on how horrible and twisted that is for my daughters.


----------



## wmn1

JCD said:


> SA,
> 
> Yeah. I take umbrage for women taking the stance that no matter how they act or how they dress, they should not bear the consequences.
> 
> I can still understand the principle they espouse...and support it.
> 
> For example, your picture. Honestly, those women look like Amsterdam sex workers, not 'normal' women. They have to have a certain look to attract customers
> 
> (Oops! No doubt they are dressing that way because the DON'T want to elicit a limbic male response... Sexy is NOT for men...or so I've been told.)
> 
> EVEN DRESSED THAT WAY, a woman's no should be a no. This is a principle of law I support. And I'm sure you won't argue that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ****** We all agree with that point JCD. I think where we (or at least I) are coming from is that we certainly don't live in Utopia or Heaven for example and that there are consequences for every action one takes and while we are supposed to live in a free society where one should be able to express themselves, somewhere along the line criminals didn't get the message. My whole deal in this thread is that it is an individual responsibility to protect yourself, for everyone to protect themselves on an individual level wisely and be aware of your surroundings and how you are being perceived. That's all. I don't think you disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> But if they are treated differently...sorry, that is on them. If they have more guys hitting on them, or mistaking their message? Too bad!
> 
> 
> *** agreed
> 
> I think some of this outrage is ANY judgment on how a woman behaves...and I also understand that this is pushback to an earlier time when women were CONSTANTLY called on their behavior "Be a good girl for daddy! Don't ask questions. Don't act like a bad girl." et cetera ad nauseum.
> 
> So I get the frustration and pushing back against such social controls EVEN HARDER .
> 
> It would be impolitic of me to observe that the same ladies who staunchly guard a woman's right to dress like that picture...or even run around naked...don't actually ACT like that! See...there is political theory...and there is living with the consequences of your actions. So most feminists dress and live very respectable lives. Funny how that is, when the rubber meets the road.
> 
> 
> *** agreed
> 
> For myself, I will teach my girls to live free, to understand the impact of a little skin on a guys limbic system (both as a warning and as a tool) and how dishonorable (and potentially dangerous) it is to lead a man down the primrose path and slam the gate in his face. At best it's rude. Yes means yes. No means no.
> 
> I'm sure I'll get a flurry of posts on how horrible and twisted that is for my daughters.


:iagree: with last statement


----------



## JCD

wmn1 said:


> **** Just like the pic you showed above, do they have a right to dress that way ? yes. Will it attract every dog around campus ? yes. Are some of those dogs the predators we talk about ? Yes. So did these tow women increase their exposure to bad guys ? Yes. Did their chances on becoming a victim go up ? Yes.
> 
> Rights vs consequences.
> 
> 
> Great post SA


There is room for both.

The friction of competing ideas is how we get to the truth. Sometimes things get a little hot as a consequence.


----------



## always_alone

The angry responses here are *not* objections to the idea that women need to take responsibility for their actions or that they should take self defence courses and learn to protect themselves. 

Women are taught this from pretty much day 1, and exercise caution most of the time.

No, the angry responses here are because of the underlying assumption that rape is a consequence of being sexy and stupid, with all of the focus on women who wear ****ty clothes.

I understand that these slvtty clothes offend many, and you wish that rape is somehow just a consequence of women provoking men, and then feeling sorry about it later, but this is simply not the case.

-80 year-old women wearing velour track suits are raped.

-Women who have never had a drop to drink in their lives, and who wear burkas are raped.

-College women in sweat pants and hoodies are raped.

-women wearing ordinary conservative street clothes who are making no efforts whatsoever to act or be sexy are raped

I get that it is tillating to think about slvt wear, ogle some pictures and finger waggle at how irresponsible and slvtty they are, and chastise them for failing to protect themselves. 

But none of this has much to do with actual rape and the problems faced by women. It is just a way to comfort oneself that it's only people who are out there taking risks and asking for it that get burned, and this is simply not true.

It is also a nice backhanded way of suggesting that on some level, they deserved it for being too provocative.


----------



## Anonymous07

always_alone said:


> No, the angry responses here are because of the underlying assumption that rape is a consequence of being sexy and stupid, with all of the focus on women who wear ****ty clothes.
> 
> I get that it is titillating to think about slvt wear, google some pictures and finger waggle at how irresponsible and slvtty they are, and chastise them for failing to protect themselves.
> 
> But none of this has much to do with actual rape and the problems faced by women. It is just a way to comfort oneself that it's only people who are out there taking risks and asking for it that get burned, and this is simply not true.
> 
> It is also a nice backhanded way of suggesting that on some level, they deserved it for being too provocative.


:iagree:

I went to a tailgate party with some friends during my college years wearing my vans, skinny jeans, and a t-shirt and was called out by some guy saying I was "looking for sex". Really?? :scratchhead:

It doesn't matter what a woman wears, if the guy thinks differently. I guess I shouldn't have worn tight jeans because that "put me at risk". I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.


----------



## Anonymous07

I can never follow some people's thought processes. 

It's "okay" for a man to get wasted drunk and do stupid things, but not okay for a woman to drink. 

It's "okay" for men to flirt, but not women. 

It's "okay" for men to dress however they want, but not okay for a woman to do so. 

What a double standard.


----------



## TiggyBlue

SimplyAmorous said:


> Ya know what is really funny to me.. if some CHICK was dressed like this flirting with your man.. you'd be jumping up & down calling her more names than any man would..I've seen women do this ...it's almost laughable to me .. then they defend her right to dress any way she pleases...just so long as she is not knocking in your man's door that is.


Dressing a certain way and flirting with a someone who's attached are two separate things imo, no need to wear a short skirt to flirt with a attached man.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Who do you think this is going to attract ???


99.99999% of women would never, ever dress like that.

My first take on seeing that picture is that they are prostitutes.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> I agree with you, but I wanted to take a moment to point out a few problems which are not political.
> 
> Just running through the math, if we have 12600 untested kits, if every DNA test takes just three hours of time (and it can take a lot longer than that), we are looking at, running 24/7, 4.1 YEARS just to get all these old tests done. All done in incredibly scrupulous conditions to avoid a hint of contamination.
> 
> Meanwhile, these machines are tied up to not deal with *current* testing. So, just considering
> 
> a) the logistics
> 
> b) the likelihood of degraded samples because of time
> 
> c) the likelihood of contamination
> 
> d) the lack of timeliness
> 
> and e) the fact that witnesses, victim evidence, or even perpetrators in a ten year old case are less likely to be around,
> 
> One can understand why some law enforcement or politicians might find their efforts better spent with current cases.
> 
> If one runs sample 327 through the sampler and it is degraded and contaminated, it still takes whatever the time is (I've seen three hours...and I've seen 5-10 DAYS) whether the sample is good or not. That is time and money spent that is not spent on a more recent crime because the technician and machine are busy.
> 
> Because a serial rapist who is convicted of just one RECENT crime is just as much in jail as one who is arrested for a dozen crimes.
> 
> However...some effort and machines should be taken to process the backlog because as a matter of preference, I'd prefer the worst guys to never leave prison.
> 
> Just mentioning that there are _reasons_ for preferring to focus on Mrs. Hodgkins today instead of Mrs. Degrazzio from 1986. It's a hard choice, but not necessarily an invalid one.
> 
> In a perfect world, both would get justice. Alas.
> 
> 
> *Edited to fix:*
> 
> 
> I am googling about DNA testing.
> 
> Ignoring the 12 hours it takes to 'batch' a bunch of slides for testing, and ignoring the one or two WEEKS it takes for a qualified technician to double check and sign off on a test, it actually takes, for the series of tests, *24 hours* for a test to be done.
> 
> So just that one backlog would take *24 YEARS* to get all that testing done using today's technology and testing.
> 
> Um...not going to comment. I'll leave the numbers for themselves.


For a long time it did not even dawn on people that running the test whether the perp was caught or not would cast a net that helped to indemnify and catch repeat rapist. But now we know. 

If those kits had been processed at the time, issues like degradation would not exist. Nor would the need for a huge block of time to process them exist. It’s the old “as stich in time saves nine.” If I do daily maintenance on my house, it takes no time at all to keep it clean and neat. If I go for 10 years, it will take a backhoe and a team of workers a month to clean it.

This is why extra money is needed to go through the tests. We need to buy more equipment and hire more staff.

How about we end the 8 Billion dollar subsidy to the banking industry and use that money to fight crime? How about we stop spending money on crimes related to pot/weed and use that money. This country has the money to put in place a system that includes state and federal resources to catch up on the kit tests and to also process every one as they come in.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> But I'll bite
> 
> Why does a woman dress 'sexy'? Not beautiful. Not attractive. Sexy.


The difference between dressing 'sexy' and 'beautiful' is up the observer. What's beautiful to one, is sexy to the other.

Beautiful is always sexy. Sexy is not always beautiful.. like those women in the photo SA posted.. that's sexy but not beautiful.

I have never dressed in public to specifically be sexy; I go for beautiful.

From my experience (when I was younger), men take it as sexy and that I was looking for their attention. I was not. I was out with my friends, my family, going to work, school, whatever.

I've had worn a simple black dress, long sleeves, coved from the neck to mid calf and it does not stop men from taking as me looking for their attention.

Usually women dress for themselves. We dress in a way that makes us feel good. Knowing that we are beautiful (or as beautiful as we can be on any one day) and sexy makes us feel good.

I cannot answer why those women in SA's photo are wearing skirts that do not cover their bum. You will need to ask them.

But I can tell you that very few women would ever dress like that.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Ya know what is really funny to me.. if some CHICK was dressed like this flirting with your man.. you'd be jumping up & down calling her more names than any man would..I've seen women do this ...it's almost laughable to me .. then they defend her right to dress any way she pleases...just so long as she is not knocking in your man's door that is.


Nope, I would not "be jumping up & down calling her more names than any man would". Any woman who would do this is focusing her anger in the wrong place."

I would be upset with my man for flirting with another woman. I would be upset with him for doing this no matter how she was dressed. Whether is was with her butt hanging out or if she was wearing a sweat suit.


----------



## EleGirl

Anonymous07 said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I went to a tailgate party with some friends during my college years wearing my vans, skinny jeans, and a t-shirt and was called out by some guy saying I was "looking for sex". Really?? :scratchhead:
> 
> It doesn't matter what a woman wears, if the guy thinks differently. I guess I shouldn't have worn tight jeans because that "put me at risk". I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.


That incident I talked about when I was attracted (age 21) and they guy was trying to kill me (and no doubt going for rape)... I was wearing slacks, blouse with long sleeves. I had about 10 large college text books and notebooks in my arms. I was haggard from a long day of classes then a night of working). 

Yea... what a woman looks like is the least likely thing to lead to a rape. Her being an easy target (alone where the perp things he can get away with it) is the greatest factor of why a perp picks a woman for rape.

The reason some people get upset with the constant dialogue saying that when a woman looks good (God forbid sexy) jor has a few drinks, she's making herself vulnerable to rape is that it's both of these factors have little to nothing to do with actual rape. 

Most women who are raped are neither dressed with their butts hanging out or drunk.

So constantly harping on sexy outfits and alcohol is little more than a way to say that women are responsible for being raped.


----------



## wmn1

always_alone said:


> The angry responses here are *not* objections to the idea that women need to take responsibility for their actions or that they should take self defence courses and learn to protect themselves.
> 
> 
> Women are taught this from pretty much day 1, and exercise caution most of the time.
> 
> No, the angry responses here are because of the underlying assumption that rape is a consequence of being sexy and stupid, with all of the focus on women who wear ****ty clothes.
> 
> 
> I understand that these slvtty clothes offend many, and you wish that rape is somehow just a consequence of women provoking men, and then feeling sorry about it later, but this is simply not the case.
> 
> 
> -80 year-old women wearing velour track suits are raped.
> 
> -Women who have never had a drop to drink in their lives, and who wear burkas are raped.
> 
> -College women in sweat pants and hoodies are raped.
> 
> -women wearing ordinary conservative street clothes who are making no efforts whatsoever to act or be sexy are raped
> 
> I get that it is tillating to think about slvt wear, ogle some pictures and finger waggle at how irresponsible and slvtty they are, and chastise them for failing to protect themselves.
> 
> But none of this has much to do with actual rape and the problems faced by women. It is just a way to comfort oneself that it's only people who are out there taking risks and asking for it that get burned, and this is simply not true.
> 
> It is also a nice backhanded way of suggesting that on some level, they deserved it for being too provocative.



You are the first person in a long time that I have seen or read that feels that regardless of who, what where, when, how and why people do things, that risk doesn't matter. Pardon me, I didn't realize we live in a crime free world. I am now going to take all of my possessions and put them on my front lawn and expect them to be there tomorrow. 


I will make 7 clear points

1) Not one single person here is blaming anyone for getting raped. Not one. And certainly noone has claimed that someone somehow 'deserves it'. Where you get this from, lord knows. 

2) Your chances at becoming a victim diminishes as a result of actions that you take to protect yourself. This goes for stabbings, DV, murder, robbery, rape, assault or theft. 

3) There is crime in the world and most crime can't be stopped pre-emptively. 

4) Not one person said that anyone is risk free regardless of how many precautions they take. It is both common sense and fact that the more precautions you take, the more you reduce your risk. i.e. people who live in Detroit have a much greater chance of being a crime victim than someone who lives in St George Utah. Someone who doesn't run across highways has a much less chance of getting struck by a car than someone who does. Someone who parks a Ferrari off of Broad Street in Newark NJ has a much greater chance of getting it stolen than someone who parks one in front of the "Ivy" in Beverly Hills and someone who walks through Central park at one in the morning has a much better chance at getting attacked than someone who is walking through Chilson park in Franklin Massachusetts as a lunch break. 

are you suggesting that people who do the less risky things and take self defense classes have THE SAME LEVEL OF RISK as people who do nothing ?? Spare me !!!!

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/sexual-assault-prevention

How to reduce your risk of becoming a victim of sexual assault



5) Of the hundreds of victims of sexual assault that I HAVE HELPED, YES ME ONE OF THE SUPPOSED WOMAN HATERS HERE, (not true by the way) the extreme majority of them are taking further steps to aid in their not becoming a victim again and me and others I work with remain as a resource to help them. They realize that just sitting down and saying over and over again that 'they didn't deserve this' isn't enough to prevent another attack. And I applaud them for it. 

6) Slvtty clothes don't bother me. I am a guy and I notice and some women are very attractive. Good for them. 

7) I am a guy and I too can be subjected to a sexual assault. You seem to forget this. However, I practice what I preach and take the steps necessary to ensure that I am not that next crime victim and I like my chances, thank you.



Sorry to come across nasty but after not just a career but really more of a lifetime of helping less fortunate people, many women and men and with as many women who I think very highly of, I get pissed when people classify us as anti-women or sexist when it is both not true and all we are doing is stating the obvious.


----------



## wmn1

Anonymous07 said:


> I can never follow some people's thought processes.
> 
> It's "okay" for a man to get wasted drunk and do stupid things, but not okay for a woman to drink.
> 
> It's "okay" for men to flirt, but not women.
> 
> It's "okay" for men to dress however they want, but not okay for a woman to do so.
> 
> What a double standard.



Noone ever said any of this. Where are you getting this from ????


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> 99.99999% of women would never, ever dress like that.
> 
> My first take on seeing that picture is that they are prostitutes.


actually, I see quite a few women wearing similar stuff. I see some guys wearing some things too. As a percentage, I don't know and it's not high but they are certainly out there. I saw a woman at Giant Eagle today wearing see through shorts and panties in 40 degree weather.


----------



## EleGirl

Anonymous07 said:


> I can never follow some people's thought processes.
> 
> It's "okay" for a man to get wasted drunk and do stupid things, but not okay for a woman to drink.
> 
> It's "okay" for men to flirt, but not women.
> 
> It's "okay" for men to dress however they want, but not okay for a woman to do so.
> 
> What a double standard.


Men are now saying that they get raped and sexually assaulted every bit as much as women do. So I guess maybe men need to stop drinking and acting in they same ways. After all it only puts them at risk for rape.


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> 1) Not one single person here is blaming anyone for getting raped. Not one. And certainly noone has claimed that someone somehow 'deserves it'. Where you get this from, lord knows.





JCD said:


> Yeah. I take umbrage for women taking the stance that no matter how they act or how they dress, they should not bear the consequences.



consequence: the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring 

Women will bear the consequences (rape and assault) based on how they dress and act.

When an action is has a consequence... that means that the action causes the outcome. The person doing the action causes (deserves) the outcome.


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> actually, I see quite a few women wearing similar stuff. I see some guys wearing some things too. As a percentage, I don't know and it's not high but they are certainly out there. I saw a woman at Giant Eagle today wearing see through shorts and panties in 40 degree weather.


Maybe the women is a prostitute?

I live in a area that has about 1 million population. I've never seen anyone dressed with SA's picture or in transparent shorts and undies in public.

The closest I've seen to anyone dressed in this manor are the prostitutes who walk up an down one section of Central Ave. But even most of them don't.

See-through shorts and undies would get a person arrested for indecent exposure.


----------



## JCD

Anonymous07 said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I went to a tailgate party with some friends during my college years wearing my vans, skinny jeans, and a t-shirt and was called out by some guy saying I was "looking for sex". Really?? :scratchhead:
> 
> It doesn't matter what a woman wears, if the guy thinks differently. I guess I shouldn't have worn tight jeans because that "put me at risk". I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.


Translation of what the guy said:

"I *wish* you were looking for sex but it is very likely you wouldn't pick me and I am bitter about this."

I don't generally charge for Mannish translations...


----------



## JCD

Anonymous07 said:


> I can never follow some people's thought processes.
> 
> It's "okay" for a man to get wasted drunk and do stupid things, but not okay for a woman to drink.
> 
> It's "okay" for men to flirt, but not women.
> 
> It's "okay" for men to dress however they want, but not okay for a woman to do so.
> 
> What a double standard.


This is demonstrably false.

In fact, one of my very first examples, was that, if I, as a guy, get wasted drunk at a business mixer, I will also face the full consequences of my foolishness.

Guys generally get ejected from clubs and bars easier and earlier because of an assumption they are dangerous while women tend to get looked askance,

And if I put an unwelcome full court press on a woman, as a (totally rational) defense network, every woman will note it and react accordingly in discussing my idiotic behavior.

Now...none of this is rape, granted. However, to use a similar analogy to Whitebread Sally going to a Hell's Angels bar, if I go to the same bar shooting off my mouth about 'pvssy bikers' I am acting just as smart as Sally is....and will face similar ramifications.

The only difference is, I won't have a thousand feminists citing that I have the right to walk anywhere naked and wasted. They will just call me rightfully stupid and 'goading dangerous people'...just like Sally.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> 99.99999% of women would never, ever dress like that.
> 
> My first take on seeing that picture is that they are prostitutes.


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> The only difference is, I won't have a thousand feminists citing that I have the right to walk anywhere naked and wasted. They will just call me rightfully stupid and 'goading dangerous people'...just like Sally.


Every human should be able to walk naked, and even wasted, and not be raped, mugged, etc. Gender does not matter.

No one would say that a mentally ill person who runs out in the street naked (not unusual) only suffers the natural consequences if they are raped or mugged.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Nope, I would not "be jumping up & down calling her more names than any man would". Any woman who would do this is focusing her anger in the wrong place."
> 
> *I would be upset with my man for flirting with another woman.* I would be upset with him for doing this no matter how she was dressed. Whether is was with her butt hanging out or if she was wearing a sweat suit.


Hey, I agree 100% with you.. my saying what I did had no relation to me .. I've never did what I said I have seen other women do.. believe it or not. But my H isn't the type to flirt with women.. and I can't say many has been all over him...few stories to share on that account...too many kids around I guess.. 

Ok..how about going out like this.. maybe you think this is OK. my Husband would NOT.. and I totally agree with him...







there are things I wear at home and he'll say "You aren't going out in that , are you"? and I say "Of course not, are you crazy.. this is for your eyes only baby".. and he'll let me know I'd get ALOT of attention.. and he's right ..that's how I feel.. 

Yes, that other picture was a bit much but I have seen at least one of you say somewhere that we should be able to be naked.. (I think this is rather extreme- well totally) so I put a more extreme pic on here..

Listen.. to each their own.. I feel how we dress does attract MORE of a certain type of man.... you do not... it's an









I would look at myself as a "DI** tease" if I dressed like this out at a bar, flirted with the man... he took me back to his place..and I didn't want to put out.. Yes, I would.. 

Now.. that still doesn't give him the right to rape me..of course not!.... but let me tell you, he may NOT be happy with what just transpired [email protected]#$..... are you kidding me... what if he's not a nice guy... Stranger scenario again.. that's what I am talking about....nothing more. ...those 10% cases here.. 

Not the 90% of Grandma's, or an Islamic woman in a burka, a mother with a child dressed in winter clothing all covered -maybe putting groceries in her car ...ya know... I am speaking specifically about Bars (meat markets with rampant casual sex, booze, dancing with strangers, flirting ) then agreeing to follow a man home to his pad..


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> The difference between dressing 'sexy' and 'beautiful' is up the observer. What's beautiful to one, is sexy to the other.
> 
> Beautiful is always sexy. Sexy is not always beautiful.. like those women in the photo SA posted.. that's sexy but not beautiful.
> 
> I have never dressed in public to specifically be sexy; I go for beautiful.
> 
> From my experience (when I was younger), men take it as sexy and that I was looking for their attention. I was not. I was out with my friends, my family, going to work, school, whatever.
> 
> I've had worn a simple black dress, long sleeves, coved from the neck to mid calf and it does not stop men from taking as me looking for their attention.
> 
> Usually women dress for themselves. We dress in a way that makes us feel good. Knowing that we are beautiful (or as beautiful as we can be on any one day) and sexy makes us feel good.
> 
> I cannot answer why those women in SA's photo are wearing skirts that do not cover their bum. You will need to ask them.
> 
> But I can tell you that very few women would ever dress like that.


This is a totally different issue, though related.

Anonymous 07 above cited she was dressed 'not sexy' but some guy said she was.

HE was sending HER a sexual signal: I think of you as a sexual creature, are you interested?

Just like when you walk outside with no make up, a pair of sweat pants, and messy hair, and some guy says "hey beautiful". YOU are not seeking their attention; THEY are seeking YOURS! Even with the long sleeve black dress!

Now, that being said, while those hookers above are extreme examples, SOME clothes are blatant sexual come ons and saying otherwise is dishonest.

What you are saying is 'I want the right to wear blatant sexual clothing and be 100% safe'.

Alas, this is not a perfect world. I wold love to be falling down drunk with $1000 bliss sticking out of my pockets and yet be unmolested as well. Not true for either of us.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Every human should be able to walk naked, and even wasted, and not be raped, mugged, etc. Gender does not matter.
> 
> No one would say that a mentally ill person who runs out in the street naked (not unusual) only suffers the natural consequences if they are raped or mugged.


Everyone should also be rich and beautiful too.

Aspire to it (and we've done a pretty freaking good job! People in other nations are AMAZED at what American girls get away with because in their countries, they face REAL sexual discrimination; i.e. No male or female jurist would convict a man who attacked a woman dressed like the above) but don't act like we are there yet.


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> consequence: the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier
> 
> Women will bear the consequences (rape and assault) based on how they dress and act.
> 
> When an action is has a consequence... that means that the action causes the outcome. The person doing the action causes (deserves) the outcome.


BULL actions have consequences. Yes. It does cause an outcome. 

Where you lose your argument is the 'causes' and 'deserves' line.

If I forget to put gas in my car and it dies on I-80, my car breaks down. Cause, outcome. That doesn't mean I deserve to get run over by a driver who loses control of their vehicle. However, by not putting gas in the car, and hence my car dying, having to deal with a disabled vehicle and waiting for a tow truck and assistance absolutely puts me in a greater path of harm and getting hit than had I put gas in my car and not braking down in the first place.

In other words, step one to two have a linkage. Step 3 for you is a horrible assumption and a losing argument IMO


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> Maybe the women is a prostitute?
> 
> I live in a area that has about 1 million population. I've never seen anyone dressed with SA's picture or in transparent shorts and undies in public.
> 
> The closest I've seen to anyone dressed in this manor are the prostitutes who walk up an down one section of Central Ave. But even most of them don't.
> 
> See-through shorts and undies would get a person arrested for indecent exposure.



and I have and I live in an area of 6 million. Different levels of how much is exposed but I would say it happens a lot more than you think. And no this lady didn't get locked up and no, even as a cop, I wouldn't have locked her up for indecent exposure because she had a thong on underneath. No indecent exposure. Thank you very much


----------



## wmn1

EleGirl said:


> Every human should be able to walk naked, and even wasted, and not be raped, mugged, etc. Gender does not matter.
> 
> No one would say that a mentally ill person who runs out in the street naked (not unusual) only suffers the natural consequences if they are raped or mugged.


now that would be indecent exposure and I agree with your first statement.


----------



## wmn1

This thread is really devolving. I am going to ask three of my friends from work - all females -- to look at the second half of this thread and tell me what they think. I will post the results tomorrow. Then I will finally quit it once and for all. 

In the meantime, back to USC-ND


----------



## Anonymous07

JCD said:


> This is a totally different issue, though related.
> 
> Anonymous 07 above cited she was dressed 'not sexy' but some guy said she was.
> 
> HE was sending HER a sexual signal: I think of you as a sexual creature, are you interested?
> 
> Just like when you walk outside with no make up, a pair of sweat pants, and messy hair, and some guy says "hey beautiful". YOU are not seeking their attention; THEY are seeking YOURS! Even with the long sleeve black dress!
> 
> Now, that being said, while those hookers above are extreme examples, SOME clothes are blatant sexual come ons and saying otherwise is dishonest.
> 
> *What you are saying is 'I want the right to wear blatant sexual clothing and be 100% safe'.*
> 
> Alas, this is not a perfect world. I wold love to be falling down drunk with $1000 bliss sticking out of my pockets and yet be unmolested as well. Not true for either of us.


People should be able to wear what they want to without being attacked. The clothes I wore were not blatantly sexual, more so just comfy, but I still got bugged by some guy who wouldn't leave me alone as he asked me to go back to his dorm with him repeatedly. 

I pick out my clothing based on a lot of things(temperature, location, 'easy access' for breastfeeding, event, etc.) and shouldn't have to worry about what some guy will view it as. I wore a deep v neck dress to a friend's party because it made it easy to breastfeed my son and was formal enough for the event. Was it blatantly sexual, maybe a little, but it does not invite any man to come on to me. I picked it for the purpose of what was needed for the evening and my husband loved the way I looked.


----------



## always_alone

wmn1 said:


> You are the first person in a long time that I have seen or read that feels that regardless of who, what where, when, how and why people do things, that risk doesn't matter. Pardon me, I didn't realize we live in a crime free world. I am now going to take all of my possessions and put them on my front lawn and expect them to be there tomorrow.


I'm sorry that you do not seem to have much interest in what I am actually saying, rather than how you prefer to misinterpret me. Let me make some very clear points of my own:

1) I never once said that risk doesn't not matter. Indeed I explicitly agreed that everyone should have self-defence training and should take steps to protect themselves. 

2) I never once said that women (or men) should sit around complaining that they don't deserve this. Why do you assume I am advocating complaining as a solution to a problem? 

3) You say yourself that your point is stating the obvious, and I am agreeing with you. Every woman has those tips from RAINN drilled into her head from Day 1. Most try to be vigilant all of the time. Many of us have significant self defence training. So harping on these very obvious points is not particularly helpful, and gives the impression that you think women are oblivious to these risks or the precautions we must take. We are not!

4) Focusing all conversation about rape on slvt wear demonstrates great ignorance of the problems of rape and who the victims are. It gives the impression that you think there is a significant correlation between slvt wear and rape, which there is not.

5) Focusing all conversation on slvt wear gives the impression that you think if she would but dress differently her risk would be lower, but there is no evidence to support this assertion.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes, that other picture was a bit much but I have seen at least one of you say somewhere that we should be able to be naked.. (I think this is rather extreme- well totally) so I put a more extreme pic on here..


I was the one who said that anyone should be able to walk down the street naked and not be at risk of rape. I’m not saying that anyone people should walk down the street naked. What I am saying is that even if a person walks down the street naked, it does not justify someone raping them.
Do you really think that if a person walks down the street naked that they deserve to be raped? And you are ok with that? I don’t think you would be ok with someone raping them. Would you?



SimplyAmorous said:


> Listen.. to each their own.. I feel how we dress does attract MORE of a certain type of man.... you do not... it's an


I have never said that the way we dress does no attract MORE attention of a certain type of man. What I did say is that the way a woman is dressed has little to do with whether or not she becomes the victim of rape. This is a FACT. Most women who are raped were not dressed provocatively when they were raped. In most rapes, the major factors in the rapist picking that woman at that very moment is that he was hunting (you know like animals hunt) for some woman to rape. And the victim just happens to be where he is hunting, with no one else around.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I would look at myself as a "DI** tease" if I dressed like this out at a bar, flirted with the man... he took me back to his place..and I didn't want to put out.. Yes, I would..


Are you saying that if she was wearing a sweat suit, and went to a bar, flirted and then went to his place with him implication is not the same? Of course it’s the same. It does not matter how she’s dressed. If she picks up some guy and goes to his place the message is that this is a one night stand.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Now.. that still doesn't give him the right to rape me..of course not!.... but let me tell you, he may NOT be happy with what just transpired [email protected]#$..... are you kidding me... what if he's not a nice guy... Stranger scenario again.. that's what I am talking about....nothing more. ...those 10% cases here..


He does not have the right to rape any woman, no matter how she is dressed. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Not the 90% of Grandma's, or an Islamic woman in a burka, a mother with a child dressed in winter clothing all covered -maybe putting groceries in her car ...ya know... I am speaking specifically about Bars (meat markets with rampant casual sex, booze, dancing with strangers, flirting ) then agreeing to follow a man home to his pad..


Yet, the vast majority of women who go out to nightclubs, bars, etc are not raped. Clearly rape is not the consequence of going out like this.


ETA: So we are talking about the 10% of rapes that occur outside the home. Of that 10%, only a small portion of them are rapes of women who are slvt dressing, drinking and leading guys on at bars, on campus, etc. 

But almost 100% of the discussion on rape on this thread and other threads like this are focused on this tiny faction of rapes.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Everyone should also be rich and beautiful too.
> 
> Aspire to it (and we've done a pretty freaking good job! People in other nations are AMAZED at what American girls get away with because in their countries, they face REAL sexual discrimination; i.e. No male or female jurist would convict a man who attacked a woman dressed like the above) but don't act like we are there yet.


The women here keep saying that we all agree that women have to take precautions. We say that we take precautions. We say that we teach our daughters to take precautions. So not one woman here is saying that women should not take precautions.

What we are saying it that rape is not the consequence for dressing sexy (or slvty).

It's the use of the word "consequence". A consequence means that it's unavoidable.

If I put my bare hand on something very hot (like a hot stove burner) it WILL get burned 100% of the time. Getting burned can only be avoided by not touching the hot burner.

If I jump off an 80 story building, I will go splat and be a splatter pile of human goo on the sidewalk below. Going splat is the consequence of jumping off 80 story buildings. It will happen 100% of the time.

A person not well trained in handling rattlers, will be bit about 100% of the time if they just reach down and pick up a rattler. Being bitten by a rattler is the consequence.

1 + 2 = 3 It's always predictable.

With human behavior we use consequence to mean the penalty a person pays for doing something. The consequence is the price they pay for harming society.

A person robs a bank... the consequence is prison time. They earned the prison time.

A person sells crack... the consequence is prison time. They earned and deserve the punishment.

A person commits murder... the consequence is prison time and maybe even the death penalty. They earned and deserve the punishment.

A woman dressing sexy or slvty does not earn being raped. 
A woman who is drinking does not earn bring raped.


Now a woman who dressing with he butt hanging out and gets drunk will attract some sleazy men and one or more of them might be rapists. But rape is not the punishment that she deserves for dressing this way and drinking.

That's the difference in what we are saying.

Rape is not the consequence for anyone's actions and/or way of dressing.

If you want to say that dressing slvty and getting drunk increases a woman's risk of being raped in that 10% of rapes away from home... no one here would disagree with you.

Using the word 'consequence' it putting the blame on the victim. What this does is puts the rapist in the position of executing the society punishment of rape for daring to dress sexy and drink.

Women get upset about the use of terms like "consequence" in this type of discussion because of several reasons:

1) As stated above, rape is not the consequence of the way women dress and behave. 

2) Saying that rape is the consequence of the way women dress and behave creates the false belief that many people have that women are only raped because they are at fault. It creates the false belief that women have 100% control over whether they are raped or not.

3) It steers the discussion of rape away from the fact that in the vast majority of rapes, women are not drinking and women are not slvt dressing. Even in the vast majority of rapes away from home the victims were not drinking, slvt dressing and leading guys on.


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> This thread is really devolving. I am going to ask three of my friends from work - all females -- to look at the second half of this thread and tell me what they think. I will post the results tomorrow. Then I will finally quit it once and for all.
> 
> In the meantime, back to USC-ND


It would really help if the women made accounts here and wrote their own replies


----------



## EleGirl

wmn1 said:


> BULL actions have consequences. Yes. It does cause an outcome.
> 
> Where you lose your argument is the 'causes' and 'deserves' line.
> 
> If I forget to put gas in my car and it dies on I-80, my car breaks down. Cause, outcome. That doesn't mean I deserve to get run over by a driver who loses control of their vehicle. However, by not putting gas in the car, and hence my car dying, having to deal with a disabled vehicle and waiting for a tow truck and assistance absolutely puts me in a greater path of harm and getting hit than had I put gas in my car and not braking down in the first place.
> 
> In other words, step one to two have a linkage. Step 3 for you is a horrible assumption and a losing argument IMO


Running out of gas is a consequence of not putting gas in your car. And yes you do deserve to run out of gas if you do not keep your gas tank full. Your car will run out of gas and stop running 100% of the time you do not refuel.

And yes, if you are neglectful enough to not keep enough gas in your car, you deserve to have it run out of gas, you deserve to have to wait for a tow truck, etc.

Now someone mugged you or raped you while you are waiting for that tow truck. You did not deserve to be mugged or rapped.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

wmn1 said:


> BULL actions have consequences. Yes. It does cause an outcome.
> 
> Where you lose your argument is the 'causes' and 'deserves' line.
> 
> *If I forget to put gas in my car and it dies on I-80, my car breaks down. Cause, outcome. That doesn't mean I deserve to get run over by a driver who loses control of their vehicle.* However, by not putting gas in the car, and hence my car dying, having to deal with a disabled vehicle and waiting for a tow truck and assistance absolutely puts me in a greater path of harm and getting hit than had I put gas in my car and not braking down in the first place.
> 
> In other words, step one to two have a linkage. Step 3 for you is a horrible assumption and a losing argument IMO


I will forever think of this TRAGIC TRAGIC story due to running out of gas on a highway.. 2 young sons killed.. the Father , in a rage goes back to kill the drunk driver.. a family destroyed.. 

. Father accused of shooting dead DUI driver who killed his two sons has to leave court as jurors are shown video of the crash including his devastated wife's screams


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Elegirl..you can go the next 10 pages with this discussion.. I still think it is UNwise to dress a certain way , act a certain way around men who are accustomed to easy sex in bars..and Frat houses .... if women want to put themselves in those situations... I'm just not one who will be surprised when sh** happens.. I don't like the men either, does that help ?? You really don't think I excuse their behavior do you! 

It's like you/we agree when you say this..



> If you want to say that dressing slvty and getting drunk increases a woman's risk of being raped in that 10% of rapes away from home... no one here would disagree with you.


 ... Yet you insist on going on to correct us that we are blaming..... Not really sure what to do about that... I asked my H tonight....telling him how all the women are offended if someone uses the word "consequences" in this discussion... so I asked HIM point blank ....

"Do these women (dressed ****ty, flirtatious , getting drunk) deserve to be raped ?".... he replies "NO...but it's the reality in the world and you shouldn't put yourself in that situation"... 

That's simply how WE feel.. if this offends Feminists, then again.. I'm NOT a Feminist... if this is some requirement that my mind has to be in unison with everything the woman on this thread is saying... 

Judge me...Not sure what you want from me or those who feel as we do...

If you was my daughter and insisted on living a lifestyle like this I'd be worried sick, not a damn thing I could do about it though -but I would continue to warn her of what *could happen*... Got a niece who insisted on going to bars.. what did she end up with.. slashed tires, broken windshield, a$$hole beat her up....she had to get a Protection order, I think he is finally out of her life.. but Jeez... was I surprised.. NO !

I look at life more from a preventative measure, that's who I am.. so I won't have to worry *as much*.. I fully realize I could be raped in my own home if a man broke in ...we do have 2 GUNS for this purpose -to protect ourselves .. though I might be so freaked -who knows if I would use it or I'd blast his Fvcking balls off ...

My H used to carry a permit.. I mean.. we don't trust easily.. we don't hang with people who we'd suspect even a hint of anything like this... we'd weed them out of our lives... we try to be very cautious people. but I realize this doesn't make us immune to anything...just lowers our risk is all.. 

THAT's ALL ANY OF US CAN DO... 

I celebrate my freedom as a free women in the united states with choices all around me.. I do not feel oppressed by men in any way..


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> It's like you/we agree when you say this..


We do agree on that 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Judge me...Not sure what you want from me or those who feel as we do...


I want people to realize that the way a woman dresses and even parties, is not what causes rape. Most women who do these things are not raped.

A woman is more likely to get raped if she is not dressed provocatively and not drinking.

The word “consequence” has a meaning. Rape is not a consequence of anything.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Got a niece who insisted on going to bars.. what did she end up with.. slashed tires, broken windshield, a$$hole beat her up....she had to get a Protection order, I think he is finally out of her life.. but Jeez... was I surprised.. NO !


Her going to bars probably had nothing to do with her tires being slashed.

--I as almost killed/raped. It had nothing to do with a bar or the way I dressed.

--I was raped when I was 19. A good friend of my brother’s offered to walk me home from a friend’s house after dark. I was wearing slacks and a turtle neck sweater. On the way he raped me in a field. When I tried to get help, I was told that I probably deserved it. (I was also virgin and anything but wild.)

--3 years ago my daughter was spending the weekend at a friend’s apartment. The stupid friend invited over a guy she knew. The guy put drugs in my daughter’s drink. He then started on a many hour session of beating her. She does not know if she was raped. All she knows is that she would go into and out of consciousness and realize that this guy was on her beating her. She finally came to enough to call the police. When the guy and the other girl realized that the cops were called, they locked my daughter in a room. When the police showed up her friend lied to the police and told them that she was the one who called and it was just a disagreement. When my daughter was finally able to call me. I called the police who refused to show up and would not do anything. Their response was that they already had been there and nothing was going on.

---One of my sisters was attacked on her way out of work to her car. She was dressed in pants and a non-provocative blouse. A guy jumped out of the bushes with a broken bottle and started slashing her up with it. She’s only lived through it because some co-workers saw the attack and chased the guy way.

---One of my sisters-in-law was raped when she was home with all the kids (all 6 of them) in their house. A man broke in, locked the children in a room and then raped her for hours.

--Another sister of mine had a guy stalking her for over 2 years, leaving death threats on her phone. … He knew her every movement. It turned out to be a guy who was a neighbor of her son’s friend. She had never even talked to the guy.

--My best friend was gang raped in high school. She was spending the right at a girl friend’s house. The friend had promised that no boys were coming over. Then the stupid friend invited her boyfriend and some of his friends over. The boys drugged my friend and gang raped her.

--Last year that same friend (now 50 years old) let troubled a teen girl stay at her house when she ran away from her mother’s house. After a couple of weeks it was decided that the girl would go live with her father. When the father showed up to get the girls stuff, he tried to rape my friend. It was the first and only time she’d ever seen this guy. He kept telling her that she really wanted him, groping her, shoving her onto furniture. She finally escaped and called for help. My friend was stone sober, wearing slacks, blouse and sweater.

--My friend’s sister was raped while asleep in the barracks. I talk about this earlier.

--My sister-in-law was raped in high school by her prom date. He raped her and beat the crap out of her. She was stone sober.

--Another sister of mine was raped and beaten by her husband. She was just out of the hospital from a miscarriage. She was sober in PJ’s and house robe.

--A college friend of one of my sisters had a guy break into her apartment. He terrorized her for hours and raped her with a broom handle. When the cops caught him, they talked her out of prosecuting. 

Those are just a few of the rapes/assaults I can remember right now. Not one of them included a woman dressing like a floosy and drinking.

Stop making it sound like women get raped because they dress provocatively and get drunk. Sure some women get raped when they do these things. But most women who dress provocatively and get drunk are never raped. And most women who are raped were not dressed provocatively or drunk when they were raped.



SimplyAmorous said:


> My H used to carry a permit.. I mean.. we don't trust easily.. we don't hang with people who we'd suspect even a hint of anything like this... we'd weed them out of our lives... we try to be very cautious people. but I realize this doesn't make us immune to anything...just lowers our risk is all..


Yet if you or your daughter are ever raped, it will probably be by one of those people you trust. Most rapists are very good at fooling people.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I celebrate my freedom as a free women in the united states with choices all around me.. I do not feel oppressed by men in any way..


No one is saying that they feel oppressed by men.

In the past society had laws and customs that were oppressive to women. We have worked very hard to get rid of those. I’m glad that you enjoy the equality that you and your daughters live under. They were won for you by the women and men most call feminists.


----------



## jld

Ele, I am so sorry for what happened to you and your friends and family! That is all just awful!


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Ele, I am so sorry for what happened to you and your friends and family! That is all just awful!


I think that most of us would be surprised if we knew what so many of the women around us have been through. Most of us never talk about it.


----------



## Catherine602

always_alone said:


> The angry responses here are *not* objections to the idea that women need to take responsibility for their actions or that they should take self defence courses and learn to protect themselves.
> 
> Women are taught this from pretty much day 1, and exercise caution most of the time.
> 
> No, the angry responses here are because of the underlying assumption that rape is a consequence of being sexy and stupid, with all of the focus on women who wear ****ty clothes.
> 
> I understand that these slvtty clothes offend many, and you wish that rape is somehow just a consequence of women provoking men, and then feeling sorry about it later, but this is simply not the case.
> 
> -80 year-old women wearing velour track suits are raped.
> 
> -Women who have never had a drop to drink in their lives, and who wear burkas are raped.
> 
> -College women in sweat pants and hoodies are raped.
> 
> -women wearing ordinary conservative street clothes who are making no efforts whatsoever to act or be sexy are raped
> 
> I get that it is tillating to think about slvt wear, ogle some pictures and finger waggle at how irresponsible and slvtty they are, and chastise them for failing to protect themselves.
> 
> But none of this has much to do with actual rape and the problems faced by women. It is just a way to comfort oneself that it's only people who are out there taking risks and asking for it that get burned, and this is simply not true.
> 
> It is also a nice backhanded way of suggesting that on some level, they deserved it for being too provocative.


Thanks for saying what I meant to say so elegantly. 

To speak of sexual assault as having anything to do with human nature is an insult to humans and to men. Men are no less in control than women. They are no less empathetic, compassionate, moral and just too.

About that picture of the two girls with butts hanging out. What is the point. It is not a healthy one to me. The picture is out of context, what is the history. Are they two silly adolescents showing off their new stuff in a very bad way. Is there just a hint that they are no better than they should be and deserve to be raped? 

These girls hurt no one, they deserve no punishment, no censure. Unless showing off the goods and not being open to sex with any man who limbic system gets triggered is a crime deserving a life sentence. 

I visited Europe several times and nudity is common. In parks, on the beach. The men seemed in control of themselves. So were the women. I never saw so many penises so I did glance. 

Is it not time to come together on this point with no equivocation and with one mind - Sex is not a need, it is not a right, it is not an entitlement and the desire is absolutely controllable. It's a beautiful gift shared between two consenting adults. It would be easy to see women who make themselves vulnerable as humans with feelings and not targets to be punished and used. 

I have been vulnerable but I didn't know the danger I was in. Any woman who takes public transportation and has some man rub their butt knows what I mean. I have a butt so what am I supposed to do with it when I travel to work? I make sure to dress modestly but what else should I do, stay home? It's nerve wracking to have to look around like a crazy person for an hr each way. It's hard to know how not to provoke. But why should I need to do that? Something needs to change and it is not me.


----------



## JCD

We are getting lost in the weeds here.

No one is saying that Catherine deserves to have her butt rubbed because she is wearing any kind of clothing. That is not what this discussion is about, at least from my end.

Simply put *IF YOU LIE DOWN WITH DOGS, YOU GET FLEAS*

I watched a movie. A kid was doing cartwheels on the wall of a high bridge. Did he deserve to fall?

Now, Ele has stated that, yes we acknowledge that SOME behavior really increases risks....after DAYS of being pushed in this point, the ladies grudgingly have told us that water is wet and thunder is loud...and they hate doing so.

And I understand at least in part why. Flouting convention is what was required for feminism to get ANYWHERE. And to get further (because some feminists seem to hate the Good for lack of the Perfect) more flouting will be required.

And there IS the slippery slope. "If I concede even a little that a girl was damned stupid EVEN IF SHE WAS, this opens the gates of ever broader blaming the victim. We have already seen this historically"

Anecdote. Knew a Saudi. Asked about the woman driving ban. "Because if a woman breaks down she will be raped." And the first thought in my head was "how about teaching your boys not to rape women."

Got it in one.

We teach our boys not to rape women. And women have prospered .

But there are still human beasts. There are still the weak. (Most people are not thieves but if they see a wallet full of cash, they may get thoughtful. How often have you succumbed to temptation? It happens)

So there is reasonable and unreasonable arguments. Catherine should never have her butt rubbed. 

My question is this:

Do the women posters have a problem with 'judging' a 'bad girl'?

I am going somewhere with this.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Catherine602 said:


> I visited Europe several times and nudity is common. In parks, on the beach. The men seemed in control of themselves. So were the women. I never saw so many penises so I did glance.


I think that's wear I disconnect with a lot of what is said here, mostly growing up in Europe nudity and bodies seem be viewed very differently.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Now, Ele has stated that, yes we acknowledge that SOME behavior really increases risks....*after DAYS of being pushed in this point, the ladies grudgingly have told us that water is wet and thunder is loud*...and they hate doing so.


This is completely wrong. I and other women have stated from the very beginning of this conversation that every woman is taught from early childhood to recognize risks and to be careful. We do this. We teach our daughters and sons about this. 

The issue is that you and other have refused to acknowledge that we have been saying this all along. 



JCD said:


> Do the women posters have a problem with 'judging' a 'bad girl'?
> 
> I am going somewhere with this.


Can you define what makes a woman a “bad girl”?


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> I watched a movie. A kid was doing cartwheels on the wall of a high bridge. Did he deserve to fall?


Here’s what I said about natural consequences (as opposed to consequences that society gives out based on breaking the law.)



EleGirl said:


> It's the use of the word "consequence". A consequence means that it's unavoidable.
> 
> If I put my bare hand on something very hot (like a hot stove burner) it WILL get burned 100% of the time. Getting burned can only be avoided by not touching the hot burner.
> 
> If I jump off an 80 story building, I will go splat and be a splatter pile of human goo on the sidewalk below. Going splat is the consequence of jumping off 80 story buildings. It will happen 100% of the time.
> 
> A person not well trained in handling rattlers, will be bit about 100% of the time if they just reach down and pick up a rattler. Being bitten by a rattler is the consequence.
> 
> 1 + 2 = 3 It's always predictable.


If a boy in real life does cartwheels on a wall of a high bridge, and he makes the wrong move, the natural consequences are that he falls. There is no human involvement in that consequence.

Do people deserve (as in earn) the natural consequences of their actions? You will need to ask Mother Nature, or the universe about that.


----------



## LeGenDary_Man

EleGirl said:


> --I as almost killed/raped. It had nothing to do with a bar or the way I dressed.
> 
> --I was raped when I was 19. A good friend of my brother’s offered to walk me home from a friend’s house after dark. I was wearing slacks and a turtle neck sweater. On the way he raped me in a field. When I tried to get help, I was told that I probably deserved it. (I was also virgin and anything but wild.)
> 
> --3 years ago my daughter was spending the weekend at a friend’s apartment. The stupid friend invited over a guy she knew. The guy put drugs in my daughter’s drink. He then started on a many hour session of beating her. She does not know if she was raped. All she knows is that she would go into and out of consciousness and realize that this guy was on her beating her. She finally came to enough to call the police. When the guy and the other girl realized that the cops were called, they locked my daughter in a room. When the police showed up her friend lied to the police and told them that she was the one who called and it was just a disagreement. When my daughter was finally able to call me. I called the police who refused to show up and would not do anything. Their response was that they already had been there and nothing was going on.
> 
> ---One of my sisters was attacked on her way out of work to her car. She was dressed in pants and a non-provocative blouse. A guy jumped out of the bushes with a broken bottle and started slashing her up with it. She’s only lived through it because some co-workers saw the attack and chased the guy way.
> 
> ---One of my sisters-in-law was raped when she was home with all the kids (all 6 of them) in their house. A man broke in, locked the children in a room and then raped her for hours.
> 
> --Another sister of mine had a guy stalking her for over 2 years, leaving death threats on her phone. … He knew her every movement. It turned out to be a guy who was a neighbor of her son’s friend. She had never even talked to the guy.
> 
> --My best friend was gang raped in high school. She was spending the right at a girl friend’s house. The friend had promised that no boys were coming over. Then the stupid friend invited her boyfriend and some of his friends over. The boys drugged my friend and gang raped her.
> 
> --Last year that same friend (now 50 years old) let troubled a teen girl stay at her house when she ran away from her mother’s house. After a couple of weeks it was decided that the girl would go live with her father. When the father showed up to get the girls stuff, he tried to rape my friend. It was the first and only time she’d ever seen this guy. He kept telling her that she really wanted him, groping her, shoving her onto furniture. She finally escaped and called for help. My friend was stone sober, wearing slacks, blouse and sweater.
> 
> --My friend’s sister was raped while asleep in the barracks. I talk about this earlier.
> 
> --My sister-in-law was raped in high school by her prom date. He raped her and beat the crap out of her. She was stone sober.
> 
> --Another sister of mine was raped and beaten by her husband. She was just out of the hospital from a miscarriage. She was sober in PJ’s and house robe.
> 
> --A college friend of one of my sisters had a guy break into her apartment. He terrorized her for hours and raped her with a broom handle. When the cops caught him, they talked her out of prosecuting.
> 
> Those are just a few of the rapes/assaults I can remember right now. Not one of them included a woman dressing like a floosy and drinking.


This is shocking. 

These women live in USA or in different countries?

---

As for the debate about repercussions of provocative clothing; my opinion is that it is wise for women to dress modestly worldwide. Modesty lessens the chances of inviting unnecessary attention and sexual harassment. Whether provocative dressing increases the chances of sexual assaults (including rape) or not, is unknown so far since many cases of rape go unreported worldwide, however, provocative dressing is likely to increase chances of inviting "sexual harassment" and "unwanted attention" holistically.


----------



## EleGirl

LeGenDary_Man said:


> This is shocking.
> 
> These women live in USA or in different countries?
> 
> ---
> 
> As for the debate about repercussions of provocative clothing, my opinion is that it is wise for women to dress modestly holistically worldwide. This lessens the chances of inviting unnecessary attention and harassment. Whether provocative dressing increases the chances of sexual assaults (including rape) or not, is unknown so far since many cases of rape go unreported worldwide, however, provocative dressing is likely to increase chances of inviting "sexual harassment" and "unwanted attention" holistically.


Both.... 

I have lived in many countries to include countries that are predominately Muslim. There is no difference. Well, I take that back. The difference is that here and in Europe I can talk about this. But in some countries if a woman dares to talk about any rapes or sexual assaults she has suffered, she will be punished.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Here’s what I said about natural consequences (as opposed to consequences that society gives out based on breaking the law.)
> 
> 
> 
> If a boy in real life does cartwheels on a wall of a high bridge, and he makes the wrong move, the natural consequences are that he falls. There is no human involvement in that consequence.
> 
> Do people deserve (as in earn) the natural consequences of their actions? You will need to ask Mother Nature, or the universe about that.


You walk this far and refuse that last step.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> This is completely wrong. I and other women have stated from the very beginning of this conversation that every woman is taught from early childhood to recognize risks and to be careful. We do this. We teach our daughters and sons about this.
> 
> The issue is that you and other have refused to acknowledge that we have been saying this all along.
> 
> 
> Can you define what makes a woman a “bad girl”?


Don't answer a question with a question. It is rude and can be seen as a diversion tactic


----------



## JCD

LeGenDary_Man said:


> As for the debate about repercussions of provocative clothing; my opinion is that it is wise for women to dress modestly worldwide. .


I suppose the principle at stake is the right to be unwise...and perhaps also to shut up any criticism of unwise behavior.

I think this is MY major sticking point.

"I want the right to do cartwheels on a bridge AND also be treated as if this is perfectly acceptable behavior instead of the insanely stupid action it actually is."

And before we get the knee jerk responses, no ,*I am not talking about JUST the right to wear a short skirt or a low cut top*. Read that twice before responding. I am talking STUPID behavior.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

JCD said:


> I think this is MY major sticking point.
> 
> "I want the right to do cartwheels on a bridge AND also be treated as if this is perfectly acceptable behavior instead of the insanely stupid action it actually is."
> 
> And before we get the knee jerk responses, no ,*I am not talking about JUST the right to wear a short skirt or a low cut top*. Read that twice before responding. I am talking STUPID behavior.


But the 'cartwheels on a bridge' analogy only equates to the risk of a drunk girl falling cuz of her high heels. THAT would be her fault.

What's not her fault is the inability of a minority of guys to refrain from putting their hands on her and claiming provocation.

The fair analogy of that is to claim that risky climbing provokes others to give them a shove. THAT's ridiculous,,, as is insinuating/believing/suggesting/inferring that anyone is responsible for rape other than the rapist.

That's not knee-jerk. That's comparing like with like rather than like with unlike.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wmn1

Now listen all, I haven’t read a single post on this thread since shortly after my last one and don’t care to any more. I am not going to look at anything after I post this either. I am done with it and have too much on my plate than to sit here and fight. So whoever responds to this, I won’t be looking. It’s all on you and your level of class.

However, yesterday afternoon, I decided to reach out to three of my co-workers who are all women but they are three different types. 

#1 is that gorgeous woman who could walk into a bar and have 10 guys follow her everywhere.

#2 is very conservative and religious and one of the best people I have ever worked with.

#3 is more of a tomboy. We golf, fish and she hangs with the guys more than the girls. Both #2 and #3 are also very attractive.

I asked them to look midway through this thread and on to see what they think about it. Maybe it’s a way for me to calibrate a little. Of course being friends, I asked them to look past that but some bias will be there. 

This is what they said.

1	I am the type who dresses somewhat liberally and the benefit is that, when I was single, I got hit on more but I also attracted more of the dirtballs and some of them make me queasy. While I concur that I don’t deserve to be sexually assaulted for this, I strongly feel that noboby on this board has said this or even suggested this. It’s me who puts myself out there and because of that, I have to deal with the good and bad. I would be lying if I said I haven’t been followed into the parking lot of some places but the criminal would have been shot if he tried anything. I did like the back and forth between Elegirl and JCD but felt that too many people were too quick to label people and that the thread went to crap. I see it in our department when people argue about politics, though I certainly stand with your conservative views as you know. If I was someone who needed help, I wouldn’t come here, too much fighting and too much testosterone. Hope this helps, and I’ll see you at the ******* party tomorrow. Christina and Doug will be there too

2	As you know, I am deeply conservative and religious. In reading what you asked me to, I find the exchange between JCD and Elegirl to be interesting and informative. I am against all the name calling though, especially by the people who only do that. That Simply Amorous person sounds more like me than anyone else though you know I agree with you always. I finally admit I am with you in that everyone needs to step up and be their own defenders first and foremost. I am by no means a feminist and while I feel women’s issues are important, men have issues too. Most of the people I deal with wouldn’t even go back and forth on these issues but instead help each other. Regardless, interesting website though I hope this thread is more of an exception than the norm ….. 

3	You know I have taught “Refuse to be a Victim” classes for 6 years now and am a black belt myself. I side with everything you say here. People prepare for the worst case differently and some are better at it than others. You can’t expect the kindness of criminals to protect you. I could care less how people dress or whether you are a man or woman, it is what it is. It’s what they do outside of that which matters. Everyone is a unique individual and have individual needs. It is sad that someone who has devoted as much time as you have in helping victims would get trashed like this but then again why are you there wasting your time and getting into the muck with strangers when you are supposed to be helping me plan the Christmas party or our upcoming Happy Hour Friday night. You should have left the thread once it got dirty. The name calling by some there turned me off. It is what people do when they have no argument. In the meantime, keep helping this rookie class get adjusted to their field. It’s more important. Talk to you Monday. 


Not a shocker that they sided with me but that's why we get along so well and are in the same field. 


Now I am done. Peace out


----------



## JCD

Flying_Dutchman said:


> But the 'cartwheels on a bridge' analogy only equates to the risk of a drunk girl falling cuz of her high heels. THAT would be her fault.
> 
> What's not her fault is the inability of a minority of guys to refrain from putting their hands on her and claiming provocation.
> 
> The fair analogy of that is to claim that risky climbing provokes others to give them a shove. THAT's ridiculous,,, as is insinuating/believing/suggesting/inferring that anyone is responsible for rape other than the rapist.
> 
> That's not knee-jerk. That's comparing like with like rather than like with unlike.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Semi fair...but only semi fair.

I do not ding a woman going to a party...or drinking....or even wearing provocative clothes when drinking. To use a 'fair analogy', she is walking along the side of a bridge and some A-Hole gives her an unsolicited shove. NOT HER FAULT.

But...if I WILLINGLY go climbing with known A-Holes...and I get a shove? Or I willingly go out climbing with guys who are total strangers and look rough? Please...tell me how HER CHOICE of circumstances and friends did not have an impact on howshe found herself at the bottom of a cliff?

See...young girls 'wanna have fun' and some see 'danger' as 'fun'.

You can hang around a-holes NOT around bridges and be fine. You can hang around a-holes NEAR the side...but are watchful...and still mitigate risk. Nope! She needs cartwheels...by the side of a bridge...with a-holes. Whee!

I've seen a grown man stick a lit firework up his nose and smile while he did it. But HE does not have a political movement who has as an article of faith that they need to defend his every stupid action and stomp HARD on anyone who sees that, yes, that is some stupid sh!t!

I have the mental flexibility to hold two contradictory ideas in my head: that a rapist is always wrong, no matter the temptation or provocation....and that some (not all, SOME) women do very stupid stuff that is the equivalent of putting on a blindfold and pinning a 'kick me' sign on her back (or a similar word to 'kick').

While I understand the principle, this mental inflexibility, this devotion to thoughtless ultimatums, makes feminists, at times, seem as mentally uncritical and as politically clannish as the Fergeson looters.

Which, going back to the original thread, is another reasons feminism gets looks askance. We all know crazy stupid self destructive people. Usually, only their moms defend them...not a ten thousand member group.

Don't have to like it. Maybe you need to think about it.


----------



## Anonymous07

EleGirl said:


> I think that most of us would be surprised if we knew what so many of the women around us have been through. Most of us never talk about it.


This is so true. My ex boyfriend tried to rape me and I only got away because his brother came home early. I never told anyone, other than my husband in real life because I didn't see a point. Nothing would be done about it. The police didn't even do anything to the 2 guys who violently raped my cousin.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

I'm so glad wmn1 made sure that we knew just how attractive his female consultants are, cuz gawd knows I wouldn't want to hear the opinion of anyone who ranked less than an 8.

I hope all you other posters are up to snuff!


----------



## Blonde

Rape is not about sex, but about power. I forget where, perhaps nursing school (?), where I learned from a self defense segment that a woman should walk with confidence and look people in the eye. A rapist is more likely to target a woman who looks weak and submissive- think head down, meek. Amish girls are raped. Muslim women wearing burkas are raped.

We had a discussion over Thanksgiving dinner about the recent gang rape scandals at UVA. One daughter will be a freshman next year and the discussion turned to avoiding fraternities, never accepting a drink she didn't pour herself, staying in groups, etc... First six weeks of college are rape "red zone" for freshmen - WTOC-TV: Savannah, Beaufort, SC, News, Weather & Sports

I feel sorry for JCD's daughters. If they get raped, of course its their own fault for being so ****ty.


----------



## JCD

Blonde said:


> I feel sorry for JCD's daughters. If they get raped, of course its their own fault for being so ****ty.


Bringing my kids into this? Wishing me a comeupance though my kids, passive aggressively characterized with an 'if'? If you had any character you would apologize immediately.

I wonder if any so called feminists are outraged by this post...or if instead, they will excuse HER actions do to provocation.


----------



## always_alone

Being the wild and crazy bad girl risk-taker that I am, I once accepted a ride home from someone (softball coach). For the record, I was completely sober and conservatively dressed, and had no reason to believe he was an a-hole. He decided that he didn't actually want to take me home, and instead drove me into the middle of nowhere. I considered jumping out of the speeding car, but couldn't bring myself to do it, and instead tried talking my way out, appealing to his humanity. No luck. I tried fighting him off, but he was much stronger and nearly strangled me to death. Later, when I had him charged, I was told I must've done *something* to provoke him

Another crazy risk taking adventure: I was with a friend and we went to a restaurant. Yes, I know, silly me, what ever was I thinking? Obviously I have some sort of "rape me" sign pinned to my ass. Anyway, turns out that this restaurant was closed for a private party, the birthday of the owner's son. But instead of just telling us that and letting us go on our merry way, this group of a dozen or so young men thought it would be infinitely more fun to grab onto us and prevent us from turning around and leaving. Thankfully, we managed to kick ourselves free and hightaile out of there, as I shudder to think what might've happened otherwise.

Framing rape victims as bad girls provoking men and taking huge risks is but a red-herring that allows the finger-waggler to assume the moral high ground and accuse those who are unfortunate enough to be raped of asking for it.


----------



## Blonde

EleGirl said:


> I was the one who said that anyone should be able to walk down the street naked and not be at risk of rape.


I hear ya, and as a (non-churchgoing*) Christian ITA. 

Reminds me of a passage from Francine Rivers "Redeeming Love" where Angel is forced to go in front of the crowd at a saloon (naked IIRC). Also reminds me of how Jesus had the town slvt doing the Jewish equivalent of a strip tease for him and yet He did not lust.

*non-churchgoing because I find many self professed christian men to be so unlike Christ. eg I cannot picture Him going onto a forum and justifying rape.


----------



## Blonde

JCD said:


> Bringing my kids into this?


Might help you to think of the victims as someone's daughters.

I wish no harm to your daughters. To the contrary, I am deeply in favor of protecting them and hope they have someone besides you to disciple them before going to the wolves at college.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Well maybe this is a blessing to keep me off of this thread and the back & forths... I have a possible detached retina, went to the ER this morning ... my eye collided with my daughter weeks ago...her arm or something in the kitchen OUCH [email protected]#$... didn't think much of it.....till this morning, seeing flashes of light.......Have to see an Opthamologist tomorrow am... Doc told me to stay off the computer to rest my eyes. ....this is going to be very difficult for me.. 

As for my niece & her slashed tires..., she met the A-hole at the bar.. No bar -No A-hole, No slashed tires...that's my reasoning. 

Her Mother has been worried sick over her choices too.. The girl hates men now, says they are all no good & love is a Joke.....we had that conversation last year..She is only 23 yrs old.. As for all the rapes that has nothing to do with how we dress....I KNOW.. I fully agree... why you keep pounding this over & over again.. I'm not arguing with this in any way...OK... 

This still doesn't change the fact I feel it is best for women to dress modestly..(yet they have the right to do whatever they want -YES -go for it!)...

I agree with LeGenDary_Man last post.. but apparently this is not allowed to be spoken... or some form of correction is coming our direction.....

This is why I say Conservatives and Feminists do not MIX..our worldviews are very different.. 

Although I am not deeply religious anyone (like wmn1's friend)... the conservatism is still there in many ways.. It just seems so many of you judge this.. and want to change who I am .....noone wants to be on the receiving end of this from others..

I do all I can to raise good children... to NOT contribute to the ugliness of society and all it's drama, if this is not good enough for other women.. I have to "let it go"... at some point it just becomes hurtful -feeling people just want to change us... and our thinking to be a copy of theirs. 

Live your life, go to bars, if that's what you enjoy.. Dress like Kim Karadshian while you are at it.. I know better than to try to change you... I have only wasted my time here.


----------



## jld

Oh, dear, SA! I am so sorry about your eye! I will have to read about detached retinas--that sounds painful!


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> 99.99999% of women would never, ever dress like that.
> 
> My first take on seeing that picture is that they are prostitutes.


And it does not SAY anything except maybe I am young and stupid. It definitely does not say anything to any specific person.


----------



## NobodySpecial

wmn1 said:


> Now listen all, I haven’t read a single post on this thread since shortly after my last one and don’t care to any more. I am not going to look at anything after I post this either. I am done with it and have too much on my plate than to sit here and fight. So whoever responds to this, I won’t be looking. It’s all on you and your level of class.


This is rich. I don't give a hoot what any of you are saying. I am just gonna talk at you.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

JCD said:


> Semi fair...but only semi fair.
> 
> I have the mental flexibility to hold two contradictory ideas in my head: that a rapist is always wrong, no matter the temptation or provocation....and that some (not all, SOME) women do very stupid stuff that is the equivalent of putting on a blindfold and pinning a 'kick me' sign on her back (or a similar word to 'kick').
> 
> 
> Which, going back to the original thread, is another reasons feminism gets looks askance. We all know crazy stupid self destructive people. Usually, only their moms defend them...not a ten thousand member group.
> 
> Don't have to like it. Maybe you need to think about it.


Oh,, I have the same contradictory notions - non-molestation utopia vs the predatory reality.

What bugs me is that the focus, both in the media and threads like this, inevitably ends up with naive, scantily clad young girls at the centre of it. When it's not that, it's early-teen boys and porn.

Very rarely do you see discussions/op-eds about how we might better achieve the utopia. How is it we continue to raise little entitled misogynists? With sex-ed classes starting earlier and earlier,, why are mid-teen boys expecting their GFs to perform like pornstars and why are some of those GFs submitting to it? While I'm convinced the seeds of entitled misogyny are planted much earlier,, maybe schools could be doing a little less rolling condoms on a banana,, and considerably more to drive home the message to boys to respect the word "No", and girls to recognise that boys who don't are åssholes not worth giving it up for.

On topic - feminism is in a woeful state. Way back in the thread I happily agreed that it should be about equality and choice. And yet, you don't need our testosterone around in the media,,, women battle over utopia/reality/provocation with vigour and without any input from us.

Any day I can read slút-shaming articles written by women in the links under the headlines. Those say anti-choice to me. What are they doing about little misogynists? I haven't a clue cuz you rarely see a link to such articles unless you search minority sites. How are they empowering their teenage sisters? Again, no idea,,, but they run endless stories about those girls being coerced by the teen misogynists to do porn stuff.

Of course,, it's not the exclusive fault of women or feminists that the media is sales driven,, but if feminists could just unite over the issues of choice and equality we might have less wrecking ball and more articles about things that might achieve something beyond done-to-death controversy and division. 

Plenty of women now have prominent positions in media. It becomes increasingly unarguable that 'the patriarchy' is responsible for the content.

The base requirement of an organisation or movement is that it be organised. Sports or politics,, a 'club' needs clear-cut policies or rules. They can in-fight among the members (about which hazzards entitle you to a free drop) but the message to the outside world needs to be clear - Join us and we'll do this, this and that.

I know what the rules of tennis are. I know the core beliefs of pro-choice and pro-life groups are. I can even glean some differences between left and right when they publish policies and manifestos.

Feminists? If they can't agree on choice then equality is the sum goal of their unity. Other than that, they seem as divided as,, well,,, women. I've known for a long time that women are as diverse as they are plentiful. As women they're already united over equality so what differentiates a woman from a feminist?

It's like Dworkin and Paglia have gone mainstream but, like most everything else, they've been dumbed down and reduced to their divisions in the form of soundbites and pictures,, of Miley and Rhianna. A lot of noise about very little.


It's a sorry state of affairs. ;-(

I DO think about it. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

JCD I feel some women are the worst judge of other women and are more at fault for the crisis we are experiencing now. If women were to step-up out of a sense of morality, empathy, compassion and understanding without quibbling, the problem of making sex an evil and a weapon would be no more. But some women play right along like sheeple's. It does not have to be an unpleasant dialogue.

I talk to my husband about how I feel when things come up in the media. That gives him a perspective that he may not have been able to see. Women should communicate honestly with their partners. Men cannot see things from a woman point of view unless we are honest with the men who love us. Honesty in this area is related to total honesty about who I am and my sexuality. The women who hide the anger and frustration at being touched or treated rudely by a random man may take it out on her husband. 

We are much less empathetic towards people we think we will never be. Women separate themselves based on what they believe are morals and character. The high moral snobs think they will never be in the position of the bad ones because they choose. The think their children are safe too. Their daughter will never do that. Guess again, life is a b!tch and a twist. 

What if the snobs were sexually abused or assaulted and made to feel that my only worth was in sex parts? A sizable proportion of woman are in that position. Or maybe had parents who did not care enough to guide them properly or they fell in with the wrong group of friends as a teen. Choosing to be modest would be foreign, no? The value for love is in the parts showing off. Other woman, the snobs maybe, are lucky to have had learned that other parts have value. 

Someone mentioned that people who put themselves in harms way need to feel with the consequences. Running out of gas, lying with fleas. Being killed by a motorist is an accident, the motorist did not look and say look at that idiot, I am going to hit him. Would it be morally acceptable? The fleas are being mindless bugs with no control over their flea nature. Men are not fleas nor are they psychotic motorist. 

I missed a stop on my bus a week ago and I had to walk a mile home on a dark street. That was stupid should have called my husband. Thought about it as I was walking in the dark. Using the logic of me getting what I deserve for being stupid, I deserved to be assaulted right. What sane woman would walk for a mile on a dark road unless she was asking for it, right?.


----------



## NobodySpecial

My issue is that there SHOULDN'T be "consequences" to wearing certain clothing. Reaction, ok I can get with that. But that in this day and age we are still discussing women's attire and rape in the same conversation is disturbing. It indicates that violence and sex are still not that disconnected in many peoples minds, even if it is buried beneath layers of excuses. 

If you think someone is speaking TO YOU by their attire, you are sick in the head.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Attempted rape: Basketball coach attempted to drag me into his car. I bit him.

Attempted rape: Neighborhood friend of the family with whom my brother was just playing Atari minutes before he left slams be into the couch while ripping at my pants. I kicked him in the nose and ran.

Actual rape: Room mate simply walked into my room when I was asleep.

There is such a massive disconnect between what is being said in this thread and what happens it makes me want to puke. And... I did not even list all mine.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Flying_Dutchman said:


> Very rarely do you see discussions/op-eds about how we might better achieve the utopia. How is it we continue to raise little entitled misogynists? With sex-ed classes starting earlier and earlier,, why are mid-teen boys expecting their GFs to perform like pornstars and why are some of those GFs submitting to it?


woa woa woa. Forget when we teach. How about what we teach. How about teaching that sex is not something that girls submit to. How about teaching that boys and girls, yes even 16 year old boys and girls can do pleasantly, with caring if not Twuuu Luv, together for mutual fun and satisfaction? That would be my favorite place to start.



> While I'm convinced the seeds of entitled misogyny are planted much earlier,, maybe schools could be doing a little less rolling condoms on a banana,, and considerably more to drive home the message to boys to respect the word "No", and girls to recognise that boys who don't are åssholes not worth giving it up for.


This stuff does not come from schools. This stuff comes from homes where the man is not even really aware that that is exactly what he is teaching his sons. They are the sons, unfortunately, of some of the men on this board. 

<snip>

.... Aside from the need for a Feminist National Convention or something that everyone seems to want, I cannot for the life of me understand what the rest of that post meant.


----------



## techmom

I will say this then I will be done, for all of the people bringing up the constant examples of young girls acting irresponsibly I just have to say this:

Until the following types of women cease getting raped, you have no argument-

Women in burkas
Children under the age of five
Elderly women over the age of eighty in nursing homes

For every example of a young woman scantily clad and exercising poor judgement there are just as many examples of the types I listed above. What do we say to those examples? What do we say to a girl who is dressed like a typical nine year old with baggy jeans and a t shirt who has not started developing yet, when she is leered at in the street? What do you say, how would you explain the behavior of this small group of men?

We endlessly blame women for needing feminism to better their lives so that they won't have to live in grinding poverty just because a man decides he just does not give a damn anymore. We don't blame that group of men who need to constantly power over the women in their path so they can feel "masculine". Heavens forbid they lose their man-card.

The posters who are finding every excuse to blame feminism for the crimes of this group of men are guilty of justfying these crimes.


----------



## norajane

This thread has becoming sickening. Pages and pages of discussion on what women wear instead of how to stop the sexual violence that women are subject to regardless.

Someone, or multiple someones, pointed out that people like talking about scantily clad women "inviting" rape as "consequences" because it distracts from the more important discussion - rapists - and that's exactly what has happened here.

THAT is why feminism is still important and shows pretty clearly why it is still needed. Women are still being blamed for being raped and we don't talk about the rapists and how to stop them from being rapists.


----------



## NobodySpecial

norajane said:


> This thread has becoming sickening. Pages and pages of discussion on what women wear instead of how to stop the sexual violence that women are subject to regardless.
> 
> Someone, or multiple someones, pointed out that people like talking about scantily clad women "inviting" rape as "consequences" because it distracts from the more important discussion - rapists - and that's exactly what has happened here.


It is a touch more insidious than that. Because the poster in question is not QUITE saying it is inviting rape. He steps just shy of that. The words are couched in such reason sounding that it is easy to dupe the slow of mind. But the fact remains. While someone would call someone a dumb ass for walking into Chinatown at 1:00am without a firearm, no one would claim that robberies and beatings in Chinatown are a result of dumb asses. That dumb asses cause robberies and beatings in Chinatown. Of COURSE dumb asses should be less dumb and mitigate their risk. But the robberies and beatings are still owned by the gangs in Chinatown. Not so with violence against women. Even when attire or whatever nonsense all of us have had told us was our fault for our rapes don't even come into play.

World is still sick. And some folks still prognosticating that sickness. Kinda sad.



> THAT is why feminism is still important and shows pretty clearly why it is still needed. Women are still being blamed for being raped and we don't talk about the rapists and how to stop them from being rapists.


Amen to that.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

NobodySpecial said:


> This stuff does not come from schools. This stuff comes from homes where the man is not even really aware that that is exactly what he is teaching his sons. They are the sons, unfortunately, of some of the men on this board.
> 
> .


Since you're responding to "seeds of misogyny planted much earlier" you might've deduced that I have some awareness of parental influence.

MUCH better to be debating what schools and parents might better teach their kids than harping on about mini-skirts.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Flying_Dutchman said:


> Since you're responding to "seeds of misogyny planted much earlier" you might've deduced that I have some awareness of parental influence.
> 
> MUCH better to be debating what schools and parents might better teach their kids than harping on about mini-skirts.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


THAT I can get with.

Different topic maybe?

Our Whole Lives Lifespan Sexuality Education Curricula - UUA


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ For the record. I have a feminist mother. She never told me that I must have done something to provoke the basketball coach. She got his sorry ass fired with no possibility of being rehired with children again as the only means to avoid prosecution.


----------



## Catherine602

NobodySpecial said:


> Attempted rape: Basketball coach attempted to drag me into his car. I bit him.
> 
> Attempted rape: Neighborhood friend of the family with whom my brother was just playing Atari minutes before he left slams be into the couch while ripping at my pants. I kicked him in the nose and ran.
> 
> Actual rape: Room mate simply walked into my room when I was asleep.
> 
> There is such a massive disconnect between what is being said in this thread and what happens it makes me want to puke. And... I did not even list all mine.


I am glad you said it. For some reason, I don't believe what I experience myself. I think it is me because their is something wrong with me or something bad that I am doing to draw horrible experiences. I thank you and all of the woman who are sharing. It helps me to know that it is not me. 

My experiences when I was growing up living in a big city and in the last 3 years after moving back to our home city. 

I have been touched on purpose by men passing me on the train platform, pressing up against me in a crowd, saying rude things in passing and being aggressive in trying to pick me up. These are not teens or young men who have the high testosterone. 

It has given me a complex about a certain type of man in a crowd. I am jumpy, paranoid and stressed when I travel. I have a backpack to protect my butt, I dress in layers even in the hot summer and I leave early so that I can wait for a seat on the bus and let a very crowded train go. This has happened 6 times in 3 yrs. I have taken scores more trips than 6 but it's like operant conditioning, I never know when it will happen. 

We are negotiating a move and it is mostly because I am afraid to bring my daughter up in this jungle and I can't take living here. 

When I was growing up as a teen, men would touched their genitals when I was waiting at the light to cross the street, at first I did not realized what the were doing then I learned not to look. More than one men hid in the bushes and beckoned me to follow. I learned to look start ahead when I travelled. It is funny, I never really thought about these things as something done to me but something I caused. 

I never told my parents because I thought it was my fault and I knew they would blame me. My coach seduced me when I was 15, he was married with two kids, I did not know. I was too stupid to realize that 15 yo girls are not loved by men, they are easy to use and discard. How could I not know? Even young girls with mature sex parts don't know what it means. 

I never dress provocatively, I dress attractively when I am not taking public transportation and sexy when I am with my husband. This is not my fault, I am not a bad person. 

BTW - the crowded train problem is much better than it was when i lived in the city growing up. Men are being prosecuted now and women are taking pics of creeps and putting them on the internet. This has decreased the assaults a great deal. Also more surveillance cameras are being installed. 

The crowded train and bus problem may be a consequence of the attitude that a woman's body does not really belong to her but is community property if not protected. I don't think any women feel that way. Some of the asset showing-off is an "in your face" way of saying, I got it and it's mine. That how I feel when I show my assets when it's safe. Yaaaa you can look but it's all mine, and this man (husband) over here gets whatever he wants.  

Thank you for letting me vent TAM friends .


----------



## NobodySpecial

Oh man. The number of times that I have had a man attempt to enter me (really enter me) while my hands were pinned on the subway cannot even be counted. I have narrowly escaped following by quickly stepping back on the train after getting off at my stop. I have carried my keys for the necessary eye stabbing. Catherine, dear, I am not trying to be mean. I am just a very different person than you. If I must stick my key in someone's eye, then there it will go with no quibble from me. And to hear this crap about .... what you are wearing... is driving. What? I wore the navy blue suit I was told to wear. With modest heals as I was told to get.

That there are still people who equate sex with predatory behavior indicates feminism is still needed.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ Oh jesus. I so understand what you are writing. You Look Straight Ahead Period. Why should it be so?


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ For the record. I have a feminist mother. She never told me that I must have done something to provoke the basketball coach. She got his sorry ass fired with no possibility of being rehired with children again as the only means to avoid prosecution.


It's a travesty that he wasn't prosecuted.

For the record,, you won't find me suggesting ANY woman, irrespective of what she's wearing or how conscious she is, should be accused of provoking anybody.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Flying_Dutchman said:


> It's a travesty that he wasn't prosecuted.


He did not succeed at concluding anything. He merely attempted. There would have been plenty for defense to do to prevent any conviction.


> For the record,, you won't find me suggesting ANY woman, irrespective of what she's wearing or how conscious she is, should be accused of provoking anybody.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am glad to hear that.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

NobodySpecial said:


> He did not succeed at concluding anything. He merely attempted. .


Going hands-on, uninvited, should be enough.

Even a through-clothing stroke or squeeze can be terrifying. If they're only prosecuted for a small fine and get found not guilty the humiliation should at least prevent some of them from trying it again.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Flying_Dutchman said:


> Going hands-on, uninvited, should be enough.
> 
> Even a through-clothing stroke or squeeze can be terrifying. If they're only prosecuted for a small fine and get found not guilty the humiliation should at least prevent some of them from trying it again.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What I will never understand is... what is interesting about some of this stuff? Why is it fun to grope someone on the subway? I think the basketball coach meant to rape me. And I get that. Which is mind numbingly sick. Where did this stuff go so wrong?


----------



## techmom

I keep getting drawn to this thread for some reason....

Anyway, there was a thread about men catcalling women, some male posters were wondering why women were offended by the catcalling. Wondered why women don't take it as a compliment that men holler at them in the street saying things like "hey baby, come over here" and stuff like that. This thread illustrates the many examples of why, because we get blamed when bad things happen to us.

How are women supposed to trust that random men in the street mean well when they want to start a conversation? Well, we don't want to be the example conservative women use to say, see she deserved it. We don't want certain men to say, "well she talked with him because she wanted that type of attention". See the dilemma we end up in when we want to make contact with the opposite sex in a neutral setting.

And for some posters who think that all of these instances happen in bars, no they don't. Some single men on TAM complain of women being too guarded and standoffish when they try to approach them on the train, bus, anywhere people are out and about. The posts on this thread which blame women for sending the wrong signals is to blame for women shutting men out in the street.

So guys, we can't have it both ways. Either we attempt to stop blaming the victims or you get used to getting the cold shoulder from those pretty, interesting women you see in the street.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> You walk this far and refuse that last step.


Guessing games in conversation don't work well. Though it's apparently your style.

Please explain what you mean by this.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Don't answer a question with a question. It is rude and can be seen as a diversion tactic


I aske for the definition of "bad girl" you want us to consider. It's not a diversion at all.

Some people thing that any women who has premarital sex is a "bad girl". That's the standard that I was raised to believe.

Some people think that any woman who has slept with more than 2-3 guys is a bad gril.

Some people think that pulling a train is what defines a bad girl.

You cannot throw out a term that has no real definition and then expect someone to say what they think about it.


----------



## EleGirl

Blonde said:


> Rape is not about sex, but about power. I forget where, perhaps nursing school (?), where I learned from a self defense segment that a woman should walk with confidence and look people in the eye. A rapist is more likely to target a woman who looks weak and submissive- think head down, meek. Amish girls are raped. Muslim women wearing burkas are raped.
> 
> We had a discussion over Thanksgiving dinner about the recent gang rape scandals at UVA. One daughter will be a freshman next year and the discussion turned to avoiding fraternities, never accepting a drink she didn't pour herself, staying in groups, etc... First six weeks of college are rape "red zone" for freshmen - WTOC-TV: Savannah, Beaufort, SC, News, Weather & Sports
> 
> I feel sorry for JCD's daughters. If they get raped, of course its their own fault for being so ****ty.


Apparently, for some, the only kind of rapes worth talking about are ones in which the woman is dressed provocatively and is drunk. I suppose it's just easier to talk about it when some think that the woman can be blamed.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

NobodySpecial said:


> What I will never understand is... what is interesting about some of this stuff? Why is it fun to grope someone on the subway? I think the basketball coach meant to rape me. And I get that. Which is mind numbingly sick. Where did this stuff go so wrong?


Too many sub-reasons to list,, but the main ones.

Power/control to compensate for their own lack of both.

Sociopathic joy at preying on the weak.

Deep resentment of feminine power to arouse them. 

Most men enjoy that,, a smile can make us feel good for hours. 

The resenters and power/control types can only get that feel-good factor from intimidating and frightening you. It transfers your power to them. A subway squeeze or a rape, the motivations are largely identical.

The astonishing thing with these public assaults is that they must feel confident that they won't be prosecuted. Burglars and shoplifters don't want an audience.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Bringing my kids into this? Wishing me a comeupance though my kids, passive aggressively characterized with an 'if'? If you had any character you would apologize immediately.
> 
> I wonder if any so called feminists are outraged by this post...or if instead, they will excuse HER actions do to provocation.


She did not wish a comeuppance on you nor wish harm on your kids. She stated concern for your kids.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well maybe this is a blessing to keep me off of this thread and the back & forths... I have a possible detached retina, went to the ER this morning ... my eye collided with my daughter weeks ago...her arm or something in the kitchen OUCH [email protected]#$... didn't think much of it.....till this morning, seeing flashes of light.......Have to see an Opthamologist tomorrow am... Doc told me to stay off the computer to rest my eyes. ....this is going to be very difficult for me..


Sorry to hear this. Listen to you doc. Take care of yourself.


----------



## Blonde

EleGirl said:


> Apparently, for some, the only kind of rapes worth talking about are ones in which the woman is dressed provocatively and is drunk. I suppose it's just easier to talk about it when some think that the woman can be blamed.


At our Thanksgiving discussion, the consensus was that "overprotected" girls- such as those from conservative christian homes- may be more likely to be among the freshmen victims of rape. Going from the modesty police at home and never having tried alcohol to the free-for-all of a college campus, they are more vulnerable.


----------



## Blonde

So, to the gents who want to blame the victim, if your conservative daughter goes to Rugby Road wearing something you think is scandalous, drinks, and gets gang raped, is it her fault? 

She sure won't be going to daddy for any help and support since I'm sure she heard him on his bully pulpit for years... 

National Review in favor of safety for daughters at UVA: The Right and Campus Rape | National Review Online


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> I will say this then I will be done, for all of the people bringing up the constant examples of young girls acting irresponsibly I just have to say this:
> 
> Until the following types of women cease getting raped, you have no argument-
> 
> Women in burkas
> Children under the age of five
> Elderly women over the age of eighty in nursing homes
> 
> *For every example of a young woman scantily clad and exercising poor judgement there are just as many examples of the types I listed above. *


I need to correct this.

CORRECTED: For every example of a young woman scantily clad and exercising poor judgment there are *10-20 TIMES *as many examples of the types I listed above. 

I gave a list of what? 10 or so rapes I know about.. mine and those of other women I know. That is not an exhaustive list, I just thought that a small (yes small) sample would get the point across.

And what was the rely? That's horrible followed by "I think that women need to dress modestly."

:scratchhead: Huh? I made a very clear point on every one of the rapes that I listed that the woman was dressed modestly or she was in her own home with the doors locked.



techmom said:


> What do we say to those examples? What do we say to a girl who is dressed like a typical nine year old with baggy jeans and a t shirt who has not started developing yet, when she is leered at in the street? What do you say, how would you explain the behavior of this small group of men?
> 
> We endlessly blame women for needing feminism to better their lives so that they won't have to live in grinding poverty just because a man decides he just does not give a damn anymore. We don't blame that group of men who need to constantly power over the women in their path so they can feel "masculine". Heavens forbid they lose their man-card.
> 
> The posters who are finding every excuse to blame feminism for the crimes of this group of men are guilty of justfying these crimes.


It's just a lot more fun to talk about scantly clad women who are acting badly I suppose.


----------



## Blonde

EleGirl said:


> She did not whish a comeuppance on you nor wish harm on your kids. She stated concern for your kids.


I fear for his kids and I wish he could see that the freshman gang rape victims who might have dressed a bit scantily and overdone the alcohol *ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S DAUGHTERS!!!*


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ For the record. I have a feminist mother. She never told me that I must have done something to provoke the basketball coach. She got his sorry ass fired with no possibility of being rehired with children again as the only means to avoid prosecution.


This and your mother's reaction reminds me of something that happened here....

In high school my daughter was involved in ROTC. They were putting together a co-ed ROTC football team to play against other co-ed ROTC football teams in the state.

My daughter, being the ultimate tom boy, was excited. She and other ROTC girls joined the team. They held practice a couple of times a week.

I found some notes between my daughter and her female friends taking about what was going on in football practice. The some of the boys were using practice as an opportunity to grope the girls, moon them, etc. The other boys and coach (Sargent Major) did nothing.. they just laughed and thought it was funny.

One type of incident that happened a few times was my daughter was the quarterback. Some guy the center. So when he was bent over with her behind him to get the ball, he would moon her.. he would pull down his pants and stick of bare ass in her face. 

In the notes between the girls on the team the girls were in over their heads. They were in 9th grade and had no idea how to handle this. They felt humiliated but wanted to be on the team. The fact that the 'good' boys and the coach thought it was funny left them confused. They were not sure if their feelings were appropriate.

I talked to the girls. Then I took the notes to the principle. She talked to the Sargent Major.

So now what happened? The next day in the ROTC class he announced that ROTC football was permanently cancelled because he mother caused problems. He told the class to blame my daughter.

A couple of weeks later, in the afternoon after school, while my children were in their rooms (above the garage) studying.. I heard an explosion.

A group of boys from ROTC put 2 home made bombs on our garage doors. They attempted to blow up the front of our house. The police bomb squad said that if the terrorist punks had known what they were doing, there was enough explosive to blow off the front half of our house. They were trying to kill us. My children would have been blown up right along with the front of our house.

Instead all they did was to ruin the garage doors and damage our truck with bomb scraps.

A couple of weeks later, they did it again. Again their bombs did not work very well.

Then they started harassing my daughter and telling her that they were going to beat her up and worse. So again I was in school with the principle and school security.

Our house was not the only think they blew up. The boys were arrested and prosecuted. the oldest one went to prison (he was a senior just about ready to graduate). The others got probation.

Not one person at the school, not the Sergeant Major, no one told those boys that it was wrong to grope the girls and moon them. Instead the Sargent Major basically taught the entire class that groping and mooning girls is just a fun thing to do.


----------



## jld

Ele, that is appalling. I am so glad you and your family were not hurt!


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> I keep getting drawn to this thread for some reason....
> 
> Anyway, there was a thread about men catcalling women, some male posters were wondering why women were offended by the catcalling. Wondered why women don't take it as a compliment that men holler at them in the street saying things like "hey baby, come over here" and stuff like that. This thread illustrates the many examples of why, because we get blamed when bad things happen to us.
> 
> How are women supposed to trust that random men in the street mean well when they want to start a conversation? Well, we don't want to be the example conservative women use to say, see she deserved it. We don't want certain men to say, "well she talked with him because she wanted that type of attention". See the dilemma we end up in when we want to make contact with the opposite sex in a neutral setting.
> 
> And for some posters who think that all of these instances happen in bars, no they don't. Some single men on TAM complain of women being too guarded and standoffish when they try to approach them on the train, bus, anywhere people are out and about. The posts on this thread which blame women for sending the wrong signals is to blame for women shutting men out in the street.
> 
> So guys, we can't have it both ways. Either we attempt to stop blaming the victims or you get used to getting the cold shoulder from those pretty, interesting women you see in the street.


Gads I remember that thread...sick.

There is one guy who was writing me PMs. He was saying that the women were making too much out of it. That it's a man's right to cat call, etc etc. His take is that women should be flattered. He is apparently upset that when he hits on women in places like the grocery story, hardware store, etc. most of them just ignore him. His take? They are stuck up b!tches.


----------



## Blonde

EleGirl said:


> Th
> Not one person at the school, not the Sergeant Major, no one told those boys that it was wrong to grope the girls and moon them. Instead the Sargent Major basically taught the entire class that groping and mooning girls is just a fun thing to do.


9th grade! 14 yo girl. SMH 

I'm glad she had you to advocate for her elegirl.



Flying_Dutchman said:


> How is it we continue to raise little entitled misogynists? With sex-ed classes starting earlier and earlier,, why are mid-teen boys expecting their GFs to perform like pornstars and why are some of those GFs submitting to it? While I'm convinced the seeds of entitled misogyny are planted much earlier,, maybe schools could be doing a little less rolling condoms on a banana,, and considerably more to drive home the message to boys to respect the word "No"


QFT


----------



## EleGirl

Flying_Dutchman said:


> Too many sub-reasons to list,, but the main ones.
> 
> Power/control to compensate for their own lack of both.
> 
> Sociopathic joy at preying on the weak.
> 
> Deep resentment of feminine power to arouse them.
> 
> Most men enjoy that,, a smile can make us feel good for hours.
> 
> The resenters and power/control types can only get that feel-good factor from intimidating and frightening you. It transfers your power to them. A subway squeeze or a rape, the motivations are largely identical.
> 
> *The astonishing thing with these public assaults is that they must feel confident that they won't be prosecuted. Burglars and shoplifters don't want an audience. *


Generally it is not illegal to grope. 

For example the statue here in NM says that the touching has to be under the clothing against the skin. I think it's about the same everywhere.

These guys tend to know the law and stay within it.

Now it might be assault and battery. But I'm not sure.


----------



## techmom

EleGirl said:


> I need to correct this.
> 
> CORRECTED: For every example of a young woman scantily clad and exercising poor judgment there are *10-20 TIMES *as many examples of the types I listed above.
> 
> I gave a list of what? 10 or so rapes I know about.. mine and those of other women I know. That is not an exhaustive list, I just thought that a small (yes small) sample would get the point across.
> 
> And what was the rely? That's horrible followed by "I think that women need to dress modestly."
> 
> :scratchhead: Huh? I made a very clear point on every one of the rapes that I listed that the woman was dressed modestly or she was in her own home with the doors locked.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a lot more fun to talk about scantly clad women who are acting badly I suppose.


Thanks for the correction. 

I'm so sorry about what happened with your daughter at ROTC, it is scary that you got that type of reaction for trying to stand up for your daughter. It is sad that this experience taught your daughter not to trust even the nice guys. And this is the problem.

For all of the posts in this thread talking about how women are to blame for what they are wearing and drinking, no one is taking about how to confront the men who harass women. 

For every man who cat calls women in the street, there are the "nice" guys who stand by and chuckle. For every man who gropes, there are people who say that boys will be boys. This is why women get angry at being blamed for being assaulted, because there is no one on the other side telling those men that this is not acceptable behavior. No one.


----------



## EleGirl

Blonde said:


> I fear for his kids and I wish he could see that the freshman gang rape victims who might have dressed a bit scantily and overdone the alcohol *ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S DAUGHTERS!!!*


I also wish that he could see that most of the freshman gang rape victims were neither drinking nor dressed scantily.


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> ....
> 
> For every man who cat calls women in the street, there are the "nice" guys who stand by and chuckle. For every man who gropes, there are people who say that boys will be boys. This is why women get angry at being blamed for being assaulted, because there is no one on the other side telling those men that this is not acceptable behavior. No one.


I think that there are few men telling men to not do these things.

But I also thing that the vast majority of men think it's funny and have the boys will be boys attitude.

We keep being told here by some that women need to have one voice and stand up to the radical feminists who are way out there.

But when I have suggested that men need to stand up to men who do things like this, the major response has been, no.


----------



## EleGirl

Blonde said:


> 9th grade! 14 yo girl. SMH
> 
> I'm glad she had you to advocate for her elegirl.


Thanks.. It was a hard time her and all of us. Her brothers were beyond horrified at both the way the girls were treated and then the bombings and treats.


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> I'm so sorry about what happened with your daughter at ROTC, it is scary that you got that type of reaction for trying to stand up for your daughter. It is sad that this experience taught your daughter not to trust even the nice guys. And this is the problem.


Thanks.. 

My daughter is very careful about men. She does have good male friends but she vets them very carefully.

Today, her body language alone says "Don't mess with me."


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Ele, that is appalling. I am so glad you and your family were not hurt!


Thanks... 

When the trail was going on, our house was on the news. In the video report they showed the name of the street and our house number. I was freaked out. But nothing came of it.

The guy who went to prison threatened that when he gets out he's coming looking for us. So once in a while in wonder if I need to move to an island where no one can find us.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> ...if not *Twuuu Luv*, together


_The Princess Bride_?



---Apologies. Sometimes threads need a little oil on the water.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Apparently, for some, the only kind of rapes worth talking about are ones in which the woman is dressed provocatively and is drunk. I suppose it's just easier to talk about it when some think that the woman can be blamed.


No. For some, the majority of rapes are the fault AND ONLY THE FAULT of the rapist.

A girl is walking down the street and is 'struck by lightning'. What is there to discuss about that? He is a bad guy. I don't care about his reasons. I have no desire to analyze his motivations.

*HE IS WRONG*

What is there to talk about in that scenario?

-Find man.

-Punish heavily if proven.

Who is saying that this is the majority of rapes? I have been clear on what my critiques are. 

To bring this *YET AGAIN* back to what this thread is about, which no feminist wishes to discuss, instead wanting to focus on twisting words to discredit critics, let me state this meta point again

Feminists in general act as an insular political group with very little self regulation.

- if someone is a political ally and violates feminist principles, they are silent

-if a fellow woman says incredibly stupid and insulting things, they are silent or they cover for them. IF PRESSED HARD, there is a grudging muttered weak condemnation, with a likely turn immediately to attacking (misogyny, Republicans, men in general) to change the subject. Another fun tactic is to suddenly quibble over definitions to change the subject.

- if X bad action happens to a woman, there is this strident and vigorous lack of curiosity. How did this bad thing happen? Feminists don't seem to care. They wish to pretend that a woman struck by lightning is exactly the same as a girl who merrily drags Sid Vicious to a bridge to watch her prove that ,yes, she CAN do cartwheels on the ledge even half drunk.

Where I take umbrage with this last is how it effects what I try to teach my daughters. Whatever internal debates women have, the message sent LOUD AND CLEAR is that a woman has a right to walk naked down the street. I believe it was NobodySpecial who stated it,though it was probably stated and/or agreed to by many other posters here.

This essentially contradicts the idea that women should be careful. If that point is mentioned, it is an added caveat. "Girls, nothing you do justifies you being raped no matter how stupid, wasted and provocative you are.........but I suppose a girl should be careful."

This undercuts the teaching of caution, particularly when it becomes a political point of pride to flout social conventions.

Anecdote: a high status French woman decided that she wanted to be egalitarian, and very cutting edge! She wanted to make a 'name' for herself, so she invited three French Legionaries to her house for dinner. She wanted to be a little wicked! Large dangerous men around. It gets your blood racing! This was before the days of any background checks. Three former criminals who have lived in the desert for months, trained to kill other human beings for fun, and were not really welcome in France...she invited to dinner and flirted with them...alone except for a few servants. :scratchhead:

She met 'wicked' and she didn't like it.

Pointing out the stupidity of such an action seems to make me a misogynist.

***

Blonde, you need not worry about my daughters. See, it isn't a part of my political faith to teach them that poking a tiger is risk free. They will probably be MORE not less cautious than your daughters.

I will never tell them it is their right to run around naked or that they should not be cautious at parties.

But you seem to have stridently ignored my posts were I essentially was teaching my girls the exact same things Elegirl is teaching hers.

Elegirl gets applause for 'caring'. I get accused of something I have in writing not supported a half dozen times.

Bur Elegirl is part of the Sisterhood and tells you pretty words you like to hear. I tell you things which are...uncomfortable. 

So your reaction is....predictable.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> She did not wish a comeuppance on you nor wish harm on your kids. She stated concern for your kids.


I know exactly what she was doing. That she did it in a plausibly deniable way does not mask her intent.

She was also showing a distressing lack of reading comprehension. Anyone going to call her on that? No?


----------



## JCD

Blonde said:


> I fear for his kids and I wish he could see that the freshman gang rape victims who might have dressed a bit scantily and overdone the alcohol *ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S DAUGHTERS!!!*


They are all someone's daughters.

You seem to want to picture me as loudly decrying those 'slvtty' women while piously saying 'what were those poor proved boys to do' with a nice undercurrent of salaciousness.

This is demonstrably false in a half a dozen of my posts.

The UVA case is one PURELY about predators. She was invited, drugged and attacked.

But even with the evil intent, that did not have to happen and we all know safeguards she could have taken. I pointed out three at least.


----------



## techmom

Ok I'll bite...

JCD, how are the following examples of "poking the tiger":

Women dressed in burkas
A woman walking on a busy street in a business suit
A cute 10 year old girl in baggy jeans and a baggy t shirt, not developing yet
An elderly woman in a track suit, not tight fitting

The only examples you seem to want to discuss is women in bars. It has been pointed out numerous times that women get raped at home, where they should be safe among friends and family.

The only examples you and others who want to justify rape present is women who are drinking, partying, and scantily clad. This is only a small percentage of all rapes. Please discuss rapes of young girls and elderly women so we can take the focus off of blaming the victims and blaming the perpetrator.

Rape is the only crime where the victim has to go in and defend herself against the court of public opinion.

You and others must want a world where women are completely inaccessible, because that will be the result of all of the victim blaming.

Single men complain that women seem frigid and stern in public when they want to talk to them. Do your fellow brothers a favor and convince them to show women that you do give a damn about our concerns about rape and sexual assault. But instead you insist on victim blaming.

It will come a time when the only way to get into a relationship with a woman will be to know her parents. Then be vetted by her family and friends. Women who I know IRL are tired of men excusing the crimes and bad behavior of other men, and they are closing themselves off as a result.

This may not be your intention, but this is how you are coming off when you drill the same example of the young irresponsible drunk girl example time and time again.

I would like for you to answer this post. Thank you.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> No. For some, the majority of rapes are the fault AND ONLY THE FAULT of the rapist.
> 
> A girl is walking down the street and is 'struck by lightning'. What is there to discuss about that? He is a bad guy. I don't care about his reasons. I have no desire to analyze his motivations.
> 
> *HE IS WRONG*
> 
> What is there to talk about in that scenario?
> 
> -Find man.
> 
> -Punish heavily if proven.
> 
> Who is saying that this is the majority of rapes? I have been clear on what my critiques are.
> 
> To bring this *YET AGAIN* back to what this thread is about, which no feminist wishes to discuss, instead wanting to focus on twisting words to discredit critics, let me state this meta point again
> 
> Feminists in general act as an insular political group with very little self regulation.
> 
> - if someone is a political ally and violates feminist principles, they are silent
> 
> -if a fellow woman says incredibly stupid and insulting things, they are silent or they cover for them. IF PRESSED HARD, there is a grudging muttered weak condemnation, with a likely turn immediately to attacking (misogyny, Republicans, men in general) to change the subject. Another fun tactic is to suddenly quibble over definitions to change the subject.
> 
> - if X bad action happens to a woman, there is this strident and vigorous lack of curiosity. How did this bad thing happen? Feminists don't seem to care. They wish to pretend that a woman struck by lightning is exactly the same as a girl who merrily drags Sid Vicious to a bridge to watch her prove that ,yes, she CAN do cartwheels on the ledge even half drunk.
> 
> Where I take umbrage with this last is how it effects what I try to teach my daughters. Whatever internal debates women have, the message sent LOUD AND CLEAR is that a woman has a right to walk naked down the street. I believe it was NobodySpecial who stated it,though it was probably stated and/or agreed to by many other posters here.
> 
> This essentially contradicts the idea that women should be careful. If that point is mentioned, it is an added caveat. "Girls, nothing you do justifies you being raped no matter how stupid, wasted and provocative you are.........but I suppose a girl should be careful."
> 
> This undercuts the teaching of caution, particularly when it becomes a political point of pride to flout social conventions.
> 
> Anecdote: a high status French woman decided that she wanted to be egalitarian, and very cutting edge! She wanted to make a 'name' for herself, so she invited three French Legionaries to her house for dinner. She wanted to be a little wicked! Large dangerous men around. It gets your blood racing! This was before the days of any background checks. Three former criminals who have lived in the desert for months, trained to kill other human beings for fun, and were not really welcome in France...she invited to dinner and flirted with them...alone except for a few servants. :scratchhead:
> 
> She met 'wicked' and she didn't like it.
> 
> Pointing out the stupidity of such an action seems to make me a misogynist.
> 
> ***
> 
> Blonde, you need not worry about my daughters. See, it isn't a part of my political faith to teach them that poking a tiger is risk free. They will probably be MORE not less cautious than your daughters.
> 
> I will never tell them it is their right to run around naked or that they should not be cautious at parties.
> 
> But you seem to have stridently ignored my posts were I essentially was teaching my girls the exact same things Elegirl is teaching hers.
> 
> Elegirl gets applause for 'caring'. I get accused of something I have in writing not supported a half dozen times.
> 
> Bur Elegirl is part of the Sisterhood and tells you pretty words you like to hear. I tell you things which are...uncomfortable.
> 
> So your reaction is....predictable.


I get that you are a guy who cares about your children and cares for people, men and women. You're not a bad guy. I get that.

But what is just hard to deal with are things like the above post. The level of what sounds like just plain paranoia that women are out to get you and all men is beyond comprehension. How can I or anyone else even talk to you when what you do is constantly reply that we are just out to get you?


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Simply put *IF YOU LIE DOWN WITH DOGS, YOU GET FLEAS*


So a woman who goes to a fraternity party is lying with dogs. 

Are you saying that all men at fraternity parties are dogs?

How about when she does out an parties with friends? Are those male friends dogs?

Who exactly are these dogs that some undefined set of women are with?


----------



## techmom

The present day college hook up culture came about as a result of women feeling safe enough to express their sexuality without being subject to ridicule and victim blaming. The future does not look bright for men who victim blame, for this will cause women to be the "gate keepers of sex" again.

Men are the lucky beneficiaries of the hook up culture, as are women. It can continue if men will own up to their faults, this means that they have to police their own gender and hold men who victimize women accountable for their crimes. This will make a safe environment for all.

Then women will be free to express themselves sexually without being called sl*ts and *****s.

Then women will be free to express themselves sexually to their husbands, without past experiences of abuse.

Young men won't have to guess if the woman wants sex, because she will be free to express that without feeling shame.

All of these things will happen in a sexually safe environment, do we want to work towards this or not?


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> The present day college hook up culture came about as a result of women feeling safe enough to express their sexuality without being subject to ridicule and victim blaming. The future does not look bright for men who victim blame, for this will cause women to be the "gate keepers of sex" again.
> 
> Men are the lucky beneficiaries of the hook up culture, as are women. It can continue if men will own up to their faults, this means that they have to police their own gender and hold men who victimize women accountable for their crimes. This will make a safe environment for all.
> 
> Then women will be free to express themselves sexually without being called sl*ts and *****s.
> 
> Then women will be free to express themselves sexually to their husbands, without past experiences of abuse.
> 
> Young men won't have to guess if the woman wants sex, because she will be free to express that without feeling shame.
> 
> All of these things will happen in a sexually safe environment, do we want to work towards this or not?


I find it 'funny' that so many guys seem to support the idea that college aged guys should be out there bonking every women they can talk into it. That this is a right of passage for the guys.

But then any college girl who participates is a "Bad Girl". Well if the girls are "Bad Girls" to be judged, then so are the guys "Bad Boys" (in as bad a sense as they judge the girls.)


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> No. For some, the majority of rapes are the fault AND ONLY THE FAULT of the rapist.


ALL rapes are ONLY the fault of the rapist. Period.

There is no action that a girl or a woman can take that gives a man the right to enter her but consent. Period. The law gets it. But rape will continue to be a problem until people get it.


----------



## JCD

techmom said:


> Ok I'll bite...
> 
> I would like for you to answer this post. Thank you.



Sure. I am happy to debate. I am not going to sit here and be misrepresented and slurred. 

So if you are going to read my answers, you need to read my WHOLE answer, not just some bit where you can say 'aha! He's evil!'

If something I write seems horrible, ask for clarification. Maybe I wrote poorly. Maybe...um...you have a bit of bias and just WANT me do be easily dismissed. Maybe it has ramifications I didn't think of...and maybe you didn't think of some either.

Assume, for the moment, that I am not trying to get women to put away their miniskirts and shove them in a harem.



> JCD, how are the following examples of "poking the tiger":
> 
> Women dressed in burkas
> A woman walking on a busy street in a business suit
> A cute 10 year old girl in baggy jeans and a baggy t shirt, not developing yet
> An elderly woman in a track suit, not tight fitting


Not one of those is an example of 'poking the tiger.'. I have been pretty clear in what I wrote. In fact, if you look up just a few posts, you will see something else I wrote.



> No. For some, the majority of rapes are the fault AND ONLY THE FAULT of the rapist.
> 
> A girl is walking down the street and is 'struck by lightning'. What is there to discuss about that? He is a bad guy. I don't care about his reasons. I have no desire to analyze his motivations.


There are bad guys around. They just want to rape. Maybe they are broken. Maybe they are sick. Maybe they are evil. Generally, I don't care. If there is a rattlesnake on my property, I remove it one way or another. There is nothing to discuss about the nature of a snake.

There is something I might say to my daughters about shoving their hands into holes without knowing what is in them, however...





> The only examples you seem to want to discuss is women in bars. It has been pointed out numerous times that women get raped at home, where they should be safe among friends and family.


And I am not talking about any of them YET. (I have something to say about that later.)



> The only examples you and others who want to justify rape present is women who are drinking, partying, and scantily clad. This is only a small percentage of all rapes. Please discuss rapes of young girls and elderly women so we can take the focus off of blaming the victims and blaming the perpetrator.


I don't want to discuss rapes AT ALL. Someone poked the badger and I had to get involved. I try to challenge ideas and doxologies. And I think that special carve outs in treatment are dangerous and SHOULD be questioned.

We question murders. We question assaults. We question embezzlement for the love of god. Were there mitigating factors? Was there a reasonable doubt? Was there any reason to give the benefit of the doubt to the perpetrator...or should we remove cruel and unusual punishment because he is a blight upon the world?

I KNOW (and have said) that we are quibbling around the margins...because this is the only interesting conversation involved in rape. This is the only 'gray area'.

Do you really think I would defend or minimize some guy raping grandma?




> You and others must want a world where women are completely inaccessible, because that will be the result of all of the victim blaming.



This is inflammatory, false, distorting and arguing to absurdity (a logical fallacy)

Would you care to phrase that another way?




> Single men complain that women seem frigid and stern in public when they want to talk to them. Do your fellow brothers a favor and convince them to show women that you do give a damn about our concerns about rape and sexual assault. But instead you insist on victim blaming.


One of the issues to this whole argument is that in defending women, feminists are doing harm to society at large and also want to leverage outrage of rape into laws and practices which are VERY ANTI MALE.

I have a problem with this. You want me to vote the death penalty for rapists? Okay. A life sentence? Okay! But you better be able to prove it.

Proving it is hard and it has nothing to do with victim blaming, male rape tendencies or any other 'blame shifting'. It is the nature of the crime. And that is immune to legislation and even culture...unless, as I fear and feminists have shown a tendency, EVERY allegation by a woman should be treated prima facie as PROOF of guilt without examination (see Affirmative Consent)



> It will come a time when the only way to get into a relationship with a woman will be to know her parents. Then be vetted by her family and friends. Women who I know IRL are tired of men excusing the crimes and bad behavior of other men, and they are closing themselves off as a result.


So...disagreeing with a woman is grounds for not dating. Has the law changed? Has one woman thought 'is there something I am missing? Have we pushed things too far? WHY do men feel this way?' 



> This may not be your intention, but this is how you are coming off when you drill the same example of the young irresponsible drunk girl example time and time again.


I continue to pound on this point because it is important.

I have taken the time to answer your questions. Now, I would like you to analyze the actions of that French woman I mentioned.

Can you? You can. Will you?

Because, there are two points.

There is the legal point: did he rape her. That is an important, but usually pretty cut and dried yes/no question.

There is a SOCIAL point: are we, as a society, afraid to call a spade a spade? How do I say to my daughters "Don't be like the Countess DeBergerie (made up name)" if their response is 'dad that is blaming the victim.'. Well, the victim might have actually BEEN stupid!

And I don't think a political group should try to silence free speech. Anyone watching Monica Lewinsky got that she wasn't exactly the sharpest pencil in the box...is that blaming the victim?

I consider the two points separate and would *NOT* support, countenance, speak toward, or agitate for any change in the law which discussed the sex life of, the dressing patterns of, or (in most cases) the actions of the victim.

Life, however, is fuzzy by nature. Ultimatums and absolute statements are the output of a rigid mind.

I can easily envision several scenarios where the 'fact' of rape iS questionable. Can you?


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> ALL rapes are ONLY the fault of the rapist. Period.
> 
> There is no action that a girl or a woman can take that gives a man the right to enter her but consent. Period. The law gets it. But rape will continue to be a problem until people get it.


Okay.

Tell me. In that anecdote I showed, how did that situation of the rape arise? Who created the danger? Were there any warning signs or red flags the woman in question might have...mmm...acted upon to avoid the situation in which she found herself?

Was she, in fact, walking along, minding her own business when she was 'struck by lightning'...or did she run into a thunderstorm, grabbing the tallest metal object handy and grabbed it with both hands, saying 'God is a bastard' at the top of her lungs?

Do you, in fact, have any judgment or the ability to critically analyze a situation?


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> I get that you are a guy who cares about your children and cares for people, men and women. You're not a bad guy. I get that.
> 
> But what is just hard to deal with are things like the above post. The level of what sounds like just plain paranoia that women are out to get you and all men is beyond comprehension. How can I or anyone else even talk to you when what you do is constantly reply that we are just out to get you?


If there is a positive way or a negative way to take any of my points, it is always taken, not only negative, but frankly distortive.

I have had a good dozen responses to my posts just like that to my posts. I can't think of one offhand which did not say or imply something I never said or meant. Catherine and Blonde just flat out attacked me. (Catherine, called on it, decided to join the conversation with a relevant post. The Blonde...did not.)

I complain when people reply to things I did not clearly say.

For example, techmom just accused me of wanting women shut away.

Please show me where I ever said that. I can show you where I was proud women were free to dress how they wanted to. I stated that rape is on the rapist. I stated Spring Break is not the left armpit of Satan. I stated girls have a right to party. This is 'shut away'?

BUT...I added that a woman can still act stupid. I stated that a woman can certainly enable her risk level as she seeks 'fun' in unsafe ways.

This is being a misogynist. Saying a woman can be stupid. That a woman can make blatantly wrong choices.

This seems very uncontroversial to me. 

So...deal with that question.

DO women make wrong and bad questions, choose wrong partners and wrong settings which GRAVELY increase her chances of rape? Do they knowingly ignore red flags...and even add a few themselves?

Cause not one woman here will admit that. Because they are afraid of that slippery slope.

They ignore the fact that by NOT admitting this, they look disingenuous, stupid, or irrational.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> This essentially contradicts the idea that women should be careful. If that point is mentioned, it is an added caveat. "Girls, nothing you do justifies you being raped no matter how stupid, wasted and provocative you are.........but I suppose a girl should be careful."


This is completely ass-backwards. You want to talk about misunderstanding feminism, here is a crystal clear example. In spades.

Feminists have spent countless hours and dollars on the safety of women, teaching them what red flags to look out for, to never walk alone, especially at night, to never let a drink out of your sight, and to keep an eye on your friend's, to buddy up, and always have someone you know has your back, to always be alert and walk with purpose, to be aware of what makes a victim, to build confidence and learn ways to enforce your boundaries with someone who is probably bigger and stronger than you. They have set up women's self defence classes and fought for better lighting on the streets because these things help keep women safe. They have set up counseling services to help those women who have been victimized to come forward and prosecute, so that rapists might learn that they won't always get away with it.

Feminists have always put women's safety and self protection first.

Yes, it's true that we also say that a woman should be able to run naked in the streets and not be raped. Why? Not because we hink women shouldn't take precautions, but because it took so damn long for people to even realize that rape was a bad thing to do, and that women should not feel guilty for being raped because they are not the ones committing the crime. Clearly that message is still not getting through.


----------



## always_alone

^^^^^^^^^

And the wonderful irony of it all is that when feminists are talking about safety, precautions, risks, cautioning women to be wary, to not provoke or engage, then we are ball-busting misandrists who think all men are evil.

And it we're not doing this, then we're hypocritical shrill-ards, who want to take away all men's civil rights (to what I don't know!??!) and blame them for everything without a second of self-scrutiny.

Gotta love them lose-lose scenarios!


----------



## richardsharpe

Yes,
Actually I'd like to see some laws requiring DNA testing of all critical evidence - both to catch criminals AND to free the innocent. The innocence project has done this on a small scale and obtained DNA tests that freed a number of factually innocent people from prison.

I can't imagine that DNA testing is expensive compared to imprisoning innocent people, or allowing violent criminals out on the streets.

One added advantage in the case of rape is that a pattern can help with a conviction. A single "he said, she said" may not be enough for a conviction, but if you find multiple victims then the combined testimony paints a much more solid picture.



QUOTE=EleGirl;11065721]One thing that I think would help to get rapists convicted is the processing of rape kits.

What happens is that if for some reason the police cannot go forward on an investigation, (maybe they cannot find the rapist or don't have a good description), the rape kit gets shelved. Thousands have sat in warehouses for decades.

Look at what happened in Detroit. They found about 12,600 unprocessed rape kits in storage, some dating back as far as the 1980's. So far they have processed 1,600 of these kits and identified 100 serial rapists and 10 convicted rapists. 

In New York City, since process their backlog of about 17,000 backlogged rape kids, their arrest rate as risen from 40% to 70%

Since most rapists are serial offenders, processing new rape kits against the DNA results from older ones can help identify rapists. In each new case, they can run the DNA and find other rapes committed by the same person. Each report will probably have differing sets of info about the perp. Put it together and the identity of the rapist can emerge.[/QUOTE]


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening EleGirl
Here I have to disagree
To me "deserves" implies some sort of retribution for a moral failing. If I jump out of an airplane, I am taking a risk. If my parachute fails to open, then dying is a consequence of my actions BUT that doesn't mean that I "deserve" to die. I might be the most kind, loving, good person on the planet, and not "deserve" anything bad. (I'm not btw)

Or in a more extreme case, doctor who travels to an Ebola infected area to help people is taking a risk. If he dies of Ebola it is as a consequence of his actions, but he does not "deserve' a horrible death.

Maybe part of the issue with these discussions is that people define words in a subtly, but importantly different way .





EleGirl said:


> snip
> When an action is has a consequence... that means that the action causes the outcome. The person doing the action causes (deserves) the outcome.


----------



## Blonde

techmom said:


> The only examples you and others who want to justify rape present is women who are drinking, partying, and scantily clad. This is only a small percentage of all rapes.


And if we substitute college campus for bars, I'm advocating for those *girls*

I have 5 daughters between age 17-30 who are very good looking and dress very attractively and drink/party on occasion.

In light of all the recent news about the high risk for freshman and the gang rape practices among some fraternities, I am particularly concerned for my 17yod who will be a college freshman next year. Frankly it turns my stomach to see professed christian men saying that if she dresses attractively drinks and somehow winds up getting raped, it is all her fault for "poking the tiger".

I feel sorry for said men's daughters as I suspect their own overprotected gullible daughters are at the very highest risk once beyond the walls of home. 

I hope to God not, but said men may someday change their tune about protecting coeds- the long hard painful way...


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening anonymous07
I completely agree that people should be able to wear whatever they want and clothes are NEVER an excuse for assault.

If someone wears unusually provocative clothing though I think that can reasonably be expecting polite contact / propositions. (not assaults or harassment, but people talking to them with a sexual interest). Similarly if someone wears extremely unusual clothing they should expect to be stared at. 

One also has to allow for natural human reactions. My wife and I were in a hot pool at a spa last weekend. When a naked women got into the pool, my eyes flicked briefly in her direction before politeness took over and I looked away. This is in a part of the world were nudity is quite uncommon and the great majority of people wear swimsuits in the pool. 





Anonymous07 said:


> People should be able to wear what they want to without being attacked. The clothes I wore were not blatantly sexual, more so just comfy, but I still got bugged by some guy who wouldn't leave me alone as he asked me to go back to his dorm with him repeatedly.
> 
> snip.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I was surprised to hear that in NM, touching over clothes is not illegal. I've never check the law here, but I thought that any intentional sexual touching was assault. 

I know its very difficult to do socially, but has anyone who was touched / molested in a crowded location like a train tried screaming for help from the other passengers? The results probably depend a lot on the location, but in the places where shame keeps women from reporting rapes, I think a similar shame might stop the attacker when his actions become public knowledge. I don't know though. 

I know the groping problem is very serious in some places, Japan has separate women's cars on some trains.


----------



## JCD

Blonde said:


> Frankly it turns my stomach to see professed christian men saying that if she dresses attractively drinks and somehow winds up getting raped, it is all her fault for "poking the tiger".


Oh thank goodness! I was worried for a while that I was not communicating clearly. But after about 30 posts pointing out exactly what I mean in varying ways, I can finally feel justified in noting that the problem is your reading comprehension ability.





> I feel sorry for said men's daughters as I suspect their own overprotected gullible daughters are at the very highest risk once beyond the walls of home.
> 
> I hope to God not, but said men may someday change their tune about protecting coeds- the long hard painful way...


But this is the second time you've repeated this nonsense, so let's get to the nitty gritty.

Let's look at the advice of a 'professed Christian man'.

But...what do you mean by a 'Christian man'? Do you mean a Baptist? A Catholic? An Episcopalian? A Methodist? All of them have VASTLY different value system.

But one assumes that you maybe mean a strict interpretation kind of Christian.

So let's examine what a 'professional Christian man' would tell his daughter.

1) Don't sleep with boys.

2) Don't drink.

3) Don't go to trashy parties where they drink and do drugs.

4) Focus on your studies.

5) Only go to chaperoned Christian recreational groups with male and female chaperones.

6) Stay out of dark unlit areas.

7) Never be alone with boys.

Hmm...how much scope for rape is there? No boyfriend rape. No drunken rape. No party rape. She could get dragged off by a stranger or a dorm invader, but he is running quite the risk since dad wants her in an all girl dorm

(One wonders at what discernible difference there is between this advice and what a protective Chinese or an Indian father would give? Probably none. Seems you have a bit of a hard on for Christians)

So...IF she follows his advice, her risk is actually LOWER in demonstrable ways.

BUT...that isn't what you are imagining. You see her going out and VIOLATING what her father says. You see her suddenly let off the leash and smoking and drinking and partying like...well...your girls, except perhaps not as careful. 

She is, in fact, acting like feminists tend to support. Indulging her sexuality. Flouting patriarchal social constructs. Engaging in activities like a man!

This is NOT a Christian (or Chinese or Hindu) value system which is leading to this. Seems like you are blaming the wrong value system.

So...you just admitted a girl going out drinking without a care in the world is INCREASING HER RISK.

Thank you.


----------



## Flying_Dutchman

The whole frat party accusation thing seems a particularly cruel accusation to me.

After all, frat/college boys are the very types - nice, middle class - that girls have been taught they should be safe with. It's a frat house - not the clubhouse of the local Hells Angel chapter.

Just shows,, you can never judge a book by its cover.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JCD

Flying_Dutchman said:


> The whole frat party accusation thing seems a particularly cruel accusation to me.
> 
> After all, frat/college boys are the very types - nice, middle class - that girls have been taught they should be safe with. It's a frat house - not the clubhouse of the local Hells Angel chapter.
> 
> Just shows,, you can never judge a book by its cover.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes. A very cruel accusation...to frat house boys. The vast majority of girls do not run into anything more remiss than a spilled drink, a pushy drunk, the occasional rude proposition.

And yet they are accused of being the equivalent of a Hell's Angel's local chapter.


----------



## EleGirl

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening EleGirl
> Here I have to disagree
> To me "deserves" implies some sort of retribution for a moral failing. If I jump out of an airplane, I am taking a risk. If my parachute fails to open, then dying is a consequence of my actions BUT that doesn't mean that I "deserve" to die. I might be the most kind, loving, good person on the planet, and not "deserve" anything bad. (I'm not btw)
> 
> Or in a more extreme case, doctor who travels to an Ebola infected area to help people is taking a risk. If he dies of Ebola it is as a consequence of his actions, but he does not "deserve' a horrible death.
> 
> Maybe part of the issue with these discussions is that people define words in a subtly, but importantly different way .


We can quibble over the meaning of the word "deserves". 

The point I'm trying to make is that there are some things which we know the consequences of.

There are some that are governed by the law of nature/physics.... whatever you want to call it. I touch a hot stove and I burn my hand. I brought that consequence onto my self because I touched the hot stove.

A person who is raped did not being the consequence of rape onto themselves. They have no responsibility for the rape.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Yes. A very cruel accusation...to frat house boys. The vast majority of girls do not run into anything more remiss than a spilled drink, a pushy drunk, the occasional rude proposition.
> 
> And yet they are accused of being the equivalent of a Hell's Angel's local chapter.


But you have been telling us for pages and pages that girls must avoid frat parties because they will get raped. :scratchhead:


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> She is, in fact, acting like feminists tend to support. Indulging her sexuality. Flouting patriarchal social constructs. Engaging in activities like a man!


So you are ok with men getting fall down drunk and indulging in their sexuality?


----------



## techmom

JCD evidently you don't know anything about what feminism is about, despite countless posts trying to explain it to you. But no matter what, you want to use examples like that French lady. Why?:scratchhead:

Why do you want to avoid our experiences and examples and use some random obscure ridiculous story about some woman inviting groups of men to her house? Millions of women who do their best to avoid rape still get raped, how about addressing the men who rape.

Why do men rape? Are they damaged, stupid, power hungry, misogynist monsters? This is the question women ask, why can't we trust men enough to express our sexuality without getting abused and victimized? Why must we hide, carry weapons, and learn martial arts so we can feel safe to just exist in a world of men who may or may not rape us? 

If women are not safe to express their sexuality, we won't be safe to be sexual. Which means that sexless marriages will continue. The so-called coy games will continue, the guessing games will continue.

You refuse to see that you shoot yourselves in the foot. What a shame.


----------



## techmom

I will use this last post to say that feminism is very much misunderstood by people who only see the evil and negativity in female sexuality. For women to be free does not mean to be free from men, it means to be able to join men as equals to love and cherish each other.

Men and women are at odds, one gender thinks that the other is out to get them whenever they want to be equal. When women are equal men do not lose anything, it is a win win. But most men in this society were raised to see feminine as lesser, weaker, or insignificant. So feminism means that they lose their masculine, and they cherish and hold on to that with a death grip. Don't want to cede one inch. Don't want to lose their man card. Just look how most men treat gay men, they get beat up and victimized as if they are a threat to their manhood.

I really don't know where we go from here, but I would love to see a better world for our boys and girls to grow up in.


----------



## Blonde

JCD said:


> 1) Don't sleep with boys.
> 
> 2) Don't drink.
> 
> 3) Don't go to trashy parties where they drink and do drugs.
> 
> 4) Focus on your studies.
> 
> 5) Only go to chaperoned Christian recreational groups with male and female chaperones.
> 
> 6) Stay out of dark unlit areas.
> 
> 7) Never be alone with boys.


Good luck with that once she's out from under your thumb JCD. Maybe you should consider keeping her out of college. God forbid she should learn to think for herself! Or listen to any eeeeeeeeeevil feminists who want to teach her how to be safe.'

SIL who went to a Christian college said at Thanksgiving that the most overprotected girls are the most vulnerable. 

"Never be alone with boys"? Really? Hmmmm..... That does not sound like you trust boys JCD.


----------



## JCD

I'd like a little mental exercise.

Feminist women.

Name three things in which you feel feminism is getting wrong.

Go ahead. I'll wait.


----------

