A crash course in Feminism (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[eldargal]

Feminism is one of the most misunderstood philosophies in the modern world, and it is entirely the fault of feminists that this is so. Growing up even I didn't consider myself to be a feminist until my mother sat down and explained exactly what feminism is at its core, with all the misandry and nonsense shorn away. I thought I'd write it here as I see a lot of people who plainly have no clue what feminism is.

In fact the very core tenet of feminism is easy to explain:

A woman should be able to make her own choices and control her destiny inofar as any individual can.

That's it really. To elaborate, though:

Women should have the same political rights and responsibilities as a man.
Women should have the same social and legal rights and freedoms a man enjoys.
Women should be paid the same for doing the same work as a man.
Women should not be subjected to discrimination or abuse simply because they are women.
Women should not be barred from doing something a man can do based solely on their gender*.


Anyone who believes in the freedom to be in charge of their own life insofar as any individual can should consider themselves a feminist.

*So if you are advertising for a new employee and the final choice is between a man and a woman, your decision should be based on their skills, not their gender.

So there you have it. Feminism is not a man-hating ideology based around putting women ahead of men**, but simply the ideal that we should not be discriminated against because of our gender. Of course feminist theory is far more complicated than this, with as many viewpoints as feminists, but you won't find many who disagree with these as the basic tenets.

**There is an extremist feminist element that do believe in such things, and they are the single most damaging thing to women's rights there is. Equality can not be replaced as a goal by revenge.

Please keep any responses polite.

Edit: Adding a few links to help clarify certain concepts that feminists often talk about and people (men) often misconstrue:
Privilege (http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html) (inc. male privilege (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/))
Male Gaze (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D/)
Female privilege (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/)

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Pretty much what it should stand for, but people see differently because of what many call "feme****'s". It should be about Equality, and choice, not about just creating a new social strata of who is in charge.

[Aenir]

I would like to ask where does holding a door open for a Lady fall into that? (IE is that a nono in your opinion?)

I ask as somewhat recently, I held a door open and got the dirtiest look... she didnt say anything, but you could see the wheels turning inside her head :|

[Grenadier]

I was raised for the most part by a single mother. She had to out forth and earn a living all on her own to take care of me. There was no man to help her with anything. While she and I don't have the best of relationships I've come to appreciate what she had to go through raising a child by herself. The world has not been fair to women. But it is much more unfair to single mothers.

I guess I could be called a feminist because I believe in those things you said above. But I don't know me reaching this was the evolution of a male mind or just the result of my upbringing. Maybe a little bit of both. But, primarily, I think it comes from a sense of fairness.

I know full well women are as capable as men in virtually everything. And so they deserve the same fair chance all men get. The only areas in which I may be considered a typical male is I'm still leery of allowing women to serve in combat. Not that I think a woman can't handle it. But rather out of that male need to protect women. The other area is I'm pro-life. But I'm not so sure that makes me not a feminist.

And in the end, as long as they do my laundry all's well!:cool: I kid..I kid.

[eldargal]

Holding a door open is good manners, nothing sexist about good manners. It is a sign of respect, not an act of passive-agressive domination. It really infuriates me that this has become an issue. It goes back what I was hinted at in the OP, when it comes down to it the worst enemy of feminism is feminists..:rolleyes:

If it ever becomes verbal, just say as much 'I held open the door as it was polite and respectful, nothing more or less'. It is also efficient if you reach the door a step ahead and it open towards you, opening it, stepping through and closing it on whoever was on the other side would be quite rude. Hell I've held doors open for boys under those circumstances. Never had one accuse me of diminishing his masculinity.


Definitely a feminist, Grenadier.:) Women in combat is actually the thing I have the most problem with myself. My view on the matter changes back and forth periodically. I think one day it will be considered normal and fine but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept it yet, let alone society at large. I read some reports years ago in Iraq about some Marine units having their morale destroyed when some of the female marines were killed. The way they were described it sounded like they had become sort of surrogate mothers to the whole unit and when they were killed (their boat thing hit a mine) the rest of the unit felt emasculated in addition to the regular grief and anger. Not the thing youwant to happen to your elite units in the middle of a war.

The only areas in which I may be considered a typical male is I'm still leery of allowing women to serve in combat. Not that I think a woman can't handle it. But rather out of that male need to protect women. The other area is I'm pro-life. But I'm not so sure that makes me not a feminist.

[Aenir]

this might sound odd, but to avoid the emasculating part, couldnt there be a fully female combat unit?

[eldargal]

That would seem to be the obvious solution, yes. But I should imagine it would garner cries of segregation and discrimination in its own right.

[Grenadier]

I feel times are dangerous for men. Not out of a "women are taking over the world" type of thing. But rather men are having such a challenge to their traditional role in society forced on them so quickly. In particular the more ardent feminists who sometimes are quite hostile towards men. And the sexual harassment angle.

It was good question about opening a door for a woman. As man it was impressed on me that I should treat women a certain way. Some men have no problem hitting a girl if the girl strikes first for example. The same guys will say "well I'd never hit a girl otherwise." But to me visiting violence on a woman never is justifiable even if she's beating the snot out of you. I've never even yelled at a woman during an argument. And I've lived my whole life thinking that we men are supposed to protect women.

But today in America you could give a woman a sincere compliment without any ulterior motives and then be accused of sexual harassment. Some women will get offended if you open a door for them. There's even some who don't want a man's protection. I even knew a couple of women who claimed that if they hit a man they WANT him to fight her back.

I think for some guys, myself included, we find ourselves becoming obsolete. We're not really wanted. While a woman can do anything a man can do, and should have fair treatment and all that, to an extent it does seem to also come with men not really being needed anymore by women. Some women need men. Some don't. To be sure. But decent guys want to feel needed. They want to take care of, protect, and provide for a woman. And so if a woman is doing everything all by herself what does she need a man for?

One sad side effect of the feminist movement is that there are some women who embrace it that have this anti-male attitude. Not all of them do but there's quite a few who come off like that hate us. And perhaps they have good reason to. For, as a man, I can say that a lot of the complaints women have about men are true.

The battle of the sexes won't be ending any time soon. But it looks to me like the ladies are winning it. We men are going to have to deal with it. Many of us may have to find a new place for ourselves in the world.


Holding a door open is good manners, nothing sexist about good manners. It is a sign of respect, not an act of passive-agressive domination. It really infuriates me that this has become an issue. It goes back what I was hinted at in the OP, when it comes down to it the worst enemy of feminism is feminists..:rolleyes:

If it ever becomes verbal, just say as much 'I held open the door as it was polite and respectful, nothing more or less'. It is also efficient if you reach the door a step ahead and it open towards you, opening it, stepping through and closing it on whoever was on the other side would be quite rude. Hell I've held doors open for boys under those circumstances. Never had one accuse me of diminishing his masculinity.


Definitely a feminist, Grenadier.:) Women in combat is actually the thing I have the most problem with myself. My view on the matter changes back and forth periodically. I think one day it will be considered normal and fine but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept it yet, let alone society at large. I read some reports years ago in Iraq about some Marine units having their morale destroyed when some of the female marines were killed. The way they were described it sounded like they had become sort of surrogate mothers to the whole unit and when they were killed (their boat thing hit a mine) the rest of the unit felt emasculated in addition to the regular grief and anger. Not the thing youwant to happen to your elite units in the middle of a war.

[eldargal]

The feelingss you mention are a problem, and I have a lot of sympathy.The way some women carry on you would think they expect the 'battle of the sexes' to turn into a genuine hot war at any tim.:rolleyes: A growing sense of emasculation in western societies has been noted and commented on. I had to wince a few years ago when a study into domestic violence found a growing sense of disempowerment amongst men within their own family was contributing strongly to it. The response from the then Labour government? Try and formulate a policy to disempower men more.

Of course part of the solution is to treat relationships as partnerships rather than a power struggle. Sadly both men and women seem equally bad at that.

Now while I do feel sympathy and feel men should still be allowed to be men (and women women, hence the feminism thing;)) these feelings are part of an adjustment that men will have to make.

Another thing I particularly hate is the masculinisation or neutralisation of femininity. Actor instead of actress, chairperson instead of chairwoman, mens clothing becoming standard street fashion. I wear pretty dresses and celebrate my femininity, it doesn't mean I'm not a feminist.:mad:


Unfortunately there are a lot of feminists who are worthy of the term. Turning women's right to equality into a crusade for vengeance could ultimately cost us what we have achieved so far. It is a testament to the quality of our menfolk that we have achieved so much in the past century with what I would deem only acceptable opposition, (aside from the crackdowns on the Suffragettes) and in many cases a great deal of masculine support.

Pretty much what it should stand for, but people see differently because of what many call "feme****'s". It should be about Equality, and choice, not about just creating a new social strata of who is in charge.

[Psychosplodge]

I can't see any issues with your version of feminism, Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, which is quite sad. I particularly find it offensive the women that object to doors being held for them, I would hold a door for anyone coming the other way/following me through it...

The frontline combat infantry is a difficult one, while personally anyone who meets the requirements should be allowed, without lowering them for women, which wouldn't be equality and would affect effectiveness, there are psychological factors to men's need to protect women which can't be overcome just by declaring equality...

But I suppose as long as she brings me my bacon sandvich I'm happy...

[Phototoxin]

Men can father children. Women cannot. /endofthread


But to me visiting violence on a woman never is justifiable even if she's beating the snot out of you. I've never even yelled at a woman during an argument. And I've lived my whole life thinking that we men are supposed to protect women.

Se I disagree. I think visiting violence on any person is rarely justifiable, irrespective of gender. That in itself is sexist and not feminist as it's treating genders differently which isn't what feminism is supposed to want.

Also these days feminism/womens rights seem largely to be a euphamism for abortion rights.

[Psychosplodge]

I forgot the violence bit,
if a woman trys to hit me, I'd be far more likely to try to restrain her simply to prevent injury to myself,
where as a man trying to hit me would result in maximum retaliation along the lines of aiming to break their ankle/knee/put them down in order to be able to walk away.

[Grenadier]

When I went to college I was enrolled in a mental health professional program. Counseling and the like. And so the courses covered virtually everything involved from psychology to "multicultural issue" and more. There were some classes about feminism and abused and battered women, etc.

There's a lot of issues women in my area are facing and it doesn't seem to be getting much better for them here. Domestic violence in Appalachia is swept under the rug for the most part and there's little support for abused women around here.

But, sometimes I wonder. One day I was eating at a restaurant. The table over from me had three women. And I could overhear their conversation. Each of them talked about how bad their men treated them. Being cheated on, neglected, sometimes beaten. And as I listened it became clear to me that for these three women it almost seemed as if they were in a contest to see who suffered the most. As if their experiences are bragging rights.

And typically they each exclaimed "I just want a man to treat me right."

I bit my tongue and didn't say what I thought about it. I felt like telling them "then pick better men!"

It seems to me that despite the progress of the feminist movement, and the more enlightened males, that in the end there will always remain a serious disconnect between men and women. That no matter how far both sides come along many simply just won't understand each other. And worse still...women and men alike are so good at deceiving themselves. Those three women had bad men. Probably had a history of bad men. Probably still do. Each time telling themselves he's the right guy. The same for men. While most of are dogs many a man has found himself with a woman who's a dog as well.

I think we need a new movement. There's never been a "manism" movement and we don't need one. We've have a feminism movement which is has made progress for women. But we need a "togetherism" movement. Men can become left behind if its just the feminists moving ahead. And we see that the feminist movement has forced certain changes on the males. But there's nobody trying to make it so both can move forward together.


The feelingss you mention are a problem, and I have a lot of sympathy.The way some women carry on you would think they expect the 'battle of the sexes' to turn into a genuine hot war at any tim.:rolleyes: A growing sense of emasculation in western societies has been noted and commented on. I had to wince a few years ago when a study into domestic violence found a growing sense of disempowerment amongst men within their own family was contributing strongly to it. The response from the then Labour government? Try and formulate a policy to disempower men more.

Of course part of the solution is to treat relationships as partnerships rather than a power struggle. Sadly both men and women seem equally bad at that.

Now while I do feel sympathy and feel men should still be allowed to be men (and women women, hence the feminism thing;)) these feelings are part of an adjustment that men will have to make.

Another thing I particularly hate is the masculinisation or neutralisation of femininity. Actor instead of actress, chairperson instead of chairwoman, mens clothing becoming standard street fashion. I wear pretty dresses and celebrate my femininity, it doesn't mean I'm not a feminist.:mad:


Unfortunately there are a lot of feminists who are worthy of the term. Turning women's right to equality into a crusade for vengeance could ultimately cost us what we have achieved so far. It is a testament to the quality of our menfolk that we have achieved so much in the past century with what I would deem only acceptable opposition, (aside from the crackdowns on the Suffragettes) and in many cases a great deal of masculine support.

[eldargal]

It is offensive, hence the problem. I would dispute that it doesn't work like that, though, in general it does. The fact that most women don't even realise this is what feminism is at its core, and that such progress had been made to achieving these goals is a testament to the fact these core values of feminism have actually been accpeted by society.:)

You are absolutely right about the requirements issue. The rumours that the physical requirements for entry into teh armed forces have been lowed to make it easier for women to gain entry are extremely damaging. It is one reason why I'm against this sort of 'affirmative action', by taking such actions you are implying that women, in fact, are not capable.

I can't see any issues with your version of feminism, Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, which is quite sad. I particularly find it offensive the women that object to doors being held for them, I would hold a door for anyone coming the other way/following me through it...

The frontline combat infantry is a difficult one, while personally anyone who meets the requirements should be allowed, without lowering them for women, which wouldn't be equality and would affect effectiveness, there are psychological factors to men's need to protect women which can't be overcome just by declaring equality...

But I suppose as long as she brings me my bacon sandvich I'm happy...

Phototoxin, I'm not particularly familiar with a pro-abortion lobby. There is a pro-choice lobhy and in Britain at least they treat abortion as a legitimate choice, though a last resort. Which is how it should be. Control over a woman's body and an organism dependent on it for survival (foetuses are, in fact, parasites in the literal sense) is a legitimate area of feminist interest. However it is very much not an issue I want to see come to dominate this thread as it is more about the core beliefs.:)

As to hitting a woman, if someone attacks you you have a right to defend yourself. However as most men will be stronger than the woman attacking them, the line between 'appropriate force' and 'bullying' grows quite thin. It is for the same reason that if a child came at you with a knife, beating them to a pulp would not be acceptable. A stronger person beating on a weaker one, regardless of provocation, tends to be viewed as bullying in. It is a complex issue though, in general I think it best to avoid violence as much as possible and if forced to it, aim to incapacitte rather than injure, wheter male or female.

[Grenadier]

Years ago my roomie in college was into boxing. And one night a girl who hanged out with us wanted someone to spar with. She was one of those tough chick types. And very attractive. My kind of gal. And I made a huge mistake that night. "I'll spar with you."

But when we got into it I found I couldn't hit her. She tried her best to get me to. All I'd do is try to block her punches. When I punched back I'd always pull them. Which only made her mad. And them my doom was upon me. She proceeded to pound me into the ground with a dizzying flurry of punches. Yep...I got my *** kicked by a girl. And to rub salt in my wounds my performance led her to rejecting my advances and so I never got to go out with her.:( Maybe it was a Red Sonja kind of thing going on.

But I'm proud that I never hit her back!

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Another thing I particularly hate is the masculinisation or neutralisation of femininity. Actor instead of actress, chairperson instead of chairwoman, mens clothing becoming standard street fashion. I wear pretty dresses and celebrate my femininity, it doesn't mean I'm not a feminist.:mad:
.

This bothers me a lot, I like to wear frills and lace, puffy dresses and all those pretty things. I am a very feminine woman, and that is my bloody choice. Thats the whole point is the freedom to choose your destiny, and yet they want to tell me what I should do as a feminist? Frell you you psycho women in need of anger management. I swear every time I hear a super-feminist saying the words "The Patriarchy" I wanna strangle them with the hem of my frilly dress.....but of course I could not do that as it would show off my bloomers and that would immodest -giggles-

[eldargal]

Yes I've found that the only boys who are willing to spar with me properly, at least when it comes to unarmed combat, are my brothers. It is a bit annoying to have men hold back when you know you could probably beat them anyway.:p I'm sure you can understand why she was angry though, it is the implication that she couldn't handle you not holding back. But when it comes down to it, men not hitting women is not something that should ever be complained about. Not until society has integrated feminism to the point domestic violence, and other forms of violence against women, isn't rampant.


Emerald, you know what is even better than 'the Patriarchy'? 'The masculine-industrial complex', I swear the first time I heard that (I really hope it isn't widespread) if I hadn't been laughing so hard I would have slapped the little bint (it's ok when a girl does it.:p).

[Grenadier]

I can understand why she got mad at me. Who knows though, maybe if I hit back we would have wound up dating. The Red Sonja effect. "Beat me in sparring and you can have me." I'll say this: if the girl didn't have on boxing gloves things would've been a lot worse for me. The lady packed a mean punch.

[DrLove42]

So i'm a Feminist. Awesome

The thing that really got me recently was a proposed government bill that all boards of companies must have x% of them to be women. No such protection the other eway round, but a law that said women must be present.

The way I always look at it is that Sexism (and Racism) will not cease to exist until positive sexism and racism is abolished.;
- Assault a white man. You get charged with assault. Assault a black/gay man. Get charged with racial assault and get more punishment
- Two applicants for a job. One man, one woman. Hire the woman, no problem. Hire the man, get sued for sexual discrimination

[Grenadier]

I somewhat agree with you. Only I'm more pessimistic and think such things always exist as they're part of human nature.

But there is backwards angle to racism or sexism. Especially here in the U.S. And not many people will discuss it because it invariably ends up with someone calling them a racist.

The word racist is used as a weapon in America. There are some, for example, who'll call anyone who doesn't support Obama a racist. But this is merely a cheap tactic to avoid discussing his policies and such. Janine Garafolo was very bad for doing this. You have race baiters and race hustlers as well. And then there's this thing some call "white liberal guilt." To be honest I don't know too much about that though.

The hate crimes are discriminatory in themselves actually. Someone explained to me they were created to combat the discrimination in the courts where a minority victim didn't get fairness. The problem is though hate crimes are intended to make things better for very specific minorities. Chiefly, Muslims, GLBT members, and blacks. They treat the crime differently based on the minority. Beat up a gay man or beat up a straight man and the crime itself is identical. But the gay man gets better treatment in the court and so his assailant is going to get a stiffer punishment than the straight man's assailant.

It seems it is all about the motivation behind the crime. Hate. So what? I say if you assault anyone or murder anyone, regardless of who they are, it's always about hate. Beat up a straight guy and it's a hateful act in my opinion. And no different than beating up a gay fellow. So to me these hate crimes are thoroughly unfair. Especially since the same crime and same motivation can make another person a victim. If someone in America decided they despise Christians and then murdered one for being who they are it will not be seen as a hate crime. If a black man killed a white man it'll never be a hate crime. Crimes should all be dealt with equally. Then there is criminalizing hate speech. While hate speech is vile it's still speech. To criminalize any form of speech in my opinion is to criminalize thought. And while some thought is reprehensible they're not criminal.

These hate crimes are not fair. And they're discriminatory.

Same with all the stuff designed to protect women from sexual harassment. There's no protections for men in this regard.

The sad thing is all of these things are well intended. Well meaning people fought for these things to address serious social concerns. Hate crimes, political correctness, anti-sexual harassment laws, etc mean well. But they have some flaws which don't serve society as a whole...only a segment of the society. We need to move on from this and make it so they're fair and serve everyone equally.
So i'm a Feminist. Awesome

The thing that really got me recently was a proposed government bill that all boards of companies must have x% of them to be women. No such protection the other eway round, but a law that said women must be present.

The way I always look at it is that Sexism (and Racism) will not cease to exist until positive sexism and racism is abolished.;
- Assault a white man. You get charged with assault. Assault a black/gay man. Get charged with racial assault and get more punishment
- Two applicants for a job. One man, one woman. Hire the woman, no problem. Hire the man, get sued for sexual discrimination

[Emerald Rose Widow]

Eldargal: what you just said, while in quotes, made my brain cry back to its mummy, damn you. Why do you hate my brain so -giggles-


Grenadier: The worst part is is hate crime laws arent supposed to work like that. You have to prove that the reason they committed the crime was due to discrimination and hate and not just because they happen to be gay/black/etc. It was well meaning, because when they first started coming out, people who commited crimes against those minorities often got off because they weren't fully protected, and they would get minimal sentences. I am sorry, regardless of hate crime or not, if you assault someone, or have the intention to kill them, your life should be ruined by the consequences as you had fully intended to ruin the person's life you were committing the crime against.

Now in the case of anti-discrimination law, while it is technically discriminatory because it spells out specific things that are protected, it is very necessary (I know you didn't talk about this, just bringing it up). Because when it comes down to legality, especially in work at will states (most states) if you aren't specifically protected, then you get abused and have no hope of doing anything about it.

Really though, overall, I think the only way to get past these issues is not by litigation, but by going the long road. IE, changing societie's viewpoint on certain issues, on domestic abuse, on LGBT people, and this is slowly happening and I think will be the most successful. An example that I like a lot is the "men's strength isn't to hurt" campaign where men are saying "my strength is not to hurt people, or abuse people." While it is technically a bit patronizing, who cares, it gets the point across in a positive way that I think will have a greater impact.

[Grenadier]

I understand your views Emerald and agree that the solution is to "go the long road." Well intended but poorly applied laws won't change anything.

The one thing that irks me though is when people with campaigns don't live it. Like that Wanda Sykes PSA I mentioned in another thread. If she's going to preach about being sensitive towards a group then you should be sensitive towards all groups.

This is why I hate the cancerous politically correct crap. It's just that: a load of crap. People have prejudices and it's just one of humanity's ugly aspects. But I see a lot of hypocrisy in political correctness. Which I've alluded to here and in other topics. Some groups get far better treatment thanks to it than others do. So its a lot like the hate crime laws.

Remember the fellow I told you about in PM? I detest what happened to him. And we both know what the motivation was. Still, had the same thing happened to someone else I'd detest as well. I think the hate crime laws will eventually backfire. Because those groups not shielded by it will eventually grow resentful of them and feel persecuted.

One day maybe it'll all change. And we won't need hypocritical and discriminatory laws and rules of conduct. We won't need race hustlers on there eternal witch hunt to root out racists. And we won't need PSA's telling us to be nice to these people or those people. And those who preach the most about it often need to work on themselves as well.

[eldargal]

While I agree absolutely (particularly with the recent 'we need more women on British boards' thing, how I groaned), the fact is the scale is still tilted in mens favour when it comes to jobs and even crimes. The prosecution rate ror violence against women, whether domestic, sexual or whatever is still very low and that doesn't even take into account most such crimes aren't even reported. So while I don't support these things we are still a long way away from actually victimising men. Though I appreciate how it could feel that way sometimes. Actually when it comes to rape in particular young women are victimised by the system, even of you behave like a saint it is assumed you brought it on yourself somehow and god forbid you have had a drink the night it happened.

As to hate crime laws, I loathe them. The idea that a crime is more serious when committed against a specific group of people is abhorrent, whether it be aristocracy or migrant workers from Africa or homosexuals etc. The claim that such crimes terrorise that community may be valid, but that assumes that a crime against the majority doesn't terrorise them. Which is absurd i you look at peoples perceptions of crime, pretty much everyone feels under siege to some extent. Legal favouritism is unacceptable (and in the land that invented common law, for gods sake) whether it favours the powerful or the weak.

There is also the fact they are reactionary. As far as I'm concerned punishing the people who beat up a homosexual severely is all well and good, but it would be be better to eliminate the ignorance and hatred that fuels such crimes. But that is much more expensive and much more difficult, so governments won't bother. I don't accept that harsher penalties reduce crime against specific communities either, if two years in prison for beating up a migrant or a homosexual or whatever doesn't stop some idiot from doing it then I don't see why five years would. Eliminate all crime by making all crimes punishable by life in prison, huzzah!:rolleyes:

Getting a bit off topic though.:rolleyes:

[Psychosplodge]

I'd love to live in a world where when a woman says it's rape, it is rape. (In fact i'd rather live in a world where rape didn't exist) but unfortunately there are the vindictive types that 'cry' rape when it isn't and the heavy sentences these people are rightfully given, put off genuine victims with genuine cases which is wrong. To be honest I don't honestly know how to rectify this, because while ever you have defence lawyers arguing she was asking for it, she'd had a drink etc it will nevr get better...

Hate crime - look at the Sophie Lancaster case, a big fuss was made in the papers because it was (rightfully in my opinion) treated as a hate crime, but then the sentencing was very lenient so was it really given equal weight to a homophobic or racist attack?

Somedays I'd agree with your sentencing, but then why bother enforcing life? why not take them out back and put one behind the ear and save me the tax...

[Grenadier]

I like that you said they are reactionary. That's exactly what they are. At the risk of beating a dead horse this reactionary factor is rampant in America. Be it coming from the liberals or conservatives. Whenever a problem is identified, or an issue arises, either side tries to craft laws to combat the problem or issue. Which are always reactionary!

Example: smoking is bad for people. So they ban it wherever they can. There's now a town in California trying to ban you from smoking on your own property! Soda pops make kids fat: take them out of schools. Whether it is crime or social issues it seems almost every effort or law against them are reactionary. And in some cases they go to extremes with infringing on your liberties, or favoring cherry picked groups over others. And in some cases the results are just plain stupid and ridiculous. Like recently in America a school official caused a bit of controversy because they deemed a kid's lunch was not acceptable according to government's nutritional guidelines. So they imposed their will on the child and gave her chicken nuggets? They're so worried the kid's lunch is going to make them fat they give her chicken nuggets instead of the turkey sandwich she had?

So why is this reactionary effect there?

Is it because society as a whole lacks foresight? Incapable of seeing problems down the road?

Ever heard of the slippery slope? It represents some having foresight I think. An example: some think by allowing gay marriage you'll then have to allow polygamist marriage, or adult on child marriage. And many people despise any form of slippery slope argument. To be fair in some cases those who take the slippery slope argument tend to be alarmists. But in some cases the slippery slope argument is legitimate. But in general society seems to abhor this argument. And I wonder why? To me legalizing drugs is a slippery slope. Having seen the results of rampant drug abuse first hand I'm not inclined to support legalizing it.

Or maybe this reactionary effect is there because it is the only way to deal with crimes or social problems?

But if that is true that means we are not capable of educating ourselves. If the reactionary effect only exists for that reason it implies we are powerless to shape the future of society. I remember as a kid seeing all sorts of PSA's designed to educate and warn you about this or that. You don't see them nearly as much as you did back then. Are people giving up on prevention and education and choosing the reactionary effect?

[eldargal]

We blondes have to take every opportunity to sabotage other girls brains that we can.:p

Eldargal: what you just said, while in quotes, made my brain cry back to its mummy, damn you. Why do you hate my brain so -giggles-.


Reactionary is easier and cheaper, which isn't to say the problems aren't challenging. They are immensely so, but we hardly even try to take a pro-active approach at a governmental level anymore, it is left to community groups to do it. In some cases it works, I know street parties sponsored by local Muslim communities have really helped integration in some areas, for example. But I'm not sure how you could do something like that for, say, combatting rape or misogyny.

[DrLove42]

, combatting rape or misogyny.

A rape party doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it? :P

[Psychosplodge]

We blondes have to take every opportunity to sabotage other girls brains that we can.:p



.

They don't appear very often for the average blonde....:p

[eldargal]

Right. Hosting a lavish street party for neighbours is one thing, people are likely to turn up at the prospect of free food and get to know people, no preaching required. Much harder to do that with an issue like rape or women's rights or what have you. For a start it isn't as simple as inviting the local community to a party.

A rape party doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it? :P


Exactly.:p

They don't appear very often for the average blonde....:p

[MaltonNecromancer]

http://xkcd.com/385/

My favourite "feminist test" comes from a book I was recently loaned by a friend. It goes like this:

"Put your hands in your pants, and then answer the following questions:

1.) Do you have a vagina?
2.) Do you like being in charge of it?

If you have answered "yes" to both of these questions, you are a feminist."

It's a little simplified, but it makes the point nicely. :)

Speaking as a man who has called himself a feminist for the last fifteen years, to me, it's all about nothing but equality, and people being free to do whatever the hell they please. It's when you consider that in the Uk, by the age of 30, women will be earning, on average, 40% less than men in equivelant jobs (UK government survey, 2010), I don't get why people wouldn't be angry about that - it's so obviously unfair! I mean, yeah, we can sit and look for reasons (which are many and complex) but the bottom line is: that statistic is obviously not right, and needs changing, and only a villain would argue otherwise.

The best resource I've found on feminism/ sexism in media is the TV Tropes page "Double Standard" - it's not about the real world, just the presentation of male and female roles in stories (which go on to define our expectations of the real world). It's absolutely fascinating, and may well point out some things you haven't noticed. Because there was loads of stuff I hadn't thought about, and this is something I spend quite a bit of time thinking about.

Seriously, have a read:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard

This one:http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender is one that'll really make you cross (assuming you're like me, and you assume that no gender is "disposable"). I've had plenty of squaddies explain the reason for single-gender armies to me in terms of keeping women safe, etc... but they all forget the implicit position opposite to that: it means that the men are worth less by comparison. Which isn't true. :( None of my army buddies, or pupils I've taught who joined the forces are disposable to me.

Sexism goes both ways, and often in ways we may not fully appreciate.

As for public activity that combats public attitudes to rape (which are really the issue in a lot of cases), Slutwalk has been nothing but concentrated awesome. It's all quite possible to do exciting, positive public stuff, it just takes a solid combination of courage and righteous fury. And being prepared to make evil people angry.

[eldargal]

That is actually a very good page for examining all the unconscious sexism (against both sexes) we get bombarded with. I particularly liked the page Real Women Don't Wear Dresses (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealWomenDontWearDresses). We hates it forever, precious.

I like looking pretty and feminine, I like wearing pretty dresses and doing my hair nicely every day. I do it because it pleases me. I also like dressing up in armour and hitting people with swords. I can beat my brothers SAS friends in a fight two times out of three. I'm six foot one inch tall and can lift a man off the ground by his genitals in one of my berzerker rages. I once hospitalised four out of six boys who tried to rape me without suffering more than mild inconvenience in the process. I have a bloody doctorate. Yet looking feminine means I'm a vapid bimbo who can't look after herself

I have mixed feelings on Slutwalk. I think they do some good, I also think there is some truth to the claims they are accepting misogynistic labels like 'slut' by adopting them as well as putting off girls who don't want to be part of a movement ostensibly made up of sluts.

[Grenadier]

What is this "Slutwalk" of which you speak? And does it have anything to do with women of ill repute?

[eldargal]

They are a protest movement that protests against the statement that rape has something to do with a woman's appearance. Opposing the 'If she dint want to be raped she ought not of dressed like that' school of 'thought'.

[Psychosplodge]

Something where victims march and carry placards like this i think,
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lynzanMAR81r3b12no1_500.jpg

[Grenadier]

I see. Please bear with me as I try to articulate my opinion on this matter. And let it be known now I don't mean any women any offense. And that I am have an absolutist view of rape: never is rape of any form acceptable. I don't care if a woman is a prostitute who in the day turned 20 tricks and then decides she doesn't want to have sex with Mr. 21. No is no. And there are no mitigating factors. And so I don't think the manner of dress is in any way justification or excuse for rape.

But...and there always is a but...

The fact remains is in our world we have some environments which can be hazardous for people. And in said environments there are unsavory types who would do one harm. Consequently I think women should be mindful of this so as to not attract the undesired attention of such types. For example, those seedy joints where people go to pick men or women up. Drinking, partying, etc. Certain forms of attire are clearly meant to attract the eye. Unfortunately some eyes you'd rather not attract. So basically, in certain places if you conduct yourself a certain way, or dress a certain way, you're putting yourself at risk. To me this is merely common sense.

Please don't think the above is meant to assign the blame to the victim. It's not. I just feel you have to be mindful of certain things because the world is not a safe place. It would be like a redneck waltzing about in the ghetto wearing a trucker hat and a KKK shirt festooned with the Traitor flag. Sooner or later someone is going to beat the snot out of him.

Of course the blame lies with those who commit the crime and not the victim. And it sickens me that in a rape trial the defendant's lawyer will smear the woman. Its a second rape in some ways. They'll call into question how she was dressed, what she was doing, her entire sexual history. Everything they can to mitigate the rape. And all the while they're basically eliminating the personal responsibility of the rapist. "She had it coming to her." It's unacceptable and should be put to an end. Like I said, I don't care if a woman really is a slut. When she says no that is it. And a real man should take no for no.


They are a protest movement that protests against the statement that rape has something to do with a woman's appearance. Opposing the 'If she dint want to be raped she ought not of dressed like that' school of 'thought'.

[Gotthammer]

The majority of sexual assaults are commited by people known to the victims, so saying for people to avoid certain places doesn't do much (and is rather similar to "don't dress that way" in blaming the victim's actions).

[eldargal]

Dress really isn't a factor. Most rapes are planned, not spur of the moment things and in most cases the woman knows the rapist. Around of half of all rapes occur in the victims home. What she may or may have been wearing prior to the attack itself really doesn't matter. There is absolutely no evidence that clothing is a factor in rape at all, quite the contrary.

It is a pervasive myth and it isn't hard to understand why it is so, most people who haven't experienced rape or had some kind of connection with it (like having it happe nto a friend, or in my case, several attempted rapes) tend to view rape as a sexual thing. It isn't, it is an act of violence and an expression of power against vulnerable women (and sometimes men).

[Grenadier]

I once found myself in a situation that was a sexual test so to speak. I think most guys would have taken advantage of the girl. Every aspect of that situation would have encouraged a man to go ahead and do it. I passed the test though. I did the right thing and nothing happened. So I know a few things about this issue from a male's perspective. I know how tempted a man can be. And how so many men give into temptation. Rape isn't always about power over a woman. Some guys are just losers who'll take advantage of a woman in a weakened state. I'm in agreement with the Slutwalk message. And my previous comment was not in any way meant to mitigate rape. I'm merely stating people should be more cautious in this world so they don't become victims. Look, I would prefer a girl to dress in "slutty clothes." It's only clothing. Their body is their property and they can choose to give it or deny it to men as they please. And no man should ever take it. Whether she's dressed in slutty clothes or passed out drunk. A man should only be with a woman when she invites him to do so. So don't get my previous statement wrong. I'm only urging caution. And that's perfectly sensible. Because the sad fact is our world isn't perfect and safety cannot always be assured. There are predators out there. It'd be nice if we had a world where this wasn't an issue. But that isn't going to happen.

Yes, in most cases the woman knows the victim. And in most cases the rape is planned. But not in all. There are cases where a hapless woman was abducted, dragged into an alley or otherwise randomly selected as a victim.

[eldargal]

Well that is certainly true, and there are ways to minimise the opportunities for rape even if the chances are not that great to begin with. Responsibly drinking, only going clubbing in groups with a friend etc. They do at least help prevent the 30% or so of rapes that aren't planned.

But in general, how you behave or what you wear won't make an appreciable difference to your chances of being raped.

[Grenadier]

I've known rape victims and molestation victims. Some of them seem to have been able to deal with it (for lack of a better term) than others. Some seem able to still love and trust a man. And others seem as if something in them has died and won't come back to life. I'm a subscriber to Viktor Frankl's views about victims and his form of counseling. But it doesn't work for everyone. I wish that it did.

[Gotthammer]

Couldn't find the link but I read an interesting piece where a group on men and women were seperated into groups and asked to write on a whiteboard what they did each day top prevent sexual assault. The men had exactly 0 things written on the board, while the women had thirty or so items.

[eldargal]

Yep, there are all sorts of little things we do, and some big ones. In my case; spar with my brothers, learn how to use different weapons, learn how to fight unarmed, get SAS friends to teach me nasty tricks etc.

I actually had a friend who was raped and she coped with it by turning it into a fetish. I only found out recently, there are forums and everything for it. It is utterly incomprehensible to me, but if it prevents her mind from imploding I guess it is positive.

[MaltonNecromancer]

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

Slutwalk isn't so much about "reclaiming" the word, as it is about pointing out how revoltingly sexist it is, and how any man who uses it is a scumbag.

"Whether we blame victims by calling them 'sluts' (who thus asked to be raped), or by calling them 'frigid' (who thus secretly want to be overpowered), the problem is that we're blaming them for their own victimisation no matter what they do. Encouraging women to be even more 'sluttish' will not change this ugly reality." —Gail Dines and Wendy J Murphy

I agree with it wholeheartedly, not because I agree or disagree with the use of the word, but because it's an overwhelming demonstration from a massive number of women from all walks of life that calling women names based on their appearance, and the horrors of victim-blaming are utterly unacceptable.


The majority of sexual assaults are commited by people known to the victims, so saying for people to avoid certain places doesn't do much (and is rather similar to "don't dress that way" in blaming the victim's actions).

Yeah, in 90-95% of cases, the victim will know her attacker - it's usually husband/boyfriend or a family member.

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

Seriously, anyone who says any woman was "asking for it" is a villain of the first order.

[Grenadier]

Well to be fair to men what can men really do each day to prevent sexual assault? Seriously? A father could teach his son the right way to treat women. But aside from that what can men really do about it? Stop one if they see it happening perhaps. Maybe condemn a buddy for making some crude sexual comment about women. But most guys aren't going to do that.


Couldn't find the link but I read an interesting piece where a group on men and women were seperated into groups and asked to write on a whiteboard what they did each day top prevent sexual assault. The men had exactly 0 things written on the board, while the women had thirty or so items.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Well to be fair to men what can men really do each day to prevent sexual assault? Seriously?

More than you would think. It's not about attacking would-be rapists. It's about conducting yourself like a decent human being, having respect for others, and being a decent human being, none of which is terribly different from how most people live day to day. These are some of the things I try to do. I don't always succeed, but that's not the point. No-one succeeds all the time, but we can all always try.

1.) Have enough courage that when someone makes a sexist joke, either on the internet, or in real life, you call them out at it. Just because it gets a laugh doesn't make it alright. And we all know when a comedian's gone too far. If you want advice, watch Jimmy Carr's skit on "offensive jokes" on Youtube; it confronts a lot of the issues head on.
2.) Have enough courage that when people insult you for calling them out on their disgusting behaviour, you don't stop calling people out in future.
3.) Don't allow people around you to use words like "slut", "slag", etc... or any word that denigrates a woman for her sexual behaviour. It's both cruel and unacceptable.
4.) As far as possible, live as an example to others. It's a cliche to say that all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing, but it's true. Every time you allow a friend or person online to make a sexist comment, you are showing that you accept it and agree with it. Most decent people don't like the use of the N-word, or the C-word or the F-bomb. Sexist language is just as revolting; just because it's more prevalent doesn't make it any more acceptable.
5.) When on a night out, keep an eye on your female friends' drinks - make sure they aren't tampered with.
6.) When talking with much younger people and children, really make an example of the correct way to behave, and let no unacceptable behaviour pass unchallenged.
7.) "No" means "no". Or more accurately, if she hasn't overtly said "yes", you don't get to do a damn thing.
8.) Don't mock serious efforts to redress gender issues; don't defend those who make rude and sexually inappropriate/aggressive comments.
9.) Be a gentleman at all times. Hold the door open for ladies. And men. When someone complains that you're holding the door open, apologise, stop, and smile at them. It's called "being the bigger man"; if s/he wants to complain, that's her/his right - s/he's a fool, but there are many fools in the world. It doesn't mean that you're wrong. Most people like having the door held open for them. This last one isn't going to stop sexual assault, but it does make the world a nicer place. :)

I think, more than anything, it's a case of following Martin Luther King's advice: be the change you want to see in the world. Stand up to bullies, and don't let peer pressure make you a coward. As always, if it's true for children, it's true for adults too.

[Grenadier]

Pretty much I already do those things. But never because of some effort to make the world a better place or such. It's just the way I was raised and for me such behavior is normal. I do see bad examples every day in plenty of people in every way. And there are things I will not tolerate being said or done in my presence. I once got into a fight with a guy because he called me a "son of a *****." I never take that insult personally. However, I consider it to be an insult to my mother. You don't insult a man's mother in my world!

My problem is I see doing all of those things as a futile gesture. It makes me think of that story about the kid who sticks his fingers in holes in a dam to hold back the water. And I see a lot of movements like this. Currently on the USA network there's some PSA type thing going on about standing up to hate and so forth for example. There's always people or groups of them leading some effort to try to make the world a better place.

And me? I'm either pessimistic or bitter for I never see any actual tangible results of these efforts. A friend of mine, for example, is prone to making racist wisecracks and jokes, and I let him know that it offends me and to knock it off. So he no longer does so in my presence. But I promise you he still makes such comments outside of my presence.

I think this approach you described doesn't really work in terms of changing hearts and minds. Instead it serves to just force the offender into modifying their behavior when you're around. And when you're not present they're doing these things with others.

I do all of those things you said but it's just how I am. But I'm but one guy. My efforts will not make a difference. Maybe if large numbers of people do so it'll force to offenders into isolation. And maybe change a couple of hearts and minds. But to me it's like the KKK. They still exist in America. But these jackasses have done such a good job of making fools of themselves that most decent people no longer take them seriously. They've been repudiated and marginalized. And while their actual card carrying membership might have decreased....well...the KKK is still there and will not go away.

My outlook is admittedly bleak and not positive. So don't be offended by it. It's just how I am. I don't have faith in society.

[MaltonNecromancer]

It makes me think of that story about the kid who sticks his fingers in holes in a dam to hold back the water.

Every movement starts with one person.

Why not be that one? Yes, there are evil people in the world, but that's what makes it so very important. Sometimes, the dissenting voice is all you have. We are all, ultimately powerless - of course we are. But nihilism is not a good enough excuse for failing to do the right thing.

If doing the right thing was easy, everyone would do it.


I think this approach you described doesn't really work in terms of changing hearts and minds. Instead it serves to just force the offender into modifying their behavior when you're around. And when you're not present they're doing these things with others.

And if enough people force them into modifying their behaviour, it will, to all intents and purposes, stop. Yes, they will still be evil in private, but that's okay. That's what the privacy of your own house is for.


They've been repudiated and marginalized. And while their actual card carrying membership might have decreased....well...the KKK is still there and will not go away.

But compare how much power it has to how much power it has. Compare its public perception now to back in 1920.

They're losing. Slowly but surely, they are losing.

True change is never big or fast or sudden; it may not happen in our lifetimes. It's slow, and gradual and most importantly, it's only ever one mind at a time. The idea that a sweeping change to societal attitudes and deep-set belief systems can ever be truely achieved is a fairy tale. But one person can be changed.

Every KKK who turns his back on them is a win.

Every man who refuses to use the word "slut" is a win.

It's slow, like the hour hand of a clock

but we will beat them - all the evidence shows that are already in the process of doing just that.

Also, I like this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMj2i5oDOY


don't be offended by it. It's just how I am. I don't have faith in society.

I never used to.

Several friends of mine over the years were abused as a children. None of their abusers have ever been punished; reported, and investigated, but never punished. I've spent the last ten years coming to terms with this.

And this is not even remotely unique. In the UK, historical (i.e.: the victim is now an adult) child abuse cases have a 4% conviction rate. The cases that are brought to court represent roughly 10% of the cases that are reported (because the police only push those where there's any chance of winning, or else it's just public money down the drain)

The world is a horrible place full of horrible, disgusting human beings who do horrific things to those they should love and those they should protect.

Coming to terms with the human capacity for cruelty is difficult. I've spent many long years hating everyone in the world for either engaging in it, or condoning it with their silence.

But that's not all their is to people.It is all to easy to lose sight of the fact that there are wonderful people in the world. You teach children, and amongst the viciousness and the awkwardness that everyone remembers from their schooldays, there are a thousand daily acts of kindness we all too easily forget. Pencils loaned, sympathy offered when tears are shown... I have seen some of the very best of humanity amongst my pupils and their parents.

A person who says "in my experience, people are bad" says more about themselves and their poor personal judgement than it does about the world.

Yes, there are evil people; there will always be evil people. They will never go away, and they cannot be made to stop. But they are small, and there are more good than bad. Everyone has a duty to be the example, because the second we stop, that's when say that selfishness and cruelty is acceptable. And it's not.

[lattd]

Feminism is a great thing feminist criminology along with many other forms of criminology is rather bunk and the most tedious things ever.

[Grenadier]

I can't be that person because I have avoidant personality disorder. Any effort on my part would likely only make things worse for everyone.

There was a time when the KKK had enormous power. And were capable of influencing politics. Those days are long gone thankfully. Even in a place as backwards as where I live, in the Appalachian mountains. While some KKK types still exist they do not have public rallies any more. The last time I've aware of them attempting one here they were soundly scared off. So it would seem maybe you're right about somethings. If these hillbillies can denounce the KKK maybe there is some hope for the world after all.

Some fights you can win. And some you lose. But sometimes winning or losing the fight isn't important. Sometimes all that matters is that you fight. With some things in our world there is winning. Like stamping out hate, racism, homophobia, etc. They'll always exist. They're like a dusting your furniture. Seems pointless enough. You dust away until it's all shiny and nice. And then the next day there's more dust. You can't win. But still you do it.


Every movement starts with one person.

Why not be that one? Yes, there are evil people in the world, but that's what makes it so very important. Sometimes, the dissenting voice is all you have. We are all, ultimately powerless - of course we are. But nihilism is not a good enough excuse for failing to do the right thing.

If doing the right thing was easy, everyone would do it.



And if enough people force them into modifying their behaviour, it will, to all intents and purposes, stop. Yes, they will still be evil in private, but that's okay. That's what the privacy of your own house is for.



But compare how much power it has to how much power it has. Compare its public perception now to back in 1920.

They're losing. Slowly but surely, they are losing.

True change is never big or fast or sudden; it may not happen in our lifetimes. It's slow, and gradual and most importantly, it's only ever one mind at a time. The idea that a sweeping change to societal attitudes and deep-set belief systems can ever be truely achieved is a fairy tale. But one person can be changed.

Every KKK who turns his back on them is a win.

Every man who refuses to use the word "slut" is a win.

It's slow, like the hour hand of a clock

but we will beat them - all the evidence shows that are already in the process of doing just that.

Also, I like this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMj2i5oDOY



I never used to.

Several friends of mine over the years were abused as a children. None of their abusers have ever been punished; reported, and investigated, but never punished. I've spent the last ten years coming to terms with this.

And this is not even remotely unique. In the UK, historical (i.e.: the victim is now an adult) child abuse cases have a 4% conviction rate. The cases that are brought to court represent roughly 10% of the cases that are reported (because the police only push those where there's any chance of winning, or else it's just public money down the drain)

The world is a horrible place full of horrible, disgusting human beings who do horrific things to those they should love and those they should protect.

Coming to terms with the human capacity for cruelty is difficult. I've spent many long years hating everyone in the world for either engaging in it, or condoning it with their silence.

But that's not all their is to people.It is all to easy to lose sight of the fact that there are wonderful people in the world. You teach children, and amongst the viciousness and the awkwardness that everyone remembers from their schooldays, there are a thousand daily acts of kindness we all too easily forget. Pencils loaned, sympathy offered when tears are shown... I have seen some of the very best of humanity amongst my pupils and their parents.

A person who says "in my experience, people are bad" says more about themselves and their poor personal judgement than it does about the world.

Yes, there are evil people; there will always be evil people. They will never go away, and they cannot be made to stop. But they are small, and there are more good than bad. Everyone has a duty to be the example, because the second we stop, that's when say that selfishness and cruelty is acceptable. And it's not.

[MaltonNecromancer]

You can't win. But still you do it.

Exactly. Sometimes the fight is all that matters.

It's why I try to always be wary of falling into the Nirvana Fallacy.

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

Or as a friend put it: "In fiction, authors like to present decisions as being between good and evil, right and wrong. But mostly in life, they're not. Usually, they're between bad and worse. That's just how things are. An intelligent person accepts it, and then follows their moral compass on a case-by-case basis."

Yay for treating everyone fairly, decently, politely and equally regardless of gender, gender alignment, race, colour, creed, religion, sexuality, or any other thing!

[Grenadier]

I cannot buy into that. At least not entirely. It's my belief a lot of people want to turn our world into one vast gray area. Where right and wrong is subject to moral equivalency. And many people change their morality more often than I change my socks.

And yes, there are a great many things which are as you described them. But there are somethings which truly are right or wrong. Good or evil. I know it. For I've seen it. And I've done it. Much of my life was spent doing the wrong and the evil. I do believe in good and evil. While for many they're just other words for right and wrong.

But it reminds me of some stuff I read once by Aristotle. He was talking about virtues. But the lesson from him I've come to see applies to virtually all things in life. The bit you said about between bad and worse can be covered by what Aristotle talked about.

He said that virtues are a median between an excess and a deficiency. So as an example we admire brave men and women. But the excess of bravery is recklessness and we don't admire that in people. And the deficiency of course is cowardice. And nobody admires cowards. He went on about this in more detail. Like, this applies to a product as well. We don't like the crappy product, or the excessively gaudy and expensive version of it. We like something between both.

So the virtue is always something in between. And it applies to everything from good and evil, right and wrong, and pretty much anything else you can think of. I think I remember that he also said we sometimes don't even have the name for what the median is. And that at times one may have to choose the excess or deficiency.

[DrLove42]

Just before I left work today I got an email inviting people to go to a careers event at Uni. But you were only allowed to attend (and you know find out about these jobs/apply for them) if you were "a woman of non-british origin".

Last month we had an invite to a networking social event, but you could only attend if you were a "woman or non-white male".

Last week we recieved an email from the university about a PhD funding opportunity from Pantene. The first line was "we're only interested in hiring women".

Our union shop received one letter of complaint from a female student and pulled every "lads mag" (thats things like Nuts, Zoo, Maxim) from the shelves. When asked why the ones of naked men weren't alos removed they said (quoted in our union newspaper) "they don't offend the women".

Just figured i'd share these stories of balence with the world

[scadugenga]

Damn me if I don't like and respect you more and more, Eldargal. :)

Thanks for a well thought out post and continued discussion.

Personally, I've never thought of myself as a "feminist" or really, of any "ist" other than an occasional "realist" or "idealist." :P

My dad was about as southern as you can get--deep south Alabama, (raised on a farm, served in the military, etc) and though I grew up in the Chicago environs, he did his best to instill proper southern behavior into us kids. (Yes Sir/Ma'am, holding doors, etc.)

But, oddly enough nothing really gave the impression that it meant you were holding a woman (lady, lass, gal, girl, gyrl, whatever) in some kind of way that set them apart from the male of the species. It's just basic politeness.

You treat people with respect until they've proven they are no longer deserving of it. Regardless of age or gender.

On dealing with attackers who are women:

Most self-defense laws will state that in order for it to be considered "self defense" you cannot use more force than your attacker used against you.

Most men are stronger than women. (There are, of course exceptions to this.) It may be physically impossible for a man to "reduce" the level of power enough to have it considered self-defense. Having specialized training only exacerbates this issue. For example: I am 6'8" and have spent the last 26 years studying various forms of armed and unarmed combat. If I were to be attacked by a 5' tall woman, my options would be very severely limited to have any response (other than walking away) to be considered self-defense. :)

Women as sparring partners

Well, after 26 years of combative arts, I can tell you that any "can't train/spar with a woman" urges get rather quickly nipped in the bud. Just because they may not have your muscle mass, doesn't mean they won't kick the crap out of you. Sometimes embarrassingly so. :)

Personally, I adore a lady strong-willed and capable of holding her own physically. I've never been attracted to the "fainting lilly" type. I want (and have) a partner who will stand beside me in the face of adversity. I love the fact that my wife ran down a purse snatcher, slammed him up against a car and then lectured him about it. The fact she's all of 5'4" and tiny makes it even better. (Poor sap never saw it coming either. She runs marathons...) Just because she's tough, doesn't make her "girly" at times either. The two are absolutely not mutually exclusive. Hell--look at Gina Carano (MMA fighter). Tough as nails, and damned beautiful to boot.

I had a long discussion one night a few years ago with a guy who runs a martial arts school in town. He was telling a story about how he finally convinced his wife to let him teach her martial arts. They just had their first child, and his wife worked retail in a mall. She usually closed the store, and in that area, there had been a growing number of sexual assaults. Finally he looked at her and said "dear, you owe it to me and our daughter to come home safe every night." She started training the next day, and now several years later they run the dojo together.

Give me a woman who'll stand back to back with me when surrounded by enemies/obstacles, and I'll know that I have something special.

I just read that there's a woman professional full-contact jouster.

That is hot!

On Rape/Domestic Violence

I'm 100% with Grenadier on the fact that "No means No." Nothing abstract about it.

Anything else (style of clothes, sexual history, or lack thereof, etc) has nothing to do with mitigating the fault on the aggressor.

Rape is about power, not sex. All the unwashed ill-mannered jackholes (of both genders) who will talk crap about "well look what she was wearing" etc are a drastic part of the problem.

There is no excuse for rape. And there should be no excusing or rationalizing for it either.

An interesting fact: while women are the most common victim of sexual assault, it's not solely a crime targeting women. When I worked in Res. Life, the stats were I believe, 1 in 12 men have been victims of sexual assault. Not nearly as prevalent as attacks on women, for certain--but still a surprising number.

The reason that you don't see many sexual assault cases go to trial are somewhat complicated. The main problems are:

1) Lack of evidence. Usually because the victim showered, or waited too long to report the crime, or the hospital didn't follow correct procedure/protocols in handling the sexual assault ER visit.

2) Relationship between attacker and victim. Many assaults occur between people who know each other, and the victim is already in a dating/marriage with the attacker. Juries are seldom made up of rational well educated people. This muddies the waters for them.

3) The District Attorney / State's Attorney. Most of these positions are actually elected. Elections are usually swayed by the number/percentage of convictions the attorney has. Rape cases are notoriously hard to prosecute successfully (lack of evidence, relationship between attacker and victim, etc) so they don't want to take the case to trial, and will often (unfortunately) actually turn it back on the victim in order to pressure them to not press charges.

***My wife worked as a sexual assault/abuse services advocate in college. I got a crash course pretty quick in how easy the victim is bullied by those that are supposed to be protecting her/him.

Re: the whiteboard exercise thing: I imagine that the guys thought that the question is "what do you do to prevent being the victim of sexual assault. The truth is that the media does not portray men as victims of sexual assault, and studies have shown than men are much more likely to not report being assaulted.

Okay, scad--finish it up, you've written enough...


A woman should be able to make her own choices and control her destiny inofar as any individual can.

The simple truth of this should be readily apparent. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case.

We, as a global society, should be able to recognize equality between the genders while still celebrating their unique differences.

Of course...that day will be a looooong one in coming, if ever.

The only thing we, as individuals, can do is to live our lives as examples. You don't have to be a Martin Luther King. You just have to have a bit of courage to not capitulate to the status quo of gender inequality.

Paradigm shifts may take a long time in coming, but they do happen.

[Grenadier]

A woman can be as liberated as she wants to be. As equal as she wants to be. She can be paid twice as much as a man. Fight in combat. Whatever she wants.

But she still has to make me a sammich.

[Psychosplodge]

A woman can be as liberated as she wants to be. As equal as she wants to be. She can be paid twice as much as a man. Fight in combat. Whatever she wants.

But she still has to make me a sammich.
^come on I did that joke on the first page...

[Grenadier]

Well I would've said "as long as they do my laundry. That stuff isn't going to wash itself." But then I figured some woman would get her feathers ruffled and let me have it.

[Psychosplodge]

Well I would've said "as long as they do my laundry. That stuff isn't going to wash itself." But then I figured some woman would get her feathers ruffled and let me have it.
She'd probably just shrink everything anyway...

[Grenadier]

Where I live you have three kinds of women:

Women raised to be entirely dependent on a man. To a degree I attribute to remnants of the old Appalachian culture. Men make the money. Women take care of the home and kids. Some women here are perfectly content with this arrangement. And there's nothing wrong in it I think. If a woman wants to exist in the old traditional way so be it. But there's also an unsettling aspect to this. We have girls as young as 14 marrying men vastly older than her. To some the logic is an older man is more mature, stable, and better able to provide for her.

The next type of course is the woman raised to be independent and not requiring a man's to facilitate her life. These women are in the minority in my area because of many reasons. Firstly, it helps for an independent woman to have a higher degree of education so she can better find jobs which in turn allow her to live on her own easier. Secondly, there is lack of opportunity here. Even when America's economy is booming it isn't booming here and jobs are scarce. The kinds of high paying jobs which require good education or skills are rare here. Many of independent women here find themselves in hard position. Such as my mother. She worked so hard when I was kid and we were still impoverished. Only until I left out on my own did things improve for her.

The last type of women here is similar to the first type. They lack education and skills, most having dropped out of high school. Most having their first baby during high school. Many of these often have several babies by multiple fathers before they turned 21. The dependence on men mentality of the first type is often the main cause of this. And combine it with youthful inexperience and a desire to leave home. So many young women here are desperately seeking the man who'll take them out of mommy and daddy's home and support her for the rest of her life. She'll open up her legs if helps this goal.

Most women of this last type end up becoming living examples of the "white trash welfare momma" stereotype. It doesn't help that most them as a kid was raised on welfare and other entitlements by mothers who also were raised this way. The lack of education and poor opportunities only accentuates it further. To be fair not every woman ended up this way by choice. Some simply had the misfortune of choosing the wrong man. But many of these women end up becoming "pillheads." Addicted to all manner of pills including oxycontin. Such women never abandon their quest to depend on man. And they tend to go for the coal miners as they make a good living, often are addicted to pills themselves, and have easy access to them.

Appalachia is a bleak place but I feel it is much bleaker for women than it is for men. There still is a lot of that "gender role" thing going on here. Certain jobs are "women only." And they won't hire anyone but women for them. Likewise, certain and "men only" and it is rare to see a woman employed in these kinds of jobs. It's also a bleak situation for single men. The dating pool here by and large is terrible. I've unfortunately had some miserable relationships getting suckered in by women of the first and third type. And the women of the second type, the better women, are few and far between. Mostly because they're already taken. Or better still: their independence led them to leaving this area for good.

[karlthepagan]

While I generally think that the "men's rights" idiots are an embarrassment, there is a standing stereotype of feminine jets which is too often true.

Emotional abuse can flow in both directions and a modern man who can't see past his white guilt will be unequipped to deal with the strong feminist perspective.

[Grenadier]

Personally I don't consider the concept of mens rights entirely without merit. Human civilization is nothing more than a collection of diverse groups locked in perpetual battle over rights. Often when one group has rights it comes at the expense of another groups. One example I'd consider a valid argument is a father's right. The abortion lovers cloak the entire issue in the name of women's rights. And many who support abortion will outright say a father has absolutely no rights pertaining to the child. While it is true the mother is the one having to bear the child the fact remains is it takes two the make the child. While some feel the mother's rights are the only ones which matter in this argument I refuse to accept that. A father should have rights regarding his unborn child. This is a demonstration of how the rights for one group comes at the expense of another group.

[karlthepagan]

While I generally think that the "men's rights" idiots are an embarrassment, there is a standing stereotype of femininsts which is too often true.

Emotional abuse can flow in both directions and a modern man who can't see past his white guilt will be unequipped to deal with the strong feminist perspective. Before this is taken put of context I mean this as genuinely supportive criticism of feminism. Race relations has Tim Wise : a white dude who calls other white dudes on their issues and is not just a stereotypical "I'm a woman/feminist your argument is invalid" spokesperson (e.g. tone argument, oppression Olympics, derailed argument, think of the children, inappropriate authority).

Does there exist a humble and well argued man who speaks effectively for the feminist cause?

I think the best example of why this stereotype damages the feminist movement so much can be exemplified by the Penny Arcade "dickwolves incident".... if you really understood the joke tell me what the problem was.

...also this is partly an unfortunate PR problem, and sexism: a woman with these qualities won't get the attention needed.

[Psychosplodge]

Personally I don't consider the concept of mens rights entirely without merit. Human civilization is nothing more than a collection of diverse groups locked in perpetual battle over rights. Often when one group has rights it comes at the expense of another groups. One example I'd consider a valid argument is a father's right. The abortion lovers cloak the entire issue in the name of women's rights. And many who support abortion will outright say a father has absolutely no rights pertaining to the child. While it is true the mother is the one having to bear the child the fact remains is it takes two the make the child. While some feel the mother's rights are the only ones which matter in this argument I refuse to accept that. A father should have rights regarding his unborn child. This is a demonstration of how the rights for one group comes at the expense of another group.

What planet are you on?
You do realise child birth is a life threatening event? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals) It's only the equal access to modern medicine (which you don't have in your "free" nation) that lowers the risk, but doesn't eliminate it. When a woman can force you to go through the same experience/risks you have a point, until then you're entitled to your wrong opinion.

While it's a very left learning paper, the data it's presenting is from the Lancet which being a journal should be neutral?

[eldargal]

I agree up to a point regarding fathers rights in abortion cases, HOWEVER it is usally the woman who ends up doing most of the work raising the child (there is much research to back this up). I've heard of afew cases where women have not had an abortion and given the father full rights to the child but they are rare. Of course when people are young if the relationship ends the woman is usually left stuck with the child anyway. So while I think the father obviously has a right to have some say, when it comes down to it the woman is the one who has to carry it, give birth to it and usually raise it.

And as psychosplodge says, women risk death giving birth. Men don't risk death impregnating women.

Personally I don't consider the concept of mens rights entirely without merit. Human civilization is nothing more than a collection of diverse groups locked in perpetual battle over rights. Often when one group has rights it comes at the expense of another groups. One example I'd consider a valid argument is a father's right. The abortion lovers cloak the entire issue in the name of women's rights. And many who support abortion will outright say a father has absolutely no rights pertaining to the child. While it is true the mother is the one having to bear the child the fact remains is it takes two the make the child. While some feel the mother's rights are the only ones which matter in this argument I refuse to accept that. A father should have rights regarding his unborn child. This is a demonstration of how the rights for one group comes at the expense of another group.

[Grenadier]

I'll forgo responding to Pyscho since he elected to take an insulting tone in his reply to me.

Yes Eldargal I'm aware it is a health risk to women. And I'm not meaning to dismiss that out of hand. I'd imagine in most cases the father may agree with her choosing an abortion if her life is at risk. What I argue against is the extremely selfish excuses some women use to have an abortion: having a child is inconvenient for them. They're not ready to be a mother. For such women the option to abort essentially removes their personal responsibilities for their actions. I find it disturbing that the pro-abortion people have built into the issue a means for women to avoid being responsible. Its a "get out of jail free card." Have all the sex you want and don't worry about any pesky and annoying pregnancy, we'll take care of that for you. And if some have their way it'll come at the expense of taxpayers. Right now there's a law student championing tax payer contraceptives. She came before Congress and claimed that contraceptives simply are too expensive and the tax payers should help her out.

To Conservatives she is essentially asking the taxpayer to to pay for her personal choices. First of all she's a law student at a very good college. So surely she has a few bucks to spare for contraceptives. Failing that there are plenty of ways to get them in this nation for free or next to nothing. Secondly, she's asking that taxpayers pay for them. Basically she wants to have sex but not be responsible for this personal choice and have someone else pay for her to do so. Why should we pay for her contraceptives? She can choose to not have sex. She can choose to have less sex. She can choose to get her own contraceptives. Maybe instead of spending her money on the next I-Phone she can stock up on contraceptives. The whole issue is a ruse and people aren't being entirely honest about it. Some will say it's all about a woman's rights and her health. They won't say that it also allows women to avoid being responsible for their actions. Sure, sometimes contraceptives are for more than just preventing pregnancy. Sometimes abortion is not about just avoiding becoming a mother. Sometimes it is about saving the mother's life. But those who support it intentionally choose not to talk about the downside to these things. There are two sides of it but those who support it conveniently ignore certain arguments. Such as expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill for what is the personal choice of another person. And those who support it ignore the hypocrisy inherent in it:

They're telling the government to stay out of the bedroom and their womb but demanding that pay for their birth control and abortions. How is that not hypocrisy? If they have enough responsibility to make choices like having sex then they should have enough responsibility to pay for their choices on their own.

This entitlement mentality is sickening. There are lots of things I feel entitled to and would like to do. What if I decided I want to play ice hockey? My personal choice. One that could lead me to getting injured. Maybe I should ask the tax payer to buy my safety gear and pay for any medical bills if I get hurt?

[Psychosplodge]

I think there's a fundamental culture gap here.

It is generally cheaper to pay for contraceptives and abortions than for births. As we pay for one or the other anyway I'm quite happy for little miss chav to go have one every other week rather than spend the next 30-50 years paying to clean up after her ill thought out spawn.

However you don't pay for it (well you pay for the prison upkeep, the police, investigations etc......but not the health bits ) and it's reflected in the birth mortality I posted earlier, but as long as you're not paying for it you should be happy right? No?
Why do you still feel the need to question others right to abortion? If you don't agree with them don't have one.
I don't agree with religion, but if you want to get up early on a Sunday that's upto you as long as you're bothering no one else what's it matter what you do in your little Appalachian church? - I'll stay in bed....

[eldargal]

By paying for birth control you can actually reduce the number of abortions and contraceptive pills are used to treat a number of medical issues. I've been on the pill since I was 15 to control my PMS, nothing to do with sex at all.

People always talk about selfish abortions but the problem is you can never prove why someone is having one. If you are going to have abortions you will have to accept that some probably are selfish and chalk it up to necessary evil. As I've said before not having legal, save abortions will just increase the number of deaths.

[Grenadier]

Again I'll refrain from replying to someone who has now insulted me twice. Maybe I should chalk up the insulting condescension to a cultural gap as well or an uniquely British thing.

[eldargal]

Hey, I'm British and condescending and I'm not insulting you.:p

[Grenadier]

Not you silly. You're actually pleasant to converse with. Which is great because most of my experience with discussing things with Brits were not pleasant experiences. They tend to be rude, condescending, and prone to insulting. My experience is based on years of online interactions and a handful of real world ones. But I keep telling myself "they can't all be like that."

[DarkLink]

I will point out that, while women bear the risk and tend to spend more time with the kids, it really does take two to raise a kid. I've seen some behavioral studies that say things like self confidence and assertiveness are typically learned from the dad. And someone has to pay the bills as well. No reason it can't be the mom, but you can't discount the importance of a breadwinner.

[Grenadier]

It does indeed take two. I'm speaking from experience. My mother was a single mom and struggled to raise me. My father attempted to kill us both when I was less than a year old. She claims he threw me into a wall. For years I didn't believe her. Until several years ago he tried to shoot me with a shotgun. All because he's a mean alcoholic loser. I've only seen him 4 times in my life. That was the final time. And I never had a reliable father figure in my life. She was married 3 times after him. And a couple of boyfriends in between. Not one of them took interest me and had nothing to do with me. The only male role models I had were some members of another family which for all intents and purposes was a second adopted family. Without a real father figure in the picture there were many areas in which my development suffered. And no doubt contributed to me developing avoidant personlity disorder. I don't blame much on my mother. She had a hard road going it alone. She worked her butt off. And because of it that we didn't get to spend a whole lot of time together. I'd be in school and then home alone. She'd not get in from work until the evening. And then she'd sleep. We had about a 2 hour window a day of time together. Children who get the benefit of having a father and a mother are lucky.

[Psychosplodge]

Again I'll refrain from replying to someone who has now insulted me twice. Maybe I should chalk up the insulting condescension to a cultural gap as well or an uniquely British thing.

At no point have I actually insulted you, I may have been a bit OMG WTF in my replies especially the first one, but no more so than some of your previous statements, if you feel insulted could I be touching a nerve?

[Grenadier]

Asking me what planet I'm from is insulting my intelligence. You may not have intended it that way but that's how it came off to me. And then the bit about "your little Appalachian church."

That's an insult on two levels: first you're dismissing my views out of hand on the assumption they're only influenced by religion. And since you dislike religion it's easy to dismiss the views of a religious person out of hand. And then the second level of insult is making the assumption that I do go to a church. Also, at the risk of making assumptions, by describing it as "little Appalachian" I could assume you think of me as an ignorant hillbilly. I do know this stereotype of people of my region is common here in America and in the U.K.

Lastly, why should I not question the rights of others to have an abortion? People are questioning the right of religious institutions to not provide contraceptives if it goes against their beliefs is being questioned. The right to not having your religion intruded on by the government is in question as well. If you told me you never question the rights of others I'd be inclined to call you a liar. People question these things all the time. The right to bear arms in America is always questioned, and I might add often criticized and questioned by people in your nation. The right to religious expression is always questioned as well. If it is a right one group enjoys another group will question it.

[Psychosplodge]

The first was more a OMGWTF statement by me.

The second was more a picture of a picturesque wooden building like you see in the films, where all these people go spend Sunday morning doing what they want to do not bothering anybody.
Also you mentioned the place 'try driving on appalchuin mountain roads' or somat like that elsewhere.

Whereas I'm in bed also not bothering anybody.

And the dismissal of your views because of religion is because you linked them to religion.
If you'd argued on a basis of it's life and never mentioned religion I would have chalenged you with a none religious argument.

[Grenadier]

Our churches range from very nice looking brick structures to run down shacks. I've even seen a prefab steel shed used as a church here. I don't go because there is not a Catholic church near me. Most here are Pentecostal or Baptist.

And I did link them to very a basic religious view yes. I consider life to be sacred. Even if my own religious faith waxes and wanes certain core tenants remain strong. I also linked them because here in America religion is being attacked by the health care mandate. If they can be ordered by this federal government to defy their religious belief to provide contraceptives then the government can also force them to provide abortion to. A line has to be drawn somewhere. For a long time religious rights have been questioned here so I believe its only fair to question back.

I also make a case on the basis of life. It is my own view that the pro-abortion crowd has taken it upon themselves, using science as their justification, to dictate what is or is not considered a life. And to be fair there are plenty who place their faith in science and not religion. The problem is science is cold and ruthless at times. It's my opinion that by dictating through science what is or is not a life then it devalues life and makes it much easier for people to swallow abortion. To me this is not too far away from the old eugenics movement. Which does appear to still be alive and well today. This cold and scientific approach to what is life or not willl appeal to those who are not religious. And to some degree it may even help the anti-religion movement further diminish the role of religion in society. Even if there is not a God and no religious aspect applies I still believe there is something inherently immoral about abortion no matter any actual positives it may have. As for the eugenics issue, that's a separate debate altogether.

[Psychosplodge]

See I would take the view if you cut it out and it can't survive without major medical intervention it isn't really alive...And it's no more immoral to terminate than it is to remove any other unwanted parasite.

[DarkLink]

Someone in a coma is still alive, and can still wake up, but requires medical attention to survive for more than a couple of days.

And a baby a week or two from delivery is typically fully developed, they just haven't been separated from the mother yet. There's little physical difference. So where do you draw the line? How far into a pregnancy do you have to be to have a living baby in the womb versus an extraneous hunk of meat? And many normally born babies require extensive medical assistance at birth, sometimes for weeks. Are they alive?


While I can fully agree there's no problem with "killing" something that isn't alive (or in the case of contraception preventing something from being born at all), the tricky part is defining what is alive and what isn't. That's my problem with the pro-choice issue. It isn't a mother's right to murder their child, so where do you define what's a child and what isn't yet?

[Psychosplodge]

Well the legal limit here is 24 weeks as there is very little chance of survival without extreme intervention.
Seems reasonable. It's never been alive independently, and can't be expected to survive before a certain point.


Someone in a coma is still alive, and can still wake up, but requires medical attention to survive for more than a couple of days.


Which is a medical issue, and that persons family generally make a decision on whether to pursue treatment or not, as is their right.

[MaltonNecromancer]

So anyway, banning abortions is foolish because they'll just do what they did before they were legal: go underground.

So I'm pro-choice for one simple reason. If I am ever lucky enough to have a daughter, she's going to do stupid things when she's a teenager. Hopefully, her self-esteem will be high enough that she won't feel the need to offer her body to boys in exchange for validation, but there's always the chance that something may happen to drive her into the arms of some idiot who doesn't use in contraception.

Given that she's already gone behind my back, if she then decides she can't have the baby, she'll go to some untrained woman's house and lie on a table while this untrained, inexpert person may do any manner of horrific things to her lady parts.

This includes using a coathanger to scrape the embryo off the walls of the cervix.

Sometimes, the untrained professional uses too much force, and the coathanger punches its way out of the cervix and into the woman's abdominal cavity, causing her to die slowly and horrifically.

This has happened numerous times in the past; too numerous to mention.

Now, I believe in the sanctity of life, but I'm a pragmatist.

I know my daughter will grow up to disobey me and do stupid, irresponsible stuff.

I don't believe that the price for that should be an agonising, avoidable death as the contents of her stomach bleed out and digest her own insides, and that will be the price for some women. This is the real world, where people will do whatever they want, because that's just how it is. We can either accept that, and minimise the risk where avoidable, or condemn our most vulnerable women to criminalisation, physical horror, psychologicl and physical scarring that will last their whole lifetime, and deaths more foul than I have words for.

I'm pro-choice because I'm a man, and I'll never know what it is to carry a human life. If I ever get a lady pregnant, I'll plead for that's baby's life, but I will still respect the simple fact: people will do what they want, and life's not fair.

There are plenty of women raising children without fathers because the man ran away. Women aborting babies that they don't want but the fathers do is simply the flip side. It's not equal. It's not right in many cases. But the physical nature of reproduction means it is unfair by nature, and that's just how it is.

[Psychosplodge]

Just saw this on tumblr....and lolled....


Commenter wasabi peas: “In a world where men tell women to avoid sex if they don’t want to get pregnant, and women in turn deny men sex, men from all walks of life decide that “Enough is enough!” and take the battle over contraception back to where it all began. STOP COCKBLOCKING ME, BRO! Coming to Congress when men realize that a woman not having sex is one more woman who won’t be having sex with them.”

Not that mansplanation should be required for anyone to take the need for affordable contraception seriously, but—for real, I don’t understand how the heterosex-having men of America have not run Rick Santorum out of this country on a rail.

[eldargal]

Ha, that is amusing.:)

[greendestiny]

Interesting test.

One think I have always wondered. Why is that it is cool to be a feminist but not to be the same thing but on the male side? Can't remember what that is called just now. For example my boss is a women and really cool at that. She goes to local "women in leadership" events a lot. If I went to "men in leadership" that would probably be considered not okay. but the oposite for her is cool. Also there is no "men in leadership group that I am aware of.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

And as psychosplodge says, women risk death giving birth. Men don't risk death impregnating women.

Impregnate the wrong dude's woman and you do;)

[Grenadier]

So you're really going to compare an unborn baby to "any other unwanted parasite?" Thank you for reinforcing my belief that the attitude abortion supporters have towards life is repulsive to me.


See I would take the view if you cut it out and it can't survive without major medical intervention it isn't really alive...And it's no more immoral to terminate than it is to remove any other unwanted parasite.

[Psychosplodge]

So you're really going to compare an unborn baby to "any other unwanted parasite?" Thank you for reinforcing my belief that the attitude abortion supporters have towards life is repulsive to me.
While you may disagree with the semantics, what I said is technically correct


par·a·site/ˈparəˌsīt/
Noun:

An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.



Tell me how that doesn't apply?

[eldargal]

Babies are literally parasites until birth, I know the word has negative connotations but it really is accurate.

[Gotthammer]

Also there is no "men in leadership group that I am aware of.

That's because that's the default setting for the world - men don't need any help in achieving equality as other 'empowerment groups' are aiming to achieve equality with them.

[Grenadier]

Its not a matter of if it is accurate or not. It's a matter if it is appropriate to view an unborn child in such a low fashion. Apparently it is for some people. To me this view is dangerous.

Planned Parenthood is America's biggest abortion advocate. But a the liberals and progressives don't like to discuss the shady past of its founder Margaret Sanger. A woman who was a racist and supported eugenics. I've found many quotes from her that reveal the depravity of this kind of thinking. Racism was at the core of her beliefs combined with the cancerous ideas of eugenics. She clearly was a progressive elitist and racist. To her and her supporters were not fit to breed. She even saw them as a threat to the nation. Of course this meant black people. But she also held these depraved views towards other minorities, mentally ill, as well as the poor. Planned Parenthood today focuses their efforts on the minorities and poor and have been investigated for violating the law. Her views on these matters ought to be something shocking to America's modern left wing which champions the rights of minorities and poor as well as abortion and contraceptives.

Just a few of her quotes on this matter:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit, that is the chief aim of birth control."
The purpose of promoting birth control was to "create a race of thoroughbreds."
"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the the Negro population."
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

And so when I see people today liken an unborn child to parasite I'm concerned. The callous disregard contained it that kind of thinking is disturbing. Sure, it might be a technically accurate description. But I'm not concerned with the definitions. What concerns me is the mentality. And the fact is there are people alive today who think just as that disgusting Margaret Sanger does. Some in our world would like to see the "unfit" kept from reproducing. It is appalling to me that people have the audacity to decide which kind of people should not breed, which populations should be exterminated or at least tightly controlled to curb growth. This depravity is embedded in the roots of the pro-abortion and birth control movement. There is a dark side to these things. But those who championing these causes do not speak of such things. They speak of only positives and wrap it up in women's rights in order to shield it from criticism. And there may well be some positives to abortion and birth control. But many who support them willingly ignore the negatives. Sanger's perverse views were part of a movement back in the 20's. And she had many supporters. And today there are still people who hold these views. Planned Parenthood clearly upholds her vision. You don't see that organization going out of its way to extoll the virtues of abortion and contraceptives to the affluent white population. They focus more on the poor and minorities.

Now, I know this is a controversial issue and that those who support these things will never compromise let alone value the opposing views of others. And it is my belief this is an issue that there is no compromising. Sometimes in life people have to take a side. Not every thing gets that lovely gray area the left loves so much. You pick a side and you fight on that side. I've chosen my side and believe it is the right thing to do.


Babies are literally parasites until birth, I know the word has negative connotations but it really is accurate.

[Dunadan]

While you may disagree with the semantics, what I said is technically correct

Tell me how that doesn't apply?

Note however, that according to your definition a parasite is a living organism, which would refute your earlier claim that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't alive.

[Dunadan]

Oh, and before I help derail this thread, I'd like to tip my hat to Eldargal for standing up for authentic feminism.

[Psychosplodge]

Very long quote.

Because one person with abhorrent views says something, anybody else who says anything even remotely similar is tarred with sharing their abhorrent views as well? Very lazy reasoning.

Also it's not often I'm considered "liberal" or "of the left".


Note however, that according to your definition a parasite is a living organism, which would refute your earlier claim that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't alive.

But there are exceptions to every rule, mammals give birth to live young.... but there's at least two examples that lay eggs...

[DarkLink]

I can see this going downhill pretty quickly from here...


That's because that's the default setting for the world - men don't need any help in achieving equality as other 'empowerment groups' are aiming to achieve equality with them.

Yeah, totally. Men are the oppressors, it's impossible to be sexist against them.

That was sarcasm, by the way.

[eldargal]

Misandry and reverse sexism is one of the problems facing modern feminism. But it also has to be remembered that men ARE the default setting and any gains for women will come at some mens expense. It is important thus to make sure that the women which do break into male dominated areas (like corporate boards) are there through talent and cultural change not affirmative action type programs.

[Dunadan]

But there are exceptions to every rule, mammals give birth to live young.... but there's at least two examples that lay eggs...

But those exceptions are only known because they have been observed. And currently, observation of the zygote shows it to fulfill the qualifications demanded by biologists of a living organism.
http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm

I'd rather break this discussion into a separate thread, but I'm afraid it might attract trolls. OTOH, I don't want to mutate Eldargal's thread. What to do, what to do....

[Grenadier]

With some of them..yeah, if the shoe fits. They use the same tarring tactic on people on my side of the fence so fair is fair to me. Kind of like how you tarred me with the religious brush the other day.

And none of it changes the facts I presented. Planned Parenthood was founded by an outright racist who sought to reshape the population to her liking (and the liking of many who agreed with her) through the use of contraceptives and abortions. And there are people today who continue support and subscribe to those views. It's my opinion then that it such callous, cold, and clinical views towards unborn children is a disturbing and destructive element in society. Furthermore, if you combine this attitude with the sexual anything goes and no personal responsibility for consequences of sex attitudes it becomes even more disturbing. The views the American far left progressives and others who share them regarding sex and reproduction are views I will never support.

Also, when I say liberal or left I am usually referring to them here in America. While I'm not completely informed on how liberals or leftists are in the UK I do know there are some differences between them and those here. I'm trying to keep an open mind regarding the views people have over there but so far much of what you personally have shared with me here only serves to reinforce my own views.

.
Because one person with abhorrent views says something, anybody else who says anything even remotely similar is tarred with sharing their abhorrent views as well? Very lazy reasoning.

Also it's not often I'm considered "liberal" or "of the left".



But there are exceptions to every rule, mammals give birth to live young.... but there's at least two examples that lay eggs...

[DarkLink]

Incidentally, while it's more about racial and geographic inequality and has little to do with sexism directly, Germs Guns and Steel has been adapted to a documentary on Netflix. Well worth checking out if you want to know why Europeans conquered the globe, and why some parts of the world are still impoverished.




Just for clarity, in America, liberal generally refers to "bleeding hearts". Pro choice, pro welfare, pro big government, pro union, pro affirmative action, etc. Conservative refers to pro life, pro small government, pro business, etc, and typically has strong connections to traditional religious values. Those are sweeping generalizations, of course.

[Dunadan]

The problem with GG&S is that it seems to posit a purely mechanistic explanation of human history: http://www.scifiwright.com/2007/10/germs-guns-and-steel-or-doctors-gunsmiths-and-steelworkers/

[Grenadier]

Those are fairly accurate generalizations though.

However, each wing has several factions, some more extreme than others. And each wing lends itself to certain issues more than the other. And so will draw to it those who agree with the issue. For example, the conservative size favors immigration reform and enforcing the laws pertaining to it. Liberals generally oppose any such efforts and claim it is racist. Many minorities flock to the liberal side because the perception is that they liberals are looking out for them. And while there are minorities on the conservative side the impression is that conservatives are racist. There's not much middle ground in America. It's now an either or nation:

Either support gay marriage or you're a homophobe.
Either support amnesty and lax immigration or you're a racist.
Either support abortion and contraceptives or you're oppressing women.
Either support the right to bear arms or you're an anti-gun lefty.
Either support Obama or you're racist.

On and on. Both sides play this game. And in each example there can be some middle ground. You're not this or that simply because you disagree with the other side.


Incidentally, while it's more about racial and geographic inequality and has little to do with sexism directly, Germs Guns and Steel has been adapted to a documentary on Netflix. Well worth checking out if you want to know why Europeans conquered the globe, and why some parts of the world are still impoverished.




Just for clarity, in America, liberal generally refers to "bleeding hearts". Pro choice, pro welfare, pro big government, pro union, pro affirmative action, etc. Conservative refers to pro life, pro small government, pro business, etc, and typically has strong connections to traditional religious values. Those are sweeping generalizations, of course.

[Psychosplodge]

http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm

.

I'm sorry but a thrown together page on an Ecollage website has little more credibility than a wikipedia page as a valid source...


With some of them..yeah, if the shoe fits. They use the same tarring tactic on people on my side of the fence so fair is fair to me. Kind of like how you tarred me with the religious brush the other day.

And none of it changes the facts I presented. Planned Parenthood was founded by an outright racist who sought to reshape the population to her liking (and the liking of many who agreed with her) through the use of contraceptives and abortions. And there are people today who continue support and subscribe to those views. It's my opinion then that it such callous, cold, and clinical views towards unborn children is a disturbing and destructive element in society. Furthermore, if you combine this attitude with the sexual anything goes and no personal responsibility for consequences of sex attitudes it becomes even more disturbing. The views the American far left progressives and others who share them regarding sex and reproduction are views I will never support.

Also, when I say liberal or left I am usually referring to them here in America. While I'm not completely informed on how liberals or leftists are in the UK I do know there are some differences between them and those here. I'm trying to keep an open mind regarding the views people have over there but so far much of what you personally have shared with me here only serves to reinforce my own views.

.

You're right I made conclusions based on the available evidence where you'd spoken in support of religion, and public religious observance on the politics thread, I personally don't think it's a big stretch to then suppose that someone with such views would attend church.

If you show me where I called for selective breeding, and the extermination of a race of people....

Regardless of who set up one particular (I assume "planned parenthood is a brand) brand of clinics, It doesn't mean people who provide similar, or seek the services of such share their views!

TBH I get the impression that the average member of your left (not the fanatics) is more rightwing than our centre-right conservative party...

[Dunadan]

any of these work better for ya?
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01490.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215.full
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/martini10/chapter28/custom3/deluxe-content.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

[Psychosplodge]

any of these work better for ya?
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01490.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215.full
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/martini10/chapter28/custom3/deluxe-content.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Not quite sure what the point of the first one is,
The second and third seem quite detailed, particularly like how a lone rabbit is dead, and it does touch an important point that you've made me consider just how difficult it is to define "life"
T
he last one listing developmental stages makes me consider, IMO that the UK cut off at 24 weeks is the correct point at which to distinguish from something that you can terminate, and a viable life form. Other people may look at the list and judge differently, but if they'd like to demonstrate lving without working lungs...(for a person, obviously many things in nature don't have lungs....)

[DarkLink]

The problem with GG&S is that it seems to posit a purely mechanistic explanation of human history: http://www.scifiwright.com/2007/10/germs-guns-and-steel-or-doctors-gunsmiths-and-steelworkers/

Well, aside from the poor articulation of that article (he used way too many words to say what he was trying to say), that's exactly what GG&S is supposed to be. Why did certain regions of the world advance so quickly? Because some of them had unique access to agriculture and beasts of burden, which freed up individuals to make technological advances as well as unwittingly providing relative immunity to a number of deadly diseases. When those advantages all found their way to the same place (Europe), the Europeans advanced quickly and when the spread to the rest of the world, superior technology and aforementioned diseases allowed them to conquer most of it with relative ease.

The human element is outside the scope of his argument, and he clearly states that. Any one of the places that had agriculture and beasts of burden could have advanced similarly, it was politics that determined that Europe was the one who gained the advantages. If any of the great ancient empires in Asia, Europe or the Middle East had stuck around, it could have been them with colonies everywhere. The point is, though, that they all came from an area with good agriculture and numerous large domesticated animals.

[Grenadier]

I don't believe I ever suggested nor intended to suggest you called for race based extermination. I merely believe that the cold view you have towards an unborn child, that is likening it to an unwanted parasite (in your words) hints at an attitude not unlike that of the PP founder and others. And having studied these issues extensively I've seen plenty of evidence that suggests most in the abortion industry share the same views of Sanger's. Albeit more refined since things have changed a lot since the 1920's.

As for England's right or left I really wouldn't know. I've not taken much time to study the ideology of England's political parties. But if there are representatives their similar to our extreme left you have my condolences.


I'm sorry but a thrown together page on an Ecollage website has little more credibility than a wikipedia page as a valid source...



You're right I made conclusions based on the available evidence where you'd spoken in support of religion, and public religious observance on the politics thread, I personally don't think it's a big stretch to then suppose that someone with such views would attend church.

If you show me where I called for selective breeding, and the extermination of a race of people....

Regardless of who set up one particular (I assume "planned parenthood is a brand) brand of clinics, It doesn't mean people who provide similar, or seek the services of such share their views!

TBH I get the impression that the average member of your left (not the fanatics) is more rightwing than our centre-right conservative party...

[Psychosplodge]

If it is unwanted, it is essentially little more than a parasite. Obviously if it's wanted it's the most wonderful thing in the world for those involved.
But not everyone who requires an abortion is irresponsible, but even with the best will in the world and multiple methods of contraceptive in use accidents happen. I just don't understand why it anybody's decision but the potential mothers?

[Grenadier]

Of course not all who'd partake of abortion are irresponsible. But there are those who are. And anyone who'd have an abortion simply because motherhood would be an inconvenient burden shouldn't ever have children in the first place.

So only the mother's decision matters to you? What about a father? One myth pushed by the abortionists is the notion that most men would abandon the child and mother. Just another effort to make abortion easier to swallow. And while it is true a great many do so there are those who wouldn't. So potential fathers have no rights at all regarding their unborn child?

If that is to be the case then I feel ALL women who'd consider abortion are morally obligated to have a little chat with any man they sleep with. And inform the man that they would consider abortion. No doubt a great many men, thinking with their lower head instead of their upper one, will still engage in sex with the woman. But decent men may think twice. And what if a man is with a woman who doesn't share this information with him? They have a relationship and then a pregnancy. And she goes off to have an abortion?

I was forced to end a rekindled relationship with a woman I loved for 15 years when she made it clear if she got pregnant she'd abort. If I got a woman pregnant I would want my child to come into the world. Even if the mother and I do not last. This girl could have had the theoretical child and given it to me to raise. Not willing to risk having my offspring murdered without any regard to my rights or the child's it was better to kick her to the curb.

In the more fascist feminist circles a man never will have any rights regarding the unborn child. If you can't understand why a father should have some decision I pity you.


If it is unwanted, it is essentially little more than a parasite. Obviously if it's wanted it's the most wonderful thing in the world for those involved.
But not everyone who requires an abortion is irresponsible, but even with the best will in the world and multiple methods of contraceptive in use accidents happen. I just don't understand why it anybody's decision but the potential mothers?

[DarkLink]

If it is unwanted, it is essentially little more than a parasite.

Oh, well I guess if a person is unwanted then murder is fine. That clears up a whole lot of things, now. Plus we'll save a whole lot of money by releasing all those people from prison that killed someone they didn't like. That'd sure make the world a better place. You could use all that money to feed starving orphans... Oh, wait, orphans aren't wanted so they're not really people I guess. Well, I'm sure you could find plenty of other good causes to spend that money on.

[Psychosplodge]

Really? you think that's an accurate comparison?

[eldargal]

Few if any murderers are parasitic lifeforms reliant on their host for survival.

Oh, well I guess if a person is unwanted then murder is fine. That clears up a whole lot of things, now. Plus we'll save a whole lot of money by releasing all those people from prison that killed someone they didn't like. That'd sure make the world a better place. You could use all that money to feed starving orphans... Oh, wait, orphans aren't wanted so they're not really people I guess. Well, I'm sure you could find plenty of other good causes to spend that money on.

[DarkLink]

Few if any murderers are parasitic lifeforms reliant on their host for survival.

I'm... not quite sure what that was meant to imply.


Really? you think that's an accurate comparison?

Never heard of reductio ad absurdum:rolleyes:?

Regardless, my point is that I cannot see abortion as anything but murder. If you cannot dispute this, you will convince me of nothing.

Pro-life doesn't mean that we don't believe the the mother has a choice of some sort. All it means is that we believe that murder is unacceptable, and we find the argument that babies aren't alive yet to be bull****.




The crux of the argument has nothing to do with parasitism or whatever this has gotten sidetracked to. It is exclusively about when a fetus can be considered 'alive'. Medical complications of pregnancy are a separate argument as well. At some ill-defined point, that little tumor turns into a human being, after which killing it is murder.

[eldargal]

You likened an unwanted foetus to an unwanted person. An unwanted person is not a parasite wholly dependent on its host for survival like a foetus (to to 6 months or so anyway) is.

Oh, well I guess if a person is unwanted then murder is fine.

Life does begin at conception, but as that life cannot be sustained without a host until at least 6 months have passed until that time the future of that life should be wholly up to the host. I don't like abortion and I am certainly opposed to late term abortions (ie abortions after a point when the foetus has a chance of surviving outside the womb), but that doesn't change the fact what a woman must be able to have control over her own body.

Even if I were impregnated during a rape I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but if we say that abortion is murder then no woman would be able to. This amounts to punishing a woman for a crime committed against her. Even in the case of an unwanted pregnancy during consensual sex, the woman is still being punished for a mistake that isn't wholly hers, or in somecases isn't hers at all (breaking condom, faulty contraceptive pill, etc). This issue is too complicated for blanket statements like 'abortion is murder'.

[Grenadier]

Just because it cannot sustain itself outside of the host doesn't make killing it any more acceptable in my opinion. With that view then one would think it's acceptable to terminate anyone who is in a coma or otherwise unable to live on their own without the help of medical professionals.

My main concern regarding abortion is that some choose it for no other reason than they do not want to be a motherhood. No matter what statistics or argument to mitigate the matter the fact remains many do indeed choose abortion simply because they don't want to be burdened with motherhood. They're responsible enough to have sex but not enough to take responsibility for the consequences of it.

As distasteful as it is I am not inherently opposed to abortion when it is determined that childbirth can possibly kill the mother. Or if the child will be born with some horrible condition that will make the quality of its life terrible. As for aborting a child that's the product of rape that's a bit tougher. I do not fully oppose, but am loathe to support it, but can see why some would choose to do so.

But I'm of the mind that unless it is life threatening instead of murdering it just have the child and put it up for adoption. There are plenty of people out there wanting badly to be parents. Every murdered child is just one less opportunity for potential parents to raise a child of their own. And through all of this I firmly believe a potential father should have some rights here. The liberals love to cloak this issue in the name of women's rights. She has a right to do with her body as she pleases they say. The problem is there's another body inside her. And it was created because of two people. The mother and the father. Now, lesser men probably won't give a damn about the baby. But some do. Morally they should have some rights pertaining to their unborn child.

Also, since the left is adamant in their support of abortion in the name of women's rights I challenge them to consider the rights of men. For every woman out there who would consider an abortion I challenge them to be open and honest about it. They should inform all potential partners before sex that abortion is an option they may well choose. In my opinion this is the morally correct thing to do. Now, many lesser men probably won't give a damn. Seeing as how many men think with their lower head and not so much with their higher one. But decent men may well reconsider potential partners. Likewise, all men should ask the woman about it too. For it to work both sides must be honest. I'd never go to bed with any woman who'd abort a baby. And I have a feeling I'm not the only man who feels this way.

[Psychosplodge]

Covered the rights of men earlier, when we risk death giving birth I'm sure we can have equal say....
Referring to terminated pregnancies as "murdered children" is just tabloid style loaded language.

But on a more serious note, if you're in a sexual relationship you should be adult enough to have a conversation about your views before pregnancy occurs.

[Hive Mind]

Covered the rights of men earlier, when we risk death giving birth I'm sure we can have equal say....
Referring to terminated pregnancies as "murdered children" is just tabloid style loaded language.

But on a more serious note, if you're in a sexual relationship you should be adult enough to have a conversation about your views before pregnancy occurs.

It's not even loaded language, it's total nonsense.

[Hive Mind]

As for the thread topic, it's unfortunate that people like Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Diana E.H Russel et al who write total tripe unjustified in either fact or logic are often the loudest voices and thus the ones that most people base their opinions of the subject on.

As part of my Human Rights and Civil Liberties course last year I had to consider the so-called feminist position on pornography. During my reading I picked up Diana E.H Russell's book 'Making Violence Sexy' and had the distinct misfortune to happen upon an essay contained therein by John Stoltenberg. Said essay ran for fourteen pages of inflammatory rhetoric, outlining exactly why pornography was an assertion of man's systemic dominance over women and it contained not one footnote, not one reference to back up any of his extraordinary claims.

Loud voice, nothing to say.

[Psychosplodge]

Because No females like pornography (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7370807.stm) or this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm)

[Hive Mind]

If you can find it, you should read the case referenced in your second link; R v Coutts. It was pretty much the sole justification for the inclusion of the offence of possessing extreme images in s.63 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Unfortunately, Coutt's tastes for extreme pornography had nothing at all to do with him murdering Jane Longhurst. The Law Lords even said as much when the case went to the House of Lords.

Still, who needs facts when you can legislate based on a tabloid-driven frenzy, eh?

[Psychosplodge]

I think I vaguely remember it in the news, as the woman they interview more or less says "extreme porn" is sold in much higher quantities than ever and there is one murder that has questionably been linked to it, so they want to ban it? WTF...

[Grenadier]

I wouldn't call it tabloid language. For those who oppose abortion the description is quite accurate. The left aren't the only ones allowed to monkey with the meanings of words. It's no different in that regard to the abortionist view that it's just an unwanted parasite. If you're pro-life it's murder. If you're pro-abortion its conveniently sanitized to clinical terms like "termination" and abortion. Obviously you believe your side is the correct side. And I feel mine is. There will be no winning this argument until one side wins out. And personally, I hope yours loses.

Yeah, one would imagine if someone is mature enough to have sex they would have a conversation about pregnancy and abortion. But it goes both ways. It shouldn't just be the man broaching the subject.
Covered the rights of men earlier, when we risk death giving birth I'm sure we can have equal say....
Referring to terminated pregnancies as "murdered children" is just tabloid style loaded language.

But on a more serious note, if you're in a sexual relationship you should be adult enough to have a conversation about your views before pregnancy occurs.

[Hive Mind]

I wouldn't call it tabloid language. For those who oppose abortion the description is quite accurate. The left aren't the only ones allowed to monkey with the meanings of words. It's no different in that regard to the abortionist view that it's just an unwanted parasite. If you're pro-life it's murder. If you're pro-abortion its conveniently sanitized to clinical terms like "termination" and abortion. Obviously you believe your side is the correct side. And I feel mine is. There will be no winning this argument until one side wins out. And personally, I hope yours loses.

Yeah, one would imagine if someone is mature enough to have sex they would have a conversation about pregnancy and abortion. But it goes both ways. It shouldn't just be the man broaching the subject.

One side has won out, the side that based its argument in logic and backed it with evidence, not the side that tried to twist the meanings of very well established words in a cheap, transparent attempt to garner support from the terminally feeble-minded.

[Grenadier]

I got ya. I'm happy to be amongst the terminally feeble-minded then.

[eldargal]

There was actually a proper study done into whether increasingly hard pornography had an impact on mens treatment of women, and it came out with quite a damning 'yes it does'. I can't remember the name of the woman who led it, though. I'll try and find out.

Not all pornography is bad, though. Appreciating the beauty of the naked female form or two attractive people making love isn't bad. But watching girls be systematically abused and demeaned purely for sexual gratification is.

The control of sexuality thing is a big stumbling block for feminism. On one hand women should be in control of their sexuality, on the other it is easy to convince impressionable teenagers that sexual liberation means promiscuity and you end up with a situation where women are expected to have sex and are considered odd or prudish if they don't want too. This is sadly where we seem to be, in the Anglosphere at least. It needs to be about the womans choice and not being judged or pressured wither way, not what a male dominated society expects. It is a very, very complicated issue. It does feed into the birth control/abortion debate, though. The easiest way to try and impose a traditional morality on women is to deny them the ability to mitigate the consequences of exploring their sexuality. The consequences for men are no where as severe, to quote one of my favourite cartoons:

Parenting a teenage boy is easy, the worst they can do is ruin some teenage girls life. Parenting a teenage girl is impossible.

Sad but true.

It's half past six in the morning so I apologise if I'm a bit rambly or unclear.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, it's a problem when just about any time sexuality becomes an issue in a tv drama or news report you can pretty much shout "double standard" regardless of the circumstances.

Though again it's about race rather than sex, there's this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s). Morgan Freeman is awesome. While it's certainly not always an appropriate answer in some cases, in the long run the only way to negate sexism/racism is to stop talking about it. You need to take action to get the ball rolling, but somewhere along the line you need to stop the ball from rolling any further, and that's the tricky part a lot of the time.


I got ya. I'm happy to be amongst the terminally feeble-minded then.

Don't feed the troll. Unlike Psychosplodge and Eldargal, the troll is incapable of having a well-mannered, mature discussion. Just Ignore him. It's a really nice feature for the rare occasion it is needed.

[eldargal]

Agreed, and we have made significant progress in that regard. There is much that was once highly controversial in women's rights which is now not even talked about because it has become acceptable (voting, entering politics, sex before marriage, having any access to birth control, being barred from a profession etc). If these issues are being discussed it is generally only by a very vocal minority with an axe to grind.

Some of the issues that do still need to be talked about, like closing the pay gap (which is happening, by the way, it down to 12% from 16% in 2000) are unfortunately being overshadowed by silliness like trying to force 50% of company boards to be female and whatnot. Nevermind the numbers of women in board rooms, lets get the majority of the populace being paid equally before we go trying to smash the glass ceiling. But, it isn't questioned that women should be paid for the job they do not what gender they are.

[Hive Mind]

There was actually a proper study done into whether increasingly hard pornography had an impact on mens treatment of women, and it came out with quite a damning 'yes it does'. I can't remember the name of the woman who led it, though. I'll try and find out.


If you're alleging that there was a study which showed that pornography inculcated an attitude of violence towards women being ok, no there wasn't. No study has ever been able to demonstrate such a link. Malamuth and Fishback's studies came closest, but even they admit that their study was systemically flawed and carried out with far too small a sample size.

What the studies have shown is that people seek out the pornography that they're into because they're into whatever that depicts, no study has ever shown that pornography creates behavioural habits. In the realm of male attitudes to women pornography is a symptom, not a cause.

[eldargal]

There was a study that found that some pornography helped normalise various behaviours against women, ranging from an expectation that women should remove their pubic hair and engage in sodomy to a belief that all women enjoy rough sex and orgies. It is grossly simplistic to argue that pornography in general is the cause, but it is also disengenous to dismiss it purely as a symptom.

You will note I never mentioned violence in my original post.

[Hive Mind]

There was a study that found that some pornography helped normalise various behaviours against women, ranging from an expectation that women should remove their pubic hair and engage in sodomy to a belief that all women enjoy rough sex and orgies. It is grossly simplistic to argue that pornography in general is the cause, but it is also disengenous to dismiss it purely as a symptom.

You will note I never mentioned violence in my original post.

You will note that I started my post with the qualifier "if you're alleging"...

I'm pretty sure you're describing Malamuth and Fishback's study from the sound of it and like I mentioned before, even the authors had problems with its 'conclusions'.

It is obvious that an idiot watching pornography might get unrealistic real-life expectations from it just as it is obvious that an idiot watching crap like Sex In The City might get unrealistic real-life expectations from it. Where both fall down is that there is no evidence that these people actually do anything that impacts anyone else in pursuit of those unrealistic expectations, unless you're MacKinnon or Dworkin and you want to count feeling 'upset' (with no attempt to explain what 'upset' means) at some of the things that sexual partners might request.

In short, there is absolutely no evidence that pornography causes any harm whatsoever.

[eldargal]

The names you mention do not sound familiar (not that it means much). Actually when it comes to women's rights what a partner expects is important. There is little difference between a man feeling entitled to a virgin bride and a man feeling entitled to anal sex or for women to groom themselves in a certain way or what have you. It comes down to women being expected to conform to a certain male imposed ideal.

The study also found increasing rates of vaginal infections due to fecal contamination, stemming from anal sex, in the general community. So there are also health implications if a rise in sodomy amongst heterosexual couples is due to pornography.

I'm not particularly against pornography myself, but I fail to see how pornography involving men urinating on women in a subservient position can be seen as anything but degrading to women in general, for example. Regardless in the scheme of women's rights I think pornography is a relatively minor side issue.

[Hive Mind]

The names you mention do not sound familiar (not that it means much). Actually when it comes to women's rights what a partner expects is important. There is little difference between a man feeling entitled to a virgin bride and a man feeling entitled to anal sex or for women to groom themselves in a certain way or what have you. It comes down to women being expected to conform to a certain male imposed ideal.


Except the evidence shows that men generally do not feel entitled to anal sex or anything else because of pornography. They may desire it, but they generally do not feel entitled to it and even when they do, they do nothing about it. Of course men rape, but there is no evidence that they rape because of pornography. There is no difference in male expectations of sex because of pornography and women's expectations of relationships because of Mills and Boon or Harlequin books. Neither is harmful, neither is important and both are fostered only by idiots.



The study also found increasing rates of vaginal infections due to fecal contamination, stemming from anal sex, in the general community. So there are also health implications if a rise in sodomy amongst heterosexual couples is due to pornography.


If.

Also not really sure what this has to do with what we were talking about. Unless you're alleging that those women were raped anally and then vaginally because of pornography this is apropos of nothing.



I'm not particularly against pornography myself, but I fail to see how pornography involving men urinating on women in a subservient position can be seen as anything but degrading to women in general, for example.

Knackers. It might be degrading to that woman (though if that's what she's into it wouldn't be) but there are no implications at all for women in general. Even if it is degrading to that woman, so what? It's a job. Plenty of people find working their menial jobs plenty degrading, no-one cares.

[Grenadier]

Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean there isn't any harm. The thing is it is a thing you can't easily measure. There is harm though. But with porn all we really have is anecdotal evidence. We won't find hard evidence like "Debbie Does Dallas made Pervy Frank rape this woman." Simply put: with porn there is no smoking gun evidence with which you can directly link a harm to it.

When one really examines porn and society you do begin to see how certain things combine. Such as public perceptions of it. We could legitimately imply that porn has contributed to the alarming trend of underage girls sending nude pics of themselves via cellphones or online sites. But the implication requires theorizing. It's all about social views, ideological views, morality or lack thereof, pornography, etc. It's nothing more than theory we can work with and our best and only real evidence is anecdotal. So there's no sense making the argument. But likewise there is no sense in dismissing it outright.

The key factor here is this: how can you blame a thing like porn for what individuals do? In order to blame porn for child molestation or raping of women you have to ignore the individual's personal responsibility. If we do that then maybe we can blame porn. But then how would that be right? It wouldn't at all.

It reminds me of when people got up in arms about heavy metal music. Remember how they blamed Ozzy Osbourne's song "Suicide Solution" for someone who committed suicide? It went to court and all as I recall. How is it Ozzy's fault this guy killed himself?

"Well he listened to the song so he must have gotten the idea from it."

Entirely removes the individual's personal responsibility. This is also like the old "violence in video games makes violent kids" argument.

Now, porn is no different in that regard. Porn does in fact display certain attitudes and behaviors that can indeed be harmful. Especially the more extreme kind of porn. We also have a hyper-sexual society with ever waning morals regarding sex. There are people out there who think child porn is perfectly acceptable. That's its okay for teens to have sex. Etc. And porn now is more accessible than ever before thanks to the internet. And the porn industry itself is very exploitative of women. Many of whom willingly allow themselves to be exploited. For example Traci Lords. She was underage when she began her porn career. False I.D. So she knew what she was getting into when she was 15. She let herself be exploited. But that doesn't excuse those who put her in movies.

But we don't need to argue these points. Because there's no end to such an argument. There is legitimate reason and anecdotal evidence that does support the view that pornography does create some harm in terms of a larger and social scale. And no doubt there are individual cases. At the same time the pro-porn side of the argument has some valid points. Primarily because porn (as it pertains to society) has the convenient shield of escaping blame because in the end it's the individual's personal responsibility.

Porn may not make me rape a girl. Call of Duty may not make me go out and shoot someone. And Ozzy isn't going to make me want to kill myself or use drugs. Because I have personal responsibility. However, such things could "encourage" me indirectly by glamorizing these acts. Still, if I do any of those it's entirely on me and not the product.

[DarkLink]

Some of the issues that do still need to be talked about, like closing the pay gap (which is happening, by the way, it down to 12% from 16% in 2000) are unfortunately being overshadowed by silliness like trying to force 50% of company boards to be female and whatnot.

I actually seem to recall reading somewhere that the pay gap is actually smaller than those statistics would indicate, in that more women than men pick careers like child services or only working part time while raising a family. Or something to that effect. I don't remember the source, though.

[Hive Mind]

There's no evidence at all, but this thing is because I say so. Such a charming argument.

[scadugenga]

Wow, so we've brought porn into the topic discussion?

/sigh

Personally, I think that if a guy has the expectation that his girl will go all "porn star" on him, then the girl should have the equal expectation that her guy will have at least a 10" hog and a highly toned, sculpted body.

I mean, gotta keep it equal, right?

doh.

Personally, I don't think that there will ever be a lot of evidence to support that porn has an adverse affect on male/female relations.

Will there be individual exceptions? Without a doubt. But I think you'll find that those individuals are effed up to begin with, and porn is just their obsession du jour.

And as for the perception that women in the porn industry are victimized--generally anything but. Per here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_film_actor#Pay_rates) women will make more than men as porn actors. Which makes me laugh at any feminist who bashes the porn industry. "Really, so porn objectifies and victimizes women? Really? Why do they get paid more than the male actors then?" doh.

Though personally--anyone choosing to work in front of the camera in the porn industry probably has some pretty effed up crap in their past.

Another illusion: BDSM--most people do not realize that it's the submissive who carries the whole weight of control in a dom/sub relationship. Though it may appear otherwise to the average person.

There's nothing wrong with a little kink in the bedroom--in fact, as long as it's consenting and open between both partners--it's actually healthy.

And lastly---rape is not about sex, it's about power. Porn is about sex. Porn is not about rape.

[eldargal]

Exactly, which is why I think the debate about porn/strippers/prostitutes is a silly distraction from the real issues. If it does do harm (as some studies claim, whatever Hive Mind may think of them;)), it certainly wouldn't be as much as, say, the British legal system systemically abusing and traumatising rape victims and being biased against young women, equating femininity with incompetence in media, sexualising young girls etc. etc.

DarkLink, I've heard that too, some claiming the real average discrepncy is around 9-10%. But there are some jobs where women are still being paid up to 40% less for the same job. There is this (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/3/7/1299522109315/Pay-gap-graphic-008.jpg) picture from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/08/international-womens-day-pay-gap#zoomed-picture) (not always the best source I admit) that illustrates some of the discrepencies.

[DarkLink]

Actually, I remember more about the reasoning behind whatever it was I read. One of the big points was that women tend to be less aggressive than men do, and it speculated that some of the gap results from women being less likely to aggressively pursue raises and promotions.

I'm pretty sure it was mainly speculation, though. I think there was some ancillary studies it referenced, but it in and of itself wasn't a study. More of a "well, this study says this, so maybe this explains part of the problem and makes it sound worse than it is in a lot of cases".

I do notice that the biggest gaps in the link you posted tend to be in careers that require intense focus and dedication, like being a lawyer or doctor, which would hold with the idea that women tend to be a bit less aggressive.

It doesn't explain the gaps in metal working or for secretaries, though.

[Psychosplodge]

I wouldn't call it tabloid language. For those who oppose abortion the description is quite accurate.

Of course you wouldn't because you're the one using it, but it's no different to when somebody says anti abortion supporters are generally religious wack jobs, from their point of view they're right.
Doesn't make either accurate though.


Yeah, one would imagine if someone is mature enough to have sex they would have a conversation about pregnancy and abortion. But it goes both ways. It shouldn't just be the man broaching the subject.

Of course, BOTH parties should broach the subject not just one.


Wow, so we've brought porn into the topic discussion?

/sigh

Personally, I think that if a guy has the expectation that his girl will go all "porn star" on him, then the girl should have the equal expectation that her guy will have at least a 10" hog and a highly toned, sculpted body.

I mean, gotta keep it equal, right?

*cough* Ron Jeremy *cough*




Personally, I don't think that there will ever be a lot of evidence to support that porn has an adverse affect on male/female relations.

Will there be individual exceptions? Without a doubt. But I think you'll find that those individuals are effed up to begin with, and porn is just their obsession du jour.

I think since the mass accessing of the internet and the comically ease of access to pornographic material, and the lack of corresponding rise in suggested offences.




Another illusion: BDSM--most people do not realize that it's the submissive who carries the whole weight of control in a dom/sub relationship. Though it may appear otherwise to the average person.

There's nothing wrong with a little kink in the bedroom--in fact, as long as it's consenting and open between both partners--it's actually healthy.

And lastly---rape is not about sex, it's about power. Porn is about sex. Porn is not about rape.

That's the crux isn't it? Between consenting adults...

[DarkLink]

Here's an interesting point on Scott Adam's (Dilbert author) blog:


Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is not intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insults and Context

Imagine a guy who loves his mother, sister, wife, and daughters. He has a history of mentoring and promoting women at work, and he has lots of female friends. Politically, he supports all of the so-called women's issues, from birth control to abortion. But he hates one particular female politician, and during a speech he refers to her by one of the socially unacceptable insults that are generally reserved for women. Perhaps that word begins with B or C or S.

Someone in the audience records the offensive insult and puts it on YouTube. The clip rapidly becomes a national story. Here's my question: Is this man a misogynist, or just a guy who hates one particular politician and chose his words poorly?

Let's do another example. This time, imagine a woman who is active in a number of organizations that support women's issues. She sees the world as a boy's club in which women need to fight hard for their rights. One day, while giving a speech about a woman's right to choose, she refers to an odious male politician by one of the insulting words normally hurled only at men, such as *******, dick, or a**hole. Here's my question: Is the woman guilty of misandry (hatred of males), or is she just a woman who hates one particular politician and used a male-exclusive insult because it seemed like the right word to fit the moment?

I think we judge people we know personally in the context of their entire lives. Nothing else would make sense or seem fair. But we judge strangers and public figures by statements taken out of context. Removing context is what turns a non-story into a story. And it allows the news media to put a face on evil, which is a good way to attract eyeballs and sell advertising.

I can think of a lot of people I suspect of being misogynists. The one thing they all have in common is that they are public figures. That means I don't know their context. Over the span of my entire life, I can't think of any man I've personally known who seemed to hate women in general. And the only overt employment discrimination against women I've ever seen was perpetrated by other women.

Sure, sure, I live in a bubble in Northern California. And I suppose I was raised in a bubble in upstate New York. I'll grant you that misogyny exists. Let's prove you're right in the comments below. My question today is this: Is there any man that you know well that you suspect of hating women in general? (It doesn't count if the man is guilty of only stereotyping. Misogyny is specifically about hatred.)


Personally, I've never seen blatant disregard for women either. Stereotyping, yes, though I've seen plenty of that directed at men from women as well.

The closest I've seen is within the military. Many males are frustrated that females get a free pass on a lot of the physical training. Even in the Marine Corps, females only do flexed arm hang rather than pull ups, and have lower standards for run times. And it's not that they don't think that females can perform at the same level as the males, it's just that they aren't required to. I've met quite a few Marines who would be fine with women serving in a combat role, but only if they are held to the same standard as males are.


I've also noticed that a lot of the stereotypes seem to be self-reinforcing. I've met women who aren't good with technical stuff and aren't physically capable, because they have convinced themselves that they don't need to know or be capable of that sort of thing. It's a mental stumbling block that holds them back. I know women who I'd trust to drag me out of a firefight, and others I wouldn't trust with a pocketknife, and the only difference is their mental attitude.

[eldargal]

If misogyny was always blatent it would be much easier to combat. Unfortunately is is usually much more subtle, but fortunately true misogyny is quite rare. The main issue in modern western societies isn't actual misogyny but a low level sexism and hypocrisy that permeats many aspects of society. Many feminists are far too trigger happy with the word misogyny, see my earlier comments about feminists and women in general being our own worst enemy.

I agree wholeheartedly with not lowering the fitness standards for military service to make it easier on women. It is one of those areas where ideology takes over, we want more women in the military so we will make it easier for them to join, so more women will join. Nevermind the implication that women aren't good enough to enter otherwise nor addressing underlying cultural issues that may see women treated poorly in a very male dominatd environment.

[eldargal]

Ickle bit of a threadomancy here but I've noticed in other discussions (not just on BoLS) that some people don't really understand what is meant by certain concepts often discussed in feminism and debates on feminism. I've found a couple of useful links so I'm including them here and have added htem to the OP as well:

Privilege (http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html) (inc. male privilege (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/))
Male Gaze (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D/)
Female privilege (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/)

Privilege:

Privilege is not: About you. Privilege is not your fault. Privilege is not anything you've done, or thought, or said. It may have allowed you to do, or think, or say things, but it's not those things, and it's not because of those things. Privilege is not about taking advantage, or cheating, although privilege may make this easier. Privilege is not negated. I can't balance my white privilege against my female disadvantage and come out neutral. Privilege is not something you can be exempt from by having had a difficult life. Privilege is not inherently bad. It really isn't.



Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It's about advantages you have that you think are normal. It's about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It's about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf.

Almost everyone who is reading this had some form of privilege. If you are a member of three marginalized groups, in ill health, and poor, you're still able to access and use the internet, both demonstrating and conferring privilege.

Some privileges are easy to demonstrate: Can you go into a random restaurant and order food? That's not something that those with food allergies, diabetics, celiacs, or a range of other conditions can count on. It's not something people whose religious convictions include following Kosher, Halal or other faith-based dietary restrictions (there are Christians, Buddhists and others to whom this applies) can count on in western society either.

Some privileges are harder to demonstrate: If you get a job, to what extent was that based on the way you look, your gender, your accent, your connections? How can you tell?

Example:

[T]rue gender equality is actually perceived as inequality. A group that is made up of 50% women is perceived as being mostly women. A situation that is perfectly equal between men and women is perceived as being biased in favor of women.

And if you don’t believe me, you’ve never been a married woman who kept her family name. I have had students hold that up as proof of my “sexism.” My own brother told me that he could never marry a woman who kept her name because “everyone would know who ruled that relationship.” Perfect equality – my husband keeps his name and I keep mine – is held as a statement of superiority on my part.

[eldargal]

Stupid double post.

[Phototoxin]

I'm all for equality of opportunity but not forced equality (artificial ratios of women:men in jobs for no reason other than political correctness), but it is my sad experience of nutty feminism that they seem to be less about equality and more about feeling oppressed.
That said I'm against abortion which automatically puts me in the 'anti-feminist' camp by default which is ironic as abortions disproportionately happen to unborn girls.

[eldargal]

Forced equality is still equality, I'm not a huge fan of quotas either but it helps break down much of the resistance. When the people selecting new employees, for example, are predominately white men they tend to pick predominately white men. It's also very easy to me against forced equality when your gender already has most of the power, you have something to lose.

It isn't ironic. If you criminalize abortion you are denying women control over their own bodies in a way no male ever has to endure (unless we criminalise masturbation on the grounds that wasting sperm that could create life is also muder). But I don't want this to turn into another abortion debate.

[Wolfshade]

There are some problems with legistative quotas.

Firstly how do you apply it? Do you apply it on the workforce, the people applying, or based on local mix?
And should a better qualified person ever be denied a role in favour of a less suitable candidate purely because they fall into the wrong gender/age/race bracket.

Abortion whether you are pro-life or pro-choice is never equal. If a man want to have the child and the woman chooses to abort it is aborted, his view is not considered, and the same for the other way round, and furthermore by choosing to keep the child the mother can then force the father to pay child maintence.
I am not foolish enough to say that during the pregency that there is an equal division of labour but when it comes to the life of the child which they both helped produce in equal measure the mans views are entirely discounted.

I have no idea of a fair way to deal with this as if the man wanted to keep the child then it is unfair to the woman to have to bear it for 9 months and go through labour if she didn't want to. Similiarly, it is unfair on the father to be responsible for a child that he didn't want.

[jgebi]

well I feel like being religious atm and the bible dose say that women will always struggle against men. personaly I have a friend who sits more in the extremist side and it's a real ***** as she things I can't do anything right -_- thats the sort of thing thats bad (I think). I have no problem doing as I'm told by women most of the time for personal reasons I find them easier to obey most of the time and I'm not the only one I know whos like this and it's things like this that make proper equality a Utopian ideal and nothing more, this may seem hard but their seemed to be less problems when it was the man who would always stand his ground not the women

[eldargal]

There are some problems with legistative quotas.

Firstly how do you apply it? Do you apply it on the workforce, the people applying, or based on local mix?
And should a better qualified person ever be denied a role in favour of a less suitable candidate purely because they fall into the wrong gender/age/race bracket.
This seldom happens though. Usually there are many, many perfectly qualified candidates and the problem is choosing from them. If the peopel choosing are predominately white men they predominately choose white men. That cycle has to be broken. There are other issues with quotas, and as I said I'm not a huge fan of them either as they provide easy fodder to nutters. But they are still useful.


Abortion whether you are pro-life or pro-choice is never equal. If a man want to have the child and the woman chooses to abort it is aborted, his view is not considered, and the same for the other way round, and furthermore by choosing to keep the child the mother can then force the father to pay child maintence.
I am not foolish enough to say that during the pregency that there is an equal division of labour but when it comes to the life of the child which they both helped produce in equal measure the mans views are entirely discounted.

I have no idea of a fair way to deal with this as if the man wanted to keep the child then it is unfair to the woman to have to bear it for 9 months and go through labour if she didn't want to. Similiarly, it is unfair on the father to be responsible for a child that he didn't want.
True, abortion is never a nice thing. Much of the debate is ridiculously simplified especially in the US. Forcing a father to pay maintenance is hardly a money spinner though, it costs a lot more to raise a child to the age 18 than you get in maintenance payments over the same period.

[Wolfshade]

This seldom happens though. Usually there are many, many perfectly qualified candidates and the problem is choosing from them. If the peopel choosing are predominately white men they predominately choose white men. That cycle has to be broken. There are other issues with quotas, and as I said I'm not a huge fan of them either as they provide easy fodder to nutters. But they are still useful.
They do their job as long as they are applied properly, I think part of the issue is that people are scarred of them and so do employe less qualified in order to be seen as pc.



True, abortion is never a nice thing. Much of the debate is ridiculously simplified especially in the US. Forcing a father to pay maintenance is hardly a money spinner though, it costs a lot more to raise a child to the age 18 than you get in maintenance payments over the same period.
I was quite concerned with how I wrote that comment as it is highly contensious and it is very easy to cause offence where none is intended, I am glad that it came across that way.
In regard to this, a friend of mine he has two children from a previous partnership and the unemployed mother gets the moeny from the government to raise the children and his maintence, which he does not begrudge paying, but whenever the children need a new X it is always him that has to pay it, now they have joint custody and spend similiar times with each parent so he bears the cost of food as well. He feels that the money he pays to maintain the children is not being spent on them. Though I suppose this is an individual case. I know I would like to be reasurred that if I were to be paying maintainence that those monies were soley spent on the children and not the mother.

[eldargal]

Yes the issues are more to do with how they are applied. If some people are choosing less qualified people to seem PC then that is a problem as it feeds the perception that they are just a tool for forcing change on companies for ideological purposes rather than addressing genuine grievances. Which is something people seem to forget is that there IS a glass ceiling for women and that is obscene in any country that claims to respect individual freedom and equality.

It may happen sometimes, but again it is individuals abusing the system rather than a flawed system. Also context is required, a few decades ago the man would always get custody regardless for the reasons for divorce. They could then legally prevent the mother from seeing their children again, at least until the children were independent. So a man could cheat on his wife and beat her, she could demand a divorce, get one with little in the way of financial settlement and lose access to her children entirely. They could be left literally with nothing but the clothes they were wearing. The system may sometimes tip too far in the other direction but never to the degree it was tipped against women.



Foe newcomers to this thread:

READ THE FIRST POST. Please, it sums up precisely what feminism is and why it is important. Don't come into it at this point without familiarising yourself with it.

[Wolfshade]

I think that the issue is that this country does not respect individual freedom and equality fundamentally.

It likes to think it does but fails ever so often in trying to be fair and equitable.

[Earl Harbinger]

Feminism is one of the most misunderstood philosophies in the modern world, and it is entirely the fault of feminists that this is so. Growing up even I didn't consider myself to be a feminist until my mother sat down and explained exactly what feminism is at its core, with all the misandry and nonsense shorn away. I thought I'd write it here as I see a lot of people who plainly have no clue what feminism is.

In fact the very core tenet of feminism is easy to explain:

A woman should be able to make her own choices and control her destiny inofar as any individual can.

That's it really. To elaborate, though:

Women should have the same political rights and responsibilities as a man.
Women should have the same social and legal rights and freedoms a man enjoys.
Women should be paid the same for doing the same work as a man.
Women should not be subjected to discrimination or abuse simply because they are women.
Women should not be barred from doing something a man can do based solely on their gender*.


Anyone who believes in the freedom to be in charge of their own life insofar as any individual can should consider themselves a feminist.

*So if you are advertising for a new employee and the final choice is between a man and a woman, your decision should be based on their skills, not their gender.

So there you have it. Feminism is not a man-hating ideology based around putting women ahead of men**, but simply the ideal that we should not be discriminated against because of our gender. Of course feminist theory is far more complicated than this, with as many viewpoints as feminists, but you won't find many who disagree with these as the basic tenets.

**There is an extremist feminist element that do believe in such things, and they are the single most damaging thing to women's rights there is. Equality can not be replaced as a goal by revenge.

Please keep any responses polite.

Edit: Adding a few links to help clarify certain concepts that feminists often talk about and people (men) often misconstrue:
Privilege (http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html) (inc. male privilege (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/))
Male Gaze (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D/)
Female privilege (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/)

It seems to me that Libertarianism would address all of those issues without limiting the scope to only the female gender. If everyone has equal protection under the law, if everyone has equal opportunity, if everyone has property rights and contract rights, and if the government is kept to its most minimal size then everyone has liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness. In a truly free society there would be no need of feminism.

I dislike making assumptions of other people's views but your inclusion of male privilege it seems that you believe that "sexism" (I use the term as a catchall for the real and preceived male discrimination against women that feminism seeks to combat) is a result of a collective decision whether conscious or subconscious of males to oppress women. That is not accurate. The feminism for which you advocate (as well as the free society for which I advocate) can not exist or even be championed in anything less than a post industrial society. The concept of women being of lesser worth than men, which you find so abhorrent, is nothing more than the cultural resonance of thousands of years of honest asessment of the value of women in a pre industrial society.

Women are inherently smaller and weaker than men, while there are always individual exceptions it is an inarguable fact that men are biologically superior to women in their capacity to do physical labor. In a pre industrial society wherein people are dependent on physical labor and low technology equipment/machinery to produce food men are in fact more valuable than women. Both genders consume roughly the same amount of food yet men produce more labor. This is the reason behind pre industrial subsistence farming cultures valuing women less. Without technological and commercial advances women simply don't have the opportunity to be as productive or more productive than men. If you traveled to pre industrial cultures in the world today or went back in time to visit any it would be impossible to convince them that women were of equal value because it would be factually untrue and defy logic. This honest inequality was an ingrained part of human society for thousands of years, it's impossible for it to go away in a relative eyeblink.

[Earl Harbinger]

I think that the issue is that this country does not respect individual freedom and equality fundamentally.

It likes to think it does but fails ever so often in trying to be fair and equitable.

England not respecting individual freedom and liberty? Wonder how that got started? ;)

http://youtu.be/GS_1bzaj2fw

[ElectricPaladin]

I thought I'd contribute with this open letter (http://burningzeppelinexperience.blogspot.com/2013/03/dear-norm-you-feminist-you.html) I wrote to a podcast host. He still hasn't responded, but it pretty much sums up a lot of my feelings on the matter, and I'm told it's a good read.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm not in favour of positive discrimination myself. Granted, as a 30 something white male, I've never had to face discrimination as such. But I wouldn't like to miss out on a job because of my low melanin levels or possession of a Y chromosome. As it is, if I don't get a position, I only hold myself to account. And perhaps controversially, I feel there are those out there who use perceived discrimination to avoid facing their own failings.

For instance, last place I worked was pretty diverse. Not so many ethnic minorities, but then my local area isn't noted for its ethnic diversity.

In my department were a number of women. One was truly stunning. Tall, slim Nordic blonde. Another was obese. A third? Well, I now know where Jeremy Kyle. Gets his guests from. After a few months, the hottie got a promotion to a higher department. Straight off the bat, the other two start ranting the hottie only got the position because she'd assumed the position. Yet they both missed something. Hottie was seriously smart, and a good worker. The two that missed out? Lazy, feckless, hobby and generally pretty obnoxious. All the time I worked there, neither of them even came close to hitting their target. But rather than reflect, and see if they needed to change their approach, boom, straight to screaming discrimination.

Of course, anecdote is anecdotal, but I fear positive discrimination is not the solution. What they need to do us to get back to all interviewees, with positive feedback. This will aid applicants and let them know if they're just barking up the wrong tree, or if on the day their happened to be a stronger candidate.

[Earl Harbinger]

Somebody needs to help me understand the whole "Slut Walk" concept because if it means what it seems to me it does then I really don't get it. I think I understand the intent but it really seems like it could be done better.

I've been around for a few decades and in my experience "slut" has always meant promiscuity or "easy" behavior; it described somebody who had low standards for their sexual partners. The promiscuous, hedonistic behavior associated with sluttiness doesn't seem to be, (in my humble opinion as a husband, father and upstanding citizen of the community) as a healthy lifestyle for women to champion on all levels, physical/mental/emotional. I freely admit that growing up in suburban WASP household has given certain biases (we all have our biases it's part of being human) and that my personal moral compass tends to align for the most part with "traditional family values" (I'm also a Libertarian who has no problem with gay marriage(and I also like parentheses)) I think there are rational, holistic reasons for disapproving of "slutty" behavior.

People have a natural right to ownership of their own bodies and people should be free to act as they want as long as their actions don't hurt others or deprive others of their liberty. I understand the traditional roles that women have been boxed into over the course of human history and I understand the desire for sexual empowerment and freedom. I don't understand why a woman would want or need to embrace "sluttyness" to obtain it. It strikes me as lowering the standards of behavior rather than a push for equality. Yes, women have every right to be engage in promiscuity, use men for one night stands and casual sex, but I don't see why you'd want it.

Sex is a very intimate act involving your body, an integral part of your identity and sense of being. Cheapening the act by making it meaningless also cheapens yourself. Self esteem is good, people should strive to have a good opinion of themselves but self esteem shouldn't be a substitute for self respect. Other people see how you value/respect yourself and they alter their level of respect for you accordingly. One of my wife's suitemates in college slept with most of the football team. The guys thought that was great, her suitemates thought less of her for it. Yes, she had every right to sleep with whomever she wants and being promiscuous doesn't make her a bad person but it's hard to see a person let others use her body as a masturbatory aid as a leisure activity and not react with the thought that she deserves better.

Yes, the media enjoys portraying men/boys as hanging out in locker rooms, bars and card tables high fiving each other over their latest nightly conquest. Yes, stereotypes and caricatures that we see in the media have a kernel of truth, that's why people can relate to them. That said, the way I remember my high school and college day were more like, Wow, your girlfriend is hot and awesome you're such a lucky guy and Hey don't you guys ever get tired of drinking and playing Goldeneye, do you think we'll ever find girlfriends? with very little Awesome job charming your way into that girl's pants for a one night stand good think you're never going to call her and she'll think you're a scumbag that used her for sex and tell all of her friends to stay far away from you and us because we're your friends fist bump dog!

I can understand wanting to "take back" the term slut, sorta, but I think you could accomplish just as much, likely more, by just choosing a different word. There's too much negative baggage, I wouldn't recommend that the Druids try to take back the swastika either.

It's bad enough that girls are inundated with over sexualized images as it is, I don't think we need to be encouraging people to call them sluts. I was a big Thundercats fan, when that cartoon came out in the mid 1980s my brothers and I loved it, we were right in the 8-10 year old target audience. The original Thundercats had Cheetar as a somewhat muscular, athletic female in a unitard, the reboot of Thundercats has Cheetara as Barbie shaped girl in a skimpy outifit. First, I don't even understand that, I wasn't fapping to cartoons when I was 8 years old so I don't know what the target audience for it's trying to reach. Secondly, I'd like for my daughter to be able to watch cartoons without getting a body image complex. Here's a good blog post about Cheetara:
http://cartoonvixens.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-cheetara-comparison.html

I don't think there's some magic number of sexual partners that makes somebody a slut. I don't think either gender should sell themselves short or use other people for meaningless sex. I want my children to grow up with the understanding that sex can be a fun part of a healthy relationship. I don't know if slut walks are the way to achieve that.

Also, I don't think somebody's wardrobe makes them "slutty" but it's important to understand that while we see ourselves from the inside out, other people see us from the outside in. When I meet a new person I don't know them, I don't know the content of their charater, etc. but I see what they look like and draw conclusions from it. We judge on appearances, that's just human nature. If you want the world to see you in a certain light but you dress in a way that presents and image that conflicts with that it's not the world's fault for not seeing the inner you. Women shouldn't be forced to wear burkas but they I can't see a whole lot of instances where dressing like you're about to go on stage to pole dance is appropriate either. Is there an instance where a woman would want to walk into a room and have every guy that sees her think She's a slut?

[Psychosplodge]

England not respecting individual freedom and liberty? Wonder how that got started? ;)


http://youtu.be/GS_1bzaj2fw
A silly damp tart handing out swords seems a lot better than democracy considering the participants of Jeremy Kyle (or Jerry Springer for our disadvantaged readers) are entitled to take part.



I'm not in favour of positive discrimination myself. Granted, as a 30 something white male, I've never had to face discrimination as such.

Try getting a council house, then you'll get to experience it.

[ElectricPaladin]

Try getting a council house, then you'll get to experience it.

Wow... I guess there's a first time for everything. Personally, I have a lot of problems with the way the idea of "privilege" is articulated, but it really applies here.

Mr. Mystery, as a 30-something white male, you have enjoyed a lot of benefits. Most of them are invisible to you, for two reasons. Firstly, because you've always enjoyed them, so you have no context for noticing them. And secondly, because a lot of them are perfectly reasonable things that everyone should expect to have. The thing is, a lot of people don't.

I'm not going to try to explain this myself. There's a wealth of writing on the topic. Check out this (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/) and - Lizard help me, I'm sick of this article, and if you're sick of it too I apologize in advance, but if you haven't read it at least once you should - this one (http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html).

The latter article talks a lot more about the benefits you get for being white. However, some of the details still apply, and the general stuff is absolutely applicable. The former is by far superior in every way, and talks about the concept of privilege in more general terms.

The thing I want to stress is that I'm not trying to get you to feel guilty. It's not your fault. You didn't do anything wrong. You didn't make this world, and the fact that you're participating in this conversation makes you part of the solution. Most of what you've enjoyed for being a white dude are entirely reasonable expectations, not special benefits. However, it's important to get that not everyone on earth - including the 51% of the human population who is female - do not enjoy these basic, reasonable expectations. Put in this context, "positive discrimination" becomes a lot harder to pin down. It's actually an attempt to negate the effects of the mountain of ordinary negative discrimination that non-males, non-straight, non-white, non-cis-gendered humans experience all day.

[Earl Harbinger]

Wow... I guess there's a first time for everything. Personally, I have a lot of problems with the way the idea of "privilege" is articulated, but it really applies here.

Mr. Mystery, as a 30-something white male, you have enjoyed a lot of benefits. Most of them are invisible to you, for two reasons. Firstly, because you've always enjoyed them, so you have no context for noticing them. And secondly, because a lot of them are perfectly reasonable things that everyone should expect to have. The thing is, a lot of people don't.

I'm not going to try to explain this myself. There's a wealth of writing on the topic. Check out this (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/) and - Lizard help me, I'm sick of this article, and if you're sick of it too I apologize in advance, but if you haven't read it at least once you should - this one (http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html).

The latter article talks a lot more about the benefits you get for being white. However, some of the details still apply, and the general stuff is absolutely applicable. The former is by far superior in every way, and talks about the concept of privilege in more general terms.

The thing I want to stress is that I'm not trying to get you to feel guilty. It's not your fault. You didn't do anything wrong. You didn't make this world, and the fact that you're participating in this conversation makes you part of the solution. Most of what you've enjoyed for being a white dude are entirely reasonable expectations, not special benefits. However, it's important to get that not everyone on earth - including the 51% of the human population who is female - do not enjoy these basic, reasonable expectations. Put in this context, "positive discrimination" becomes a lot harder to pin down. It's actually an attempt to negate the effects of the mountain of ordinary negative discrimination that non-males, non-straight, non-white, non-cis-gendered humans experience all day.

I can understand why you'd be sick of that Peggy McIntosh article it's pretty ridiculous. She obviously has difficulty discerning the difference between being wealthy and being white. Almost every single one of her 26 points of "privilege" aren't attributable to ethnicity but are products of actions and attitudes that allow anyone, regardless of race or gender to achieve greater economic status. Taking the three simple steps of graduating high school, getting a job and wait until you're 21 to get married and/or have kids (the Brookings Institute (http://www.washingtonpost.com/postlive/opinion-three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/2013/03/13/8695a056-8a97-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html) did a study on it). The country is full of success stories of non white minorities who valued education, avoided pitfalls like teen pregnancy and gangs and consequently reached middle class status or better. There's no special white advantage. Asians do better than whites in a lot of areas by followingg the same formula. Nobody professes that there's a hidden Asian privilege that empowers them to do so. There are trailer parks full of impoverished white people with far more in common with inner city blacks than suburban whites and they got there by following the same path of dropping out of school, having illegitimate children, not getting a job and criminal behavior. If you come from a stable family that values education you stand a good chance of overcoming whatever obstacles are in your way to achieving at least a "middle class" lifestyle.

It is laughable to for McIntosh to claim that white people have the privilege of being able to get a comptetent hair cut in any barbershop/salon unlike black people. Do beauticians/hair stylists/whatever the proper job title is, only get taught to at beautician school how to cut certain ethnicity's hair and not others? The hair salon argument has nothing to do with ethnic privilege and everything to do with geography and demographics. Hair salons/barbershops in neighborhoods that are made up predominantly of one ethnic group will of course be better cutting/styling that type of hair.

McIntosh seems to have fallen prey to the age old problem that correlation is not causation.

[Mr Mystery]

Erm... I wasn't whining about being a white 30 something male :)

I was just saying that as one, my complete lack of cards may bring a level of introspection that those who play whatever cards they have may be lacking. Hence the example. :)

[Deadlift]

“Equality is not a concept. It's not something we should be striving for. It's a necessity. Equality is like gravity. We need it to stand on this earth as men and women, and the misogyny that is in every culture is not a true part of the human condition. It is life out of balance, and that imbalance is sucking something out of the soul of every man and woman who's confronted with it. We need equality. Kinda now.”
― Joss Whedon

[Psychosplodge]

EP I don't think we really go in for the white guilt thing over here. Yeah the looney left have taken over history education and airbrushed bits to and become apologists for the Empire, but most people either don't care or see it as a better era of morales and standards... :D

Where they didn't have chavs...

[ElectricPaladin]

EP I don't think we really go in for the white guilt thing over here. Yeah the looney left have taken over history education and airbrushed bits to and become apologists for the Empire, but most people either don't care or see it as a better era of morales and standards... :D

Where they didn't have chavs...

IT'S NOT ABOUT GUILT! RAAAARGH! READ MY POST!

Sorry. Pet peeve there.

My problem with the way privilege is usually articulated is that it invites this criticism. You should read the stuff I attempted to add in the rest of my own post. Nowhere in those articles does it say that it's your fault or that you should feel guilty. If you do feel guilty, well, that's your problem. We aren't going to get anywhere in resolving these issues if we pretend that brown/female/gay/transgendered people don't have problems out of fear that white people will feel sad. Come on, people. We can do better.

So, no.I'm not saying that you need to feel guilty. But, if you want to solve these problems, you do need to acknowledge that the world is broken. Even if the world is broken in your favor, and that makes you uncomfortable. Rise above the guilty feelings - because that's not what it's about - and make things better.

[Psychosplodge]

sorry it's been a long day,

But I meant where you apologised saying I'm not trying to make you feel guilty...

also this
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/72323_516810891693798_806001155_n.jpg

[Necron2.0]

“Equality is not a concept. It's not something we should be striving for. It's a necessity. Equality is like gravity. We need it to stand on this earth as men and women, and the misogyny that is in every culture is not a true part of the human condition. It is life out of balance, and that imbalance is sucking something out of the soul of every man and woman who's confronted with it. We need equality. Kinda now.”
― Joss Whedon

I disagree entirely with this. Rather, I agree completely with the sentiment and am all for the ideals behind those sentiments, I just think it is woefully naive and shows a profound lack of knowledge in human history to think equality and tolerance is fundamental to the human condition. Today is one of the best times to be a woman. The tolerance of today will not last, however. People like to think of human values and mores as evolving ... progressing. They do not. Fundamentally, we are big dumb animals, running on a hamster wheel. The human condition is a series of cycles that ever repeat. As example, once homosexuality was tolerated, then it was persecuted, then it was tolerated again, then persecuted again. In the 20's homosexuality was celebrated. In the 40's and 50's it was shunned. Starting in the 70's it began being tolerated again, and soon it will probably go back to being reviled. The male/female dynamic follows a similar pattern, although the frequency has a longer period.

[eldargal]

Which is precisely why we have to keep challenging the idea that women are inferior, the more ingrained the concept of equality it gets the less chance of reverting to the old chauvinist mores of the past.

Also homosexuality wasn't celebrated in the 20's, it was still illegal.

Edit: Also I reject the idea that progress isn't being made. If you look at the progress we have made socially over the past three thousand years (the historical period of human existence) we have never regressed to the complete subjugation of society to the elite that we saw in the period of the early historical God Kings. It's more like 3 steps forward, 2.5 steps back. We have also developed institutional stability to an unparalleled degree in the West which means a significant regression is very hard to see happening realistically.

[Mr Mystery]

You will also note those shrieking the loudest to keep things as they are are all, well....more than a little bit nutty.

Those screaming for things to go back to biblical teachings only are....completely and utterly insane.

Look at how far the West has come in the post-war years. No restriction on voting barring age. No legal restrictions on who you're allowed to fancy. Enormous strides have been made in my life time alone (1980-today. I don't intend on ending it today either. Life is fun!). Are there those who take it all too far? Yup. But let me assure, as probably one of the leftiest, most liberalists people on this board... we're probably even more embarassed by our lunatics than the right are by their's. Indeed the difference between myself and any of my right wing colleagues (sounds like a criticism of them, it's not!) is negligible. A lot of the time we agree on the vast majority of political subjects, but come at it from different angles.

Equality is getting there. Both sides seem utterly intent on creating obstacles (see my earlier point about 'postitive discrimination' and why I feel it's utterly counter productive) but the majority of people just want an easy, quiet life. And when you appreciate that about all your fellow men (and women, and those who are yet to decide) the exact mechanics of things become....immaterial!

[Earl Harbinger]

IT'S NOT ABOUT GUILT! RAAAARGH! READ MY POST!

Sorry. Pet peeve there.

My problem with the way privilege is usually articulated is that it invites this criticism. You should read the stuff I attempted to add in the rest of my own post. Nowhere in those articles does it say that it's your fault or that you should feel guilty. If you do feel guilty, well, that's your problem. We aren't going to get anywhere in resolving these issues if we pretend that brown/female/gay/transgendered people don't have problems out of fear that white people will feel sad. Come on, people. We can do better.

So, no.I'm not saying that you need to feel guilty. But, if you want to solve these problems, you do need to acknowledge that the world is broken. Even if the world is broken in your favor, and that makes you uncomfortable. Rise above the guilty feelings - because that's not what it's about - and make things better.

My problem isn't with your views. I think we agree more than we disagree. Everyone has biases; it's part of human nature. We should all strive to be self aware of our biases and realize how they influence our behavior. Not every bias is a bad bias but there are certainly ones that can hold us back socially and hinder intellectual growth and honesty.

I wasn’t trying to ascribe the views put forth by McIntosh to you. The primary issue I have with McIntosh and her attempt to describe privilege is that she comes across as if she thinks we’re still living in 1957 and segregation is in full effect. Discrimination still exists yes but the discrimination of today is not the same as the discrimination of yesterday. We no longer have institutionalized discrimination nor is it a social norm. The public today would never accept segregation or that women can’t own property, vote, be athletes or run a business. We haven’t overcome discrimination on the individual level yet, which is the hardest to do and will likely take at least a few more generations but we’re certainly heading in the right direction.

IMHO, privilege exists in the sense that children have no control over the family that they’re born into or the various disadvantages and advantages that are included. There are numerous variables, single parent vs 2 parents, healthy relationships vs unhealthy relationships, drug addiction, criminal records, geographic location, level of education for the parents, value placed on education by the parents, financial resources etc. Yes, there are some advantages and disadvantages to ethnicity and gender but they pale (no pun intended) in comparison to the other factors that convey advantages and disadvantages. Overplaying the power of race and gender to convey privilege is counter productive to addressing the real problems that inhibit people from achieving their full potential.

[Necron2.0]

Also homosexuality wasn't celebrated in the 20's, it was still illegal.
So was alcohol (at least in the US) and that didn't do much to inhibit its popularity. ;) Trends tend to go contrary to the eddicts of governments. I remember reading about these things called "Pansy" clubs, which were basically gay show clubs. Supposedly they were quite popular in London, Paris, Germany and the East Coast of the US. Berlin as I understand it had something of a vibrant gay community right up until around 1939. They talk about it a little here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties#Homosexuality).


Edit: Also I reject the idea that progress isn't being made. If you look at the progress we have made socially over the past three thousand years (the historical period of human existence) we have never regressed to the complete subjugation of society to the elite that we saw in the period of the early historical God Kings. It's more like 3 steps forward, 2.5 steps back. We have also developed institutional stability to an unparalleled degree in the West which means a significant regression is very hard to see happening realistically.

True ... until a radical religious cult comes storming down your street, out to teach the infidel a lesson. I would like to be optimistic about the future, but I have no faith at all in humanity, and far, FAR less in governments.

In general though, I was limiting my scope to male/female relations, which tends to ping-pong most significantly, from highs were men and women are more or less equals, even on the battlefield (see Boudica) to lows where women are little more than someone's personal property (as in the Victorian Era).

[Earl Harbinger]

Which is precisely why we have to keep challenging the idea that women are inferior, the more ingrained the concept of equality it gets the less chance of reverting to the old chauvinist mores of the past.

Also homosexuality wasn't celebrated in the 20's, it was still illegal.

Edit: Also I reject the idea that progress isn't being made. If you look at the progress we have made socially over the past three thousand years (the historical period of human existence) we have never regressed to the complete subjugation of society to the elite that we saw in the period of the early historical God Kings. It's more like 3 steps forward, 2.5 steps back. We have also developed institutional stability to an unparalleled degree in the West which means a significant regression is very hard to see happening realistically.

When did we have a generation of women that lost 83% of the social equality enjoyed by their mothers? I guess you could make an argument for the Dark Ages but it's not as if the Roman Empire was a bastion of gender equality. Sure there hasn't been consistent year to year gains for the last 3,000 years but there has been steady progress. Technology has progressed throughout human history. Not every region progresses at the same rate or at the same time, there are short periods of stagnation or regression but if you took snapshots of humanity every 100 years for the past 3,000 years you'd see steady technology progress. With technological progress comes gender equality. Technology allows us to increase productivity and that increase levels the playing field. If you look at basic production like subsistence farming or blacksmithing women are at a biologicial disadvantage to men in terms of productivity but with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent advances women can be just as or more productive than men. Equal productivity creates equal value which in turn is reflected in revised social norms and gender equality. Technology and free markets level playing fields and promote equality and therefore act as a bulwark against any significant loss in gender equality.

[Earl Harbinger]

So was alcohol (at least in the US) and that didn't do much to inhibit its popularity. ;) Trends tend to go contrary to the eddicts of governments. I remember reading about these things called "Pansy" clubs, which were basically gay show clubs. Supposedly they were quite popular in London, Paris, Germany and the East Coast of the US. Berlin as I understand it had something of a vibrant gay community right up until around 1939. They talk about it a little here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties#Homosexuality).



True ... until a radical religious cult comes storming down your street, out to teach the infidel a lesson. I would like to be optimistic about the future, but I have no faith at all in humanity, and far, FAR less in governments.

In general though, I was limiting my scope to male/female relations, which tends to ping-pong most significantly, from highs were men and women are more or less equals, even on the battlefield (see Boudica) to lows where women are little more than someone's personal property (as in the Victorian Era).



You're just referring to the UK right? Because there are plenty of places in the world today where women are accosted by religious police and/or considered property, etc. The obstacles remaining in the way for full gender equality in the UK or US are not insurmountable. The obstacles faced by women in the 3rd world and developing nations are insurmountable. There's the mutaween and wahabbists in Saudi Arabia, the Taliban in Aghanistan/Pakistan, the scum the promote the rape, murder and genital mutilation of women in sub saharan Africa, baby girls are killed in China, etc. As time passes the technology gap widens, the social and/or relgious forces that support inequality become more entrenched and more women are denied their natural rights and liberty. Of course this is a difficult problem to solve because neither the US or the EU is going to launch an expansive new wave of colonial imperialism and altruisticly invade the rest of the planet in order to create viable economies, give technology, build schools, eradicate existing cultures and enforce new laws and social norms by force of arms. Fortunately those girls live far away from me so they really only exist in a metaphysical abstract way so it's easy to pretend that they don't exist and enjoy the fact that my daughter will grow up with more equality and opportunity than any girl in the previous generations of our family.

[Mr Mystery]

Earl. The issues in the third world are issues we overcame on our way to the top. So to say they're insurmountable is somewhat deluded, and indeed really quite racist.

Indeed, if history is to be believed (very hard to say, it being written by the victor, or some revisionist at worst) the rise of Christianity saw quite the set back in terms of wimmin's lib and bad throwing. The ancient Egyptians made little distinction between the Gender's, and homosexuality was no big thing to the Romans or Greeks, whose ashes the modern world arguably sprang from.

Slavery and indentured servitude existed well into the industrial revolution, and being a lefty, I can make a strong case in terms of wage comparisons that indentured servitude just changed its name....

[eldargal]

Even Saudi Arabia is making some progress, too. The king recently appointing women to the parliament type thing they have and has pledged to protect womens rights. Change is gradual but then so it was in the West. Still a long, long way to go and Saudi Arabia is one of the few Middle Eastern countries to see improvement, but not alone and progress isn't limited just to the Arab world.

People tend to over-estimate the difference we may have seen if Roman polytheism had prevailed. Don't misunderstand, I'm a huge fan of the Roman empire and a classical archaeologist, but the idea that if Christianity hadn't taken control we would have seen vast improvements is flawed. For a start Rome tended towards entropy, an abundance of slave labour meant there was little need for labour saving devices so even though they had steam engines powering temple doors in Alexandra it may not have dawned on them to use it to push things around. Womens rights were not a whole lot better, we could own property and make money and so forth but there had to be a male legal protector to handle public affairs on womens behalf. Better than under Christianity but still not great.

[Mr Mystery]

Compared to what followed, Roman women's rights were positively enlightened.

And more on the West's apparent civilisation. It's less than 50 years in England since homosexual behaviour was illegal, and I'm very sad to say in Scotland, less than 34 years. Women's suffrage? Less than a century here in the UK.

Lets face it, we've not become more noble and good hearted, we just got better off and better educated. And in the poorest countries, it's all changing. Slowly perhaps, but it is happening. We live in interesting times!

[eldargal]

It's true that womens rights in the preceding, well, fifteen hundred years were considerably worse but then with feudalism men weren't much better off. Feudal serfs had fewer rights and opportunities than Roman citizens or even freed slaves. So it wasn't just women that were treated worse, everyone was. It is an important distinction to make because while the regression was significant it wasn't limited along gender or ethnic lines.

Also we forget how much of our moral compass today has been shaped by the evolution of judeo-Christian morality. We don't know how roman morality would have evolved and there is no guarantee it would have evolved along similar lines. You only have to look at Saudi Arabia (again) to see educated women with a radically different conception of equality than Western women. Something that is glossed over, ignored or sneered at in the West.

[Mr Mystery]

Fair points all.

Ultimately, I don't think we will ever see true equality. It's not in our nature, and at the end of the day, the processes of life itself means someone gets the poopy end of the stick. But that's not to say 'sod it, why bother'.

What we need to work towards is removing ingrained inequality, and get to a stage where everyone has an equal chance at getting to the clean end of the stick.

[eldargal]

Well it depends. Social and legal equality is certainly achievable, economic not so much. Not until we get a lot closer to global post-subsistence than we are now.

[Mr Mystery]

Legal? Yeah I guess. And it would be nice to see it not be a case of 'I see you have boobs. Quick, take hold of this end of the stick and don't argue'. or 'my, why a lot a melanin you have! This would make this your end'.

Social I really don't think we'll ever see. We're humanity, and that makes us buttholes. Look at Das Daily Mail. Not allowed to rag on the Jews any more (Hurrah for the blackshirts). Not allowed to be racist to afrocarribbean anymore. Not allowed to queer bash anymore! So they now pick on the poor, and Muslims, printing utter, utter rubbish and lies about both.

Take a human being, and they'll find something to irrationally fear/despise. Even myself, lefty as I am. I'm horribly judgemental about peoples entertainment habits. Far more benign, but still a hypocricy in itself.

[eldargal]

Education > Daily Mail. Sadly our education ranking is going the wrong way.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup. Richard Littlejohn is going after Transgendered people now, in his usual 'screaming racist and homophobe, but carefully writes to avoid it being proven' manner.

Poor sod hung themselves following the exposure and press interest.

[Deadlift]

I had no idea about this, typical Daily Mail / Littlejohn trash. I'm no lefty but ****s like this shouldn't allowed to write this trash. He claims he was worried the children would be confused. They ****ing are now their poor Teachers topped herself. ****ing prat.

[Mr Mystery]

Brings to mind the episodes of South Park where people just decide Butter's is confused over something or other.

Kids are rarely confused by anything. Confusion stems from not being able to reconcile one thing with another, which needs to be taught. You tell a kid 'and sometimes, a man will become a woman through their own volition' and guess what? They'll just accept it and move on, no big deal. Why? Because gender concepts are a helluva lot more complex than 'yeah. Call him 'Miss' now'. Gender concepts are taught from birth, they aren't inherent parts of the human psyche (blue for boys, pink for girls....or you know, let the kid choose it?). They will only see a transgendered person as odd or unusual if they are told it is odd or unusual, or wrong, or disgusting, or confusing, or whatever.

I think it's the mealy mouthed way he gets round shocking racism, transphobia and homophobia. He doesn't even have the courage of his convictions.

[eldargal]

Brings to mind the episodes of South Park where people just decide Butter's is confused over something or other.

Kids are rarely confused by anything. Confusion stems from not being able to reconcile one thing with another, which needs to be taught. You tell a kid 'and sometimes, a man will become a woman through their own volition' and guess what? They'll just accept it and move on, no big deal
Which is exactly why religious nutters (and bigots in general) try so hard to prevent things like homosexuality and transexuality etc. from being addressed sensibly. Explain it rationally and logically to children and they grow up without thinking about it as an issue. Which of course puts the fear of God (see what I did there?) into these people because the last thing they want is people seeing other people who are different as people as opposed to unnatural monsters who can safely be persecuted.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

I really don't understand bigots. Don't get me wrong, there are things in life I personally find distasteful. But as long as it's between consenting adults, and ideally behind closed doors (so not in public, regardless of your orientation or activity, yes that includes tonsil hockey) then it doesn't affect me in the least, so good luck to you.

Seriously, breaking it down points out how ridiculous it is.

This is John. John loves James.
This is James. James loves John.
John and James wish to make a solemn oath to love each other forever.
This is Bob.
Bob has never met John and James.
Bob demands that John and James can't make any kind of solemn oath.
Bob thinks what John and James do together is dirty.
Bob thinks his opinion actual matters in the grand scheme of things.
John and James aren't fussed for Bob's opinion, but are mildly depressed that people listen to Bob.

[Deadlift]

I find any kind of tonsil hockey in public distasteful lol. I'm old fashioned like that. Hold hands or find a room ;)

[Psychosplodge]

I object to casting aspersions on Bob's character, they sound more like the thoughts of a Geoffrey, Albert, or Ernest.

as much as I paw at the SO in public I don't want to see other people doing it, hypocritical I know but :p

[Magpie]

I'm sorry but it strikes me as really odd that you can express disdain for "tonsil hockey" in one post yet outrage for intolerance in another.

It's a really difficult situation presented here and I'll be honest and say that I'd be unsure how I would react if my son came home with a note that Mr Teacher was to become a Miss Teacher.

I think perhaps the central issue is the removal of choice. One party took the choice of gender reassignment which is fine and the school supporting that decision is all well and good but in doing so they removed the choice of the parents to not expose their children to that concept at their particular age. I think those sort of choices are a fundamental "right" of being a parent.

Of course shock jocks who jump on the band wagon for their own ends can simply go to hell.To drive someone to suicide is inexcusable.

[Wolfshade]

It's a really difficult situation presented here and I'll be honest and say that I'd be unsure how I would react if my son came home with a note that Mr Teacher was to become a Miss Teacher.

I think perhaps the central issue is the removal of choice. One party took the choice of gender reassignment which is fine and the school supporting that decision is all well and good but in doing so they removed the choice of the parents to not expose their children to that concept at their particular age. I think those sort of choices are a fundamental "right" of being a parent.

This situation came up wioth a collegues child, they were going to a RC school at the time. A letter went home and that was the end of it.

There is nothing wrong with being a bigot, indeed anyone who holds and believe or moral position in the right circumstances could be considered to be one. The question is as to how you act upon it.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm sorry but it strikes me as really odd that you can express disdain for "tonsil hockey" in one post yet outrage for intolerance in another.

It's a really difficult situation presented here and I'll be honest and say that I'd be unsure how I would react if my son came home with a note that Mr Teacher was to become a Miss Teacher.

I think perhaps the central issue is the removal of choice. One party took the choice of gender reassignment which is fine and the school supporting that decision is all well and good but in doing so they removed the choice of the parents to not expose their children to that concept at their particular age. I think those sort of choices are a fundamental "right" of being a parent.

Of course shock jocks who jump on the band wagon for their own ends can simply go to hell.To drive someone to suicide is inexcusable.

because who wants to watch anyones PDA? lol but just cause i don't want to watch anybody's doesn't mean i'm really that bothered beyond a silly comment above.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm sorry but it strikes me as really odd that you can express disdain for "tonsil hockey" in one post yet outrage for intolerance in another.

It's a really difficult situation presented here and I'll be honest and say that I'd be unsure how I would react if my son came home with a note that Mr Teacher was to become a Miss Teacher.

I think perhaps the central issue is the removal of choice. One party took the choice of gender reassignment which is fine and the school supporting that decision is all well and good but in doing so they removed the choice of the parents to not expose their children to that concept at their particular age. I think those sort of choices are a fundamental "right" of being a parent.

Of course shock jocks who jump on the band wagon for their own ends can simply go to hell.To drive someone to suicide is inexcusable.

Objecting to tonsil hockey in public is very different to objecting to tonsil hockey...

And what concept? Transgender is not illegal. It's not even remotely immoral (seriously, Bible utterly silent on it). Or should Schools offer up in depth Teacher CVs to prospective parents, just in case I dunno, they object to people who read two books on holiday instead of three? It's really that trivial.

What exactly needs explaining? He wanted to be a woman, so he became one. Like dress up. But all the time. Why? You'd have to ask him that. BOOM. Job jobbed, matter covered. You don't need to go into the hormones and surgeries and whatnots. Just explain that he is now a she, because some people want to do that.

[Deadlift]

I'm sorry but it strikes me as really odd that you can express disdain for "tonsil hockey" in one post yet outrage for intolerance in another.

It's a really difficult situation presented here and I'll be honest and say that I'd be unsure how I would react if my son came home with a note that Mr Teacher was to become a Miss Teacher.

I think perhaps the central issue is the removal of choice. One party took the choice of gender reassignment which is fine and the school supporting that decision is all well and good but in doing so they removed the choice of the parents to not expose their children to that concept at their particular age. I think those sort of choices are a fundamental "right" of being a parent.

Of course shock jocks who jump on the band wagon for their own ends can simply go to hell.To drive someone to suicide is inexcusable.

I don't think the parents should have had a choice to decide if their children should have been taught by this teacher post op. I don't see how her abilty to teach would have been affected. I think children's abilty to adapt to different situations is vastly underestimated. In fact it could have been a positive for the children. Sure some parents of course wouldn't like it and their choice would be to find new schools.

[eldargal]

It was nobodies business but hers, is what it boils down to. The parents and students had absolutely no right to know whatsoever.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd rather say 'no need to know'.

It's not like she underwent an operation to become an axe wielding homocidile maniac.

It's also worth noting she had likely been legally a woman for several years with nobody batting an eyelid because this sort of surgery isn't just done on a whim.

Again, if anyone was going to confuse the kids, it wasn't Miss. Or the School, but the Parents.

[eldargal]

No need and no right, it was her private medical history afterall.

[Deadlift]

I'd rather say 'no need to know'.

It's not like she underwent an operation to become an axe wielding homocidile maniac.


When I read this all I could think of was "World Eater School Teachers" flipping awesome.

[Deadlift]

No need and no right, it was her private medical history afterall.

Depends really, did she go back to teach the same children. If so I think some sort of explanation to the children would be acceptable, not their right to know as you say but why not at least explain (in bare bones basics) the reason why Mr is now Miss. If She were new to the school then no they didn't need to know.

[Earl Harbinger]

It was nobodies business but hers, is what it boils down to. The parents and students had absolutely no right to know whatsoever.

The teacher has the right to undergo whatever medical procedures she desired but in this scenario the students and parents had a right to know. A teacher taking a sabbatical and returning as a different gender would be very confusing to the children without any forewarning or explanation. The students and parents have no right to interfere with the teacher's personal choices but they were owed an explanation so that the children would be prepared for the change. If you don't want to have to explain things to children don't become a teacher.

[Mr Mystery]

To be fair, we all know the best way to become an Axe Wielding Homicidal Maniac is to drink Dr Vyvyan's cure.

As a cure for not being an Axe Wielding Homicidal Maniac, Dr Vyvyan is quite right, the potential market is enormous!

[Deadlift]

The teacher has the right to undergo whatever medical procedures she desired but in this scenario the students and parents had a right to know. A teacher taking a sabbatical and returning as a different gender would be very confusing to the children without any forewarning or explanation. The students and parents have no right to interfere with the teacher's personal choices but they were owed an explanation so that the children would be prepared for the change. If you don't want to have to explain things to children don't become a teacher.

You just said what I tried to, but far more eloquently. :)

[Earl Harbinger]

Earl. The issues in the third world are issues we overcame on our way to the top. So to say they're insurmountable is somewhat deluded, and indeed really quite racist.

Indeed, if history is to be believed (very hard to say, it being written by the victor, or some revisionist at worst) the rise of Christianity saw quite the set back in terms of wimmin's lib and bad throwing. The ancient Egyptians made little distinction between the Gender's, and homosexuality was no big thing to the Romans or Greeks, whose ashes the modern world arguably sprang from.

Slavery and indentured servitude existed well into the industrial revolution, and being a lefty, I can make a strong case in terms of wage comparisons that indentured servitude just changed its name....

The issues facing women in the world outside of the West are not insurmountable forever but the current generation of girls will not be able to affect change within their lifetime. An 8 year old girl in Uzbekistan is not going to get to grow up and be a thoracic surgeon without immigrating to the US or UK. The obstacles in that girl's way are insurmountable for her. Maybe her great grandchildren will be in a better situation, let's hope so.

The ancient Egyptians may have made little distinctions between the genders for the nobility but I don't think you can argue that the daughters of the slaves they kept or of their servants or of the lower classes had equality. Opinions can vary but I don't see how slavery and gender equality can coexist simultaneously. I think you'd be hard pressed to show that the majority of women in ancient Egypt weren't born with severely limited opportunity and liberty.

The Romans did better. IMHO it would be safe to say that females in the aristocracy had the opportunity to wield considerably influence through wealth and politics as family matriarchs and had some legal protections as citizens. Of course, women couldn't pad their political resumes with military victories since they weren't allowed in the military and they couldn't hold political office anyway. Then there's the whole slavery and indentured servitude thing, some women were definitely more equal than others. They did show tolerance toward homosexuality which is nice because what two consenting adults do for fun is nobody's business but their own. However, they were also free to molest their slaves which they lose points for again.

If you can make a strong case comparing at will employment with indentured servitude I'd like to hear it. Anybody who feels they are underpaid can quit their job and seek another one. Indentured servants can't quit their servitude. Employees today also have the ability to pursue and obtain more job skills that qualify them for better higher paid jobs, something that is typically unavailable to indentured servants. I would argue that the market pays people in accordance to the value of their skills and if somebody isn't earning enough money the problem is their skillset not the labor market.

[Earl Harbinger]

Well it depends. Social and legal equality is certainly achievable, economic not so much. Not until we get a lot closer to global post-subsistence than we are now.

That's exactly my point. As the rest of the world advances into post subsistence and their economies grow the potential productivity of women increases. Women becoming more equal in terms of economic productivity forces social and legal equality to increase to reflect the women's increased value. As economies grow infrastructure gets built and girls have schools to be educated in, hospitals and businesses to work in, courts to practice law in, etc.

[Magpie]

The teacher has the right to undergo whatever medical procedures she desired but in this scenario the students and parents had a right to know. A teacher taking a sabbatical and returning as a different gender would be very confusing to the children without any forewarning or explanation. The students and parents have no right to interfere with the teacher's personal choices but they were owed an explanation so that the children would be prepared for the change. If you don't want to have to explain things to children don't become a teacher.

That was pretty much what I was meaning, as a teacher you have a requirement to fulfil certain expectations given that you occupy the position of being a role model for other peoples children and a very influential role model at that.

I am not down on gender reassignment but I am down on removing the ability for parents to want a particular role model for their children and "this is my choice you need to deal with it" is no less intolerant than "I don't want my child being taught by a Transsexual so you are sacked."

[Magpie]

That's exactly my point. As the rest of the world advances into post subsistence and their economies grow the potential productivity of women increases.

That's only because of how society has been created.

In Hunter - Gatherer times the women's productivity was far in excess of the men I have seen it quoted that as much as 80% of food production was down to the women. Only physical superiority allow the men to be dominant and therefore assume positions of power and that situation was exacerbated upon the establishment of civilisations with the women being allocated menial roles.

[eldargal]

The teacher has the right to undergo whatever medical procedures she desired but in this scenario the students and parents had a right to know. A teacher taking a sabbatical and returning as a different gender would be very confusing to the children without any forewarning or explanation. The students and parents have no right to interfere with the teacher's personal choices but they were owed an explanation so that the children would be prepared for the change. If you don't want to have to explain things to children don't become a teacher.
Yes but that is a different scenario. In this case she had the operation performed some years prior to it becoming public knowledge. I should have been more clear, obviously a teacher going a away one gender and coming back another would require some explanation to teachers and students. Of course then you get a situation where the media would get involved and make a fuss anyway so it may be 'easier' to move schools after. Not a good situation.


That's only because of how society has been created.

In Hunter - Gatherer times the women's productivity was far in excess of the men I have seen it quoted that as much as 80% of food production was down to the women. Only physical superiority allow the men to be dominant and therefore assume positions of power and that situation was exacerbated upon the establishment of civilisations with the women being allocated menial roles.
Yup, as far as we call tell female inequality began with farming.

[Magpie]

Yes but that is a different scenario. In this case she had the operation performed some years prior to it becoming public knowledge. I should have been more clear, obviously a teacher going a away one gender and coming back another would require some explanation to teachers and students. Of course then you get a situation where the media would get involved and make a fuss anyway so it may be 'easier' to move schools after. Not a good situation.

I really feel the whole thing was mismanaged. A situation could have been brought about where Mr Teacher leaves and Ms Teacher comes back.

That person being one and the same is really nobody's business, it would never have been an issue without it being made an issue.

[Mr Mystery]

It shouldn't be an issue at all.

He is now a She. That's it. She hasn't come back as Jimmy Saville or a Catholic Priest. Her decision and choices have not impacted the lives of anyone else.

This is only difficult to explain to your kids if you're a bigot. Mr X is now Miss X. It's like Dress-Up, but all the time. Sorted. No need for confusion to creep in at all.

[Necron2.0]

It shouldn't be an issue at all.

He is now a She. That's it. She hasn't come back as Jimmy Saville or a Catholic Priest. Her decision and choices have not impacted the lives of anyone else.

This is only difficult to explain to your kids if you're a bigot. Mr X is now Miss X. It's like Dress-Up, but all the time. Sorted. No need for confusion to creep in at all.

No, it is an issue. Depending on the age of the children, they may not be able to understand, and as a parent, I choose when and under what circumstances the peculiarities of this world are presented to my child, based on whether or not she is mentally and emotionally ready for it.

[Earl Harbinger]

Yes but that is a different scenario. In this case she had the operation performed some years prior to it becoming public knowledge. I should have been more clear, obviously a teacher going a away one gender and coming back another would require some explanation to teachers and students. Of course then you get a situation where the media would get involved and make a fuss anyway so it may be 'easier' to move schools after. Not a good situation.


Yup, as far as we call tell female inequality began with farming.

I'm not in the UK so I don't know all the particular details. I don't have a problem with teachers changing genders and I don't think changing genders in and of itself should disqualify somebody from teaching. If the students start the school year with Ms. Whomever as their teacher it shouldn't matter that once upon a time that teacher was a Mr. Whomever. The teacher's previous gender is irrelevent to her ability to teach and only needs to be addressed if the previous gender was common knowledge to the school (if for instance the change happened over summer break). I don't think it would harm the children in any way and a simple explanation on the first day of class would cover it. Kids are resilient and understand that people come in different shapes, colors, sizes, etc. that's the whole point of having muppets on Sesame Street.

Gender inequality is rooted in farming. For better or worse civilization is also rooted in farming. Men have biological advantages when it comes to being productive at manual labor which is what you need for low technology farming. There are a lot of important positives to agrarian civilization it just needs a certain level of technological progress to offset women's biological handicap.

[YorkNecromancer]

A superb article on feminism's relevance to gaming. I think it has massive relevance to tabletop gaming as well.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

[eldargal]

That is a very good article, thanks for posting.:) I really don't think a lot of people get the implications of creating and sustaining an environment that actively of passively excludes women. Ignoring the moral issues the fact is you are narrowing the recruitment base for talented individuals by half. Not just coders but artists and writers and sound engineers and all the other innumerable skillsets that are utilised in the creation of video game development. So it doesn't just reduce the amount of potential sales by alienating some female consumers it can directly impact the talent pool developers have access too.

[YorkNecromancer]

Well, it reminds me of a BBC documentary about business (Hilary Devey's Women at the Top, September 2012) looking at women in business.

Turns out, many companies are now actively recruiting women where before they didn't, because all their analyses show that businesses with a genuine 50:50 split between male and female employees make 5% higher profits than businesses that are mono-gendered (be that male or female). Turns out that men and women are better when things are equal.

The thing I liked was that this proved the necessity of affirmative action for the simple reason it improved profits. At the end of the day, money is the only thing that matters to business, and gender equality makes more money, so that's the end of the discussion as far as businesses are concerned.

It's an excellent documentary, BTW. Short clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxtlr9NgCiU

[Magpie]

A superb article on feminism's relevance to gaming. I think it has massive relevance to tabletop gaming as well.

TBH I found it a bit rambling and opinionated but some valid points were made.
It really seemed to me to be talking more about how women are portrayed in games rather than women in the gaming industry ?

[YorkNecromancer]

I found it a bit...opinionated

It's an opinion piece. Who is surprised by this? :rolleyes:

[Magpie]

Me, when something is touted as "superb" when it is light on facts.

[YorkNecromancer]

Me, when something is touted as "superb" when it is light on facts.

It's a deconstruction of the irrelevant arguments consistently used by agents of the patriarchy. Facts don't figure in that. It's an article to refer to when sexists throw nonsense arguements at you, to best work out how to destroy their nonsense.

Now, if you want a superb factual breakdown of why equality is a necessity, I recommend:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Injustice-Why-Social-Inequality-Persists/dp/1847427200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365377909&sr=8-1&keywords=inequality%3A+why

[Magpie]

Thanks for that but I don't really need anyone to justify to me why equality is a necessity

[Mr Mystery]

And discuss... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22064433

[eldargal]

Wouldn't be sad to see it go. I'm a lipstick feminist and all for women reclaiming our sexuality but having your breasts splashed accross page 3 once or twice isn't exactly doing that.

[Mr Mystery]

To be honest, what I find offensive are the 'model sez' bits, all cleverly (no. not really) written to make them appear ditzy.

If you're proud of your body, by all means show it off. But in a family newspaper, it is a tad...overt.

As for people who want their daily fix of baps, why not try the Daily Sport, or perhaps Interwebs?

[Deadlift]

I'm quite happy with the baps I wake up next to every morning, actually when I hear the word baps, I tend to think of the egg and bacon variety.

[eldargal]

Makes me think of bibimpap personally.

One thing I'd like to know is if they actually bothered to ask any of the models what they think. Because I know a lot of girls who find showing off their bodies liberating in a society still fixated by patriarchal notions of modesty. Of course if they come out and say as much they will be labelled as sluts and morons.

[Mr Mystery]

Erm....huh? Sorry. Brain is melting due to having a cold.

'If they actually bothered'...is that in relation to their thoughts on events, or their motivation for going topless?

[Deadlift]

I would be interested to read what they actually think on said topics, I could easily imagine they aren't all as brain dead as we're supposed to believe. Not likely to happen and as I never read those kind of papers anyway. I usually head to a show called Body Power at the NEC for bodybuilding and power sports and obviously there are plenty of "fit" glamor girls trying to give away freebies etc. I got chatting to 3 of them last year who turned out to be university students making a bit to pay their way. Lovely chatty intelligent girls and far more entertaining to talk to than gawk at.

Talking about feminism I watched a program on Thatcher last night and at the end of the program my wife made the point that at no point was her being a woman referenced. She liked that.

[eldargal]

Erm....huh? Sorry. Brain is melting due to having a cold.

'If they actually bothered'...is that in relation to their thoughts on events, or their motivation for going topless?

Both. It is assumed that the girls are silent victims of patriarchy. What if they chose to be erotic models and were thrilled to be on page 3? Why should their choice be somehow diminished because other women disagree with their choice of profession?

The problem I have with this is that the message isn't 'end the objectification of topless/naked women' but 'stop topless/naked women'. We would be better off educating young men and woman that bodies are beautiful and looking at them gives us pleasure but just because you might be looking at some girls breasts on page 3 doesn't mean she exists ONLY for your gratification. The reason I have a problem with page 3 is not the nudity but because through the way the nudity is presented (the ditzy interviews) it feeds the perception that these are silly women put on this earth for men to ogle, nothing more.


Short version: The objectification of women won't end by keeping women covered, it will end when women can be topless or naked without being judged on account of it.

[Kirsten]

The problem I have with this is that the message isn't 'end the objectification of topless/naked women' but 'stop topless/naked women'.

exactly, there is nothing at all wrong with doing it if you want to do it, and hey, for that sort of money I would if I could. I know a number of burlesque dancers who absolutely love what they do, they run their own businesses, design their own shows, outfits etc. nobody is exploiting them. There are way too many 'feminists' these days who are not campaigning for all women to be equal and have a choice, they are campaigning for all women to be like them. That is every bit as damaging as any patriarchy.

[Phototoxin]

I like BOLS feminists, smart, egalitarian and sensible. :-)

[eldargal]

Yup. Lipstick feminists/ism in particular gets a very rough treatment from other feminists because of our/its championing of women reclaiming their sexuality. If a woman doesn't want to bare her breasts she doesn't have to. If it makes her feel violated and uncomfortable then that is bad. But if another woman feels liberated by it that is good and neither one cancels out the other. The issue is as feminists you believe they have the choice to do what they like and not punish them on account of it.

One of the biggest cons that the patriarchy pulled on woman was placing a huge value on women's sexuality (masculinity is often validated by sexual intercourse) but at the same time punishing and preventing women from profiting from that value and demand. In the nineteenth century upwards of 90% of men kept mistresses or visited prostitutes but those mistresses or prostitutes, while sometimes very successful and economically secure, were social pariahs. Now we dress it up on terms of ending the objectification of women but what it boils down to is covering women up.


I like BOLS feminists, smart, egalitarian and sensible. :-)
Most feminists are, even if we disagree with each other quite strongly on some points (see above re: lipstick feminism).:)

[Deadlift]

I would pose naked for cash, however I think only a zoo would be interested ;)

[eldargal]

Well, isn't there a market for panda porn to help get them in the mood to breed?:p

On a different subject, GW/BL acknowledging a female fanbase? Limited Edition Ten Tailed Cat t-shirts made for women too (http://www.blacklibrary.com/all-products/Archive/ten-tailed-cat-shirt.html). Thirty pounds seems a tad pricey for a made to measure t-shirt but if I wore them I would buy one.

[Mr Mystery]

EG m'dear....this in the internet. There's a market for Pandpr0n regardless.....

[eldargal]

True, I was just thinking in terms of zoos specifically.

[Kirsten]

I would pose naked for cash, however I think only a zoo would be interested ;)

I thought for a moment you mean zoo magazine, I thought wow their focus has shifted

[Psychosplodge]

I would pose naked for cash, however I think only a zoo would be interested ;)

I wouldn't, but only because no woman would ever be satisfied again with her male specimen....;)

[Kirsten]

http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd380/KirstenIGMB/904461_352544551512665_372114752_o_zps65bf485b.jpg (http://s1216.photobucket.com/user/KirstenIGMB/media/904461_352544551512665_372114752_o_zps65bf485b.jpg .html)

not sure what the issue is here, his advice looks spot on to me...

[Psychosplodge]

http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd380/KirstenIGMB/904461_352544551512665_372114752_o_zps65bf485b.jpg (http://s1216.photobucket.com/user/KirstenIGMB/media/904461_352544551512665_372114752_o_zps65bf485b.jpg .html)

not sure what the issue is here, his advice looks spot on to me...

Sounds like he knows what he's talking about, they all sound like they should be in an engine.

[eldargal]

Several choices available to her in that situation:

a) Beat the crap out of him
b) Join in
c) Find her own 19 year old neighbours daughter (or son).
d) Divorce him, take half of all the things, enact c)

[Deadlift]

She most likely had let herself go a bit and wasn't putting out, serves her right. :p



Runs and hides from the obvious verbal kicking I am about to receive.

[Wolfshade]

Obvious panda troll is obvious ;)

It is all a matter of taking what is important out of the conversation/letters, frequently it is not what I expect it to be.

[Deadlift]

DeadPanda, sounds like a cool forum name, can you change names ?

[Wolfshade]

DeadPanda, sounds like a cool forum name, can you change names ?

I'm not sure, new account, or possibly a mod function?

Avatar>
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_krvw720Qua1qzwnozo1_500.png

[Psychosplodge]

You show me one thirty-three year old chick who's buck wild in bed as your seventeen year old counterpie. Seventeen year olds nowadays are crazy. They even like it when you go ***-to-mouth.


Pandas are evil and must be destroyed, google:panda beaver and steve

[DrLove42]

You never go A2M!

[Psychosplodge]

it's never my idea

[Deadlift]

You never go A2M!

No.

[Gotthammer]

There's a difference between liking it and feeling pressured by the normalisation of pornography into accepting it.

[eldargal]

Anyone tries that with me and I'll force feed them their genitals.

There's a difference between liking it and feeling pressured by the normalisation of pornography into accepting it.
This. If a girl wants to do that (or anything else from sec work to pornographic) all power to her. But doing it because you are pressured into it by the expectations of young men because of what they see pornographic actresses doing is a particularly insidious form of sexual assault.

[DrLove42]

I'm disapoint how few people seem to recognise Clerks references...

[Gotthammer]

I recognised it, but felt Psycho's comment was more pressing, especially given the thread title.

[Psychosplodge]

That was a clerks reference too...

[eldargal]

Might be a reference for you but for women it is a real problem.

[Psychosplodge]

Might be a reference for you but for women it is a real problem.

Surely like anything else when it comes to the bedroom you do what you're both (or all;)) comfortable with

[eldargal]

Ideally yes, in actuality no. Women are put under huge pressure to conform it mens ideas of what normal sex is which is largely formed by watching porn, which is not normal sex. I've seen quite a few apparently nice boys dump girls because they wouldn't perform ******** or submit to anal sex and there are studies showing it isn't just an isolated thing.

[Psychosplodge]

Then they're not compatible... better to find out than after they were married, and better than her doing it and not wanting to.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Anal sex....


Your butt is a one way system.... *shudder*

I can't say that I have ever forcibly submitted a girl to anything that she didn't want to do... Maybe I'm just a bad man.