Elevating Women: What is in it for men?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The company violated her human rights - enough said.

The men and women that share sexually suggestive jokes at work usually keep it to a mutually accepted level of decency where getting fired is not an issue (at least in the workplaces I've worked in). Although in one instance, one older man started stepping over the line (boundaries) and we women discussed it and simply told him he should tone it down, which he did. In your case, it appears this woman may have been playing the game where the boundaries of decency were being overstepped, hence the unwanted attention regarding her "hair" (most likely sexual harassment at work).

All in all, both women won their cases. Case closed.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Winstonian

AND talk about pretty,some are so beautiful.
I have a pathological dislike for those I catch hurting pretty ladies...I'm old fashioned and lethal...

So if the women are plain, then it is of no consequence to you?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: InTheLight
So before the pill women were not used as sex objects? Are you a kid?

You missed the historical point of that discussion.

The Sexual Revolution

A nonfeminist phrase of the 1960s that simply meant women's increased availability on men's terms. - Gloria Steinem, 1980

Laura, I bridle at the idea of embarking on a remedial course of sexual correctiveness. But the casual and steady insistence of sexual images surely has its effects on all of us—effects not so conducive to being satisfied by plain old bodies. So, where do we go from here? I suppose answering this question will have to wait for another dialogue.

www.slate.com...

medicalxpress.com...

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Whatever happened to a man opening the car door for his partner? I never see it any more, and when I do I am sure to compliment the person doing it. I still do it, every single time. I get weird looks from other people when I do it, but I don't care. I think some young people think it's "sexist."

You will never know what others are thinking without asking them.

a reply to: everyone

You obviously missed this world-wide protest.

sgvnowproject.weebly.com...

Also, using an out-of-control and complex refugee crises is an unfair argument.

www.voanews.com...


www.opendemocracy.net...

Ready to sign that petition now (read link below)?

www.ccel.us...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman
Hey guy. Learn to type. Stop abusing your enter key. It's crying out in pain right now.

Second, I proved my point several times over already, with the coup de grace being the last link with the list of misogynist passages. You've just said, "nope you're wrong. I'm right. Give me proof." to literally everything I've posted. So it's your turn. Prove that Christianity isn't misogynist. I've posted plenty of evidence in support of my conclusion, you've posted none.

I know you don't want to believe that your religion is as bad as it looks, but that's reality. You can go around believing that isn't the case all you want, but reality always wins in the end. The mere fact is that Christian dogma and teachings promote and facilitate misogyny, and that is something you first need to acknowledge then fix so that your religion can survive going forward. I really don't give a # if you admit to it or not. I'm already not a Christian because I don't believe that the religion can change enough to drop its dogma that keeps women down. So I don't care if you don't believe this. It's your religion, if you want it to die, keep dismissing my argument without bothering to check it.

as per usual
Nothing


Just lots of talk
nothing valid

I would expect no less

As per usual, an empty and dismissive response without any attempt at actually disproving the opponent's argument.

Just waste of space.
Nothing of substance.

I would expect no less.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A valiant effort on your part, Krazyshot. We need medals in addition to stars and flags.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: InTheLight

Really? Because I was there when the pill came out. What I remember is me mom stopped having babies after five and the pill came out. Not counting the three abortions she had in the 40's and 50's. Maybe rich women saw the pill differently.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: InTheLight

Really? Because I was there when the pill came out. What I remember is me mom stopped having babies after five and the pill came out. Not counting the three abortions she had in the 40's and 50's. Maybe rich women saw the pill differently.

I am not getting what your point is here? Here's a brief history of the pill.

As historian May notes, "married women were the major beneficiaries of the pill, no question about that, when it first arrived," because it gave them unprecedented control over the timing and number of their pregnancies. At the time, some states prohibited giving contraceptives to single women, she says. It wasn't until 1972 that such a law in Massachusetts was overturned. Two years later, a similar law in Wisconsin was overturned. Even if single women could obtain the pill, the stigma of unmarried sex and the fear of parental disapproval were enough to stop many women from obtaining it, May says. "The double standard" — in which society viewed unmarried women (but not unmarried men) as promiscuous if they had sex — "didn't suddenly disappear with the arrival of the pill."

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

We were discussing the new found sexual freedom (for single women in the 60's and 70's (the backlash)) afforded by the pill bringing with it an easier road for negatively judging and degrading women who engaged in unmarried sex (which seems to be less so these days).

www.psychologytoday.com...

a reply to: InTheLight

I don't agree with this history. Christian society has always judged and degraded women long before the pill. The pill got more attention and more laws against women because it gave women control. The rest of society were very pleased with birth control because we did not see sex as something nasty and sinful.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: InTheLight

I don't agree with this history. Christian society has always judged and degraded women long before the pill. The pill got more attention and more laws against women because it gave women control. The rest of society were very pleased with birth control because we did not see sex as something nasty and sinful.

I lived through it in the latter 60's through to the beginning of the 80's and I witnessed how girls were treated after they gave it up (labelled sluts and had their reputations ruined). The 70's showed some improvement, however I was not into casual sex so I can't speak from that place, but I still had men tell me they expected sex after spending $20 on me for dinner or any small amount of money even for one drink (I always threw my money in their face and walked out). With the emergence of aids in the early 1980's I saw some of my women friends change their choice of men to have casual sex with and some started looking for a one-on-one relationship.

My point is not viewing sex as dirty or sinful, but viewing the morals of a woman differently than those of a man in a casual sex scenario.

www.academicpub.com...

When hey get high enough we can look up their skirts.

originally posted by: Domo1
When hey get high enough we can look up their skirts.

Then you'll have an anatomy lesson and find out where you came from.

As usual, you have nothing substantive to add.

a reply to: InTheLight

So, the moral aspect of the Pill is your own opinion. It was not the opinion in this research.

""However, current research now reveals that American society's attitudes about sex had been changing for decades. The work of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s and 1950s revealed that sexual freedom and non-normative sexual behavior were actually quite prevalent in the 20 years before the 1960s."

And I don't think they were doing studies in the 1920's and 1930's when most unchristian behavior was done underground.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: InTheLight

So, the moral aspect of the Pill is your own opinion. It was not the opinion in this research.

""However, current research now reveals that American society's attitudes about sex had been changing for decades. The work of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s and 1950s revealed that sexual freedom and non-normative sexual behavior were actually quite prevalent in the 20 years before the 1960s."

And I don't think they were doing studies in the 1920's and 1930's when most unchristian behavior was done underground.

It is an interesting study and my opinion through actual observation is just as relevant.

I have a question for you guys....as far as holding doors open.

if I am about to go out a door and I know someone is close behind me, I always will open the door and allow them to exit first, doesn't matter if they are men or women, young or old, really, although if I know they are elderly, I will do it even if they aren't that close. the main reason I do this is I would consider it rather rude for me to go out that door and have it come back and slam into the person who thinks they can slide out before it shuts on them or something.
but well, I often times get some really strange, possibly offended looks from men, even the elderly old man I held the door open for yesterday.

is me being polite really that offensive to your male egos?

originally posted by: dawnstar

I have a question for you guys....as far as holding doors open.

if I am about to go out a door and I know someone is close behind me, I always will open the door and allow them to exit first, doesn't matter if they are men or women, young or old, really, although if I know they are elderly, I will do it even if they aren't that close. the main reason I do this is I would consider it rather rude for me to go out that door and have it come back and slam into the person who thinks they can slide out before it shuts on them or something.
but well, I often times get some really strange, possibly offended looks from men, even the elderly old man I held the door open for yesterday.

is me being polite really that offensive to your male egos?

I do the same, but I always get a thank you, so I don't know what's up with the men in your neck of the woods.

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't mind it. I do the same thing. I don't think about someone's gender when holding the door open for someone. It's just common courtesy; plus when someone lets a door slam on you without holding the door open, it just feels rude.

a reply to: InTheLight

some do thank me, but occasionally I do get the funny, offended look from them that kind of makes me wonder?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

some do thank me, but occasionally I do get the funny, offended look from them that kind of makes me wonder?

Do the men who take issue with this act of courtesy fit a certain type?