Feminism: Destroying the Male and Female Relationship

Originally posted by Rosha
Indubitably!

I like that you wrote 'a lot of'..not 'all'...ive seen some big scary girls that can change a mining tractors tyre faster than any bloke..and a guy that can do needlework so fine you heart cries when you see it...*some* is a great word in gender politics.


R

I have to answer your post rather cagily, as I'm not entirely sure whether you are being sarcastic or not.

I dislike generalisations, and I always think that it's correct to point out these kind of things, on average.


It would be ludicrous to suggest that, for example, ''men are better at < insert activity or occupation >'', when it can be demonstrated that a woman can perhaps equally excel at this < activity or occupation >.


What I dislike is the fact that society doesn't acknowledge the fact that women and men, by and large, aren't suited to the same jobs, and that employing people on merit ( ie. equality ), may result in some professions being 95% male dominated, and other professions being 95% female dominated !

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I have to answer your post rather cagily, as I'm not entirely sure whether you are being sarcastic or not.

Good.

I dislike generalisations, and I always think that it's correct to point out these kind of things, on average.

Yet you have just made one to Tigers opinion and view..."pimply faced feminisits? "

Some of the most stunning feminine, humble and gentle women on the planet were a part of that early feminist movement and still are..also, some of the most harmed, most damaged, most broken as well - broken, damaged and harmed, of course, by men and the institutions men set in place, not those designed to foster community and mutual growth, but those in which they weilded absolute authority in order to essentially, govern their own fear and sate their innate needs, one of which, is to control.

Men, generally, often make the mistake feminism as a movement was about them, against them, or led by them.

It wasnt.

It was and is though, at least in part, for them.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that, for example, ''men are better at < insert activity or occupation >'', when it can be demonstrated that a woman can perhaps equally excel at this < activity or occupation >.

Of course. Though there are many jobs and roles that either gender could not physcally or emotionally 'fit in to' without a severe shock to the evolutionary time line. When you grow a uterus, let me know.

As an example: I give birth ' better than you'. I can 'do something you cant' as a male, and I am supported by biology psychology and spirit in that task, in a way you are not and will never be...even if you do find a way one day to transplant a uterus.

My response to those that find that and similar absolutes offensive is - Get over it:/ Cnosider the uses of the diffreneces as much as the similarties.

In everything else or in the world outside of those absolutes, "some" men are better at, "some" women are better at are the terms I use. The existance of my breasts and vagina do not qualify me to be better at pushing a broom or even being a parent than a man, nor do his strong arms or sturdy back better define him as a garbage bin remover or dog walker than my own arms and back do.

The roles best suited to a particular gender are most often very specific and highly specialised..and no one is qibbling about that.

Where feminism as a force is still relevant and working today is in the area of Mind imo. As, unlike men, women were 'permitted' to enage their body's within society albeit in restricted forms, but their minds were not considered equal in value, nor fit, or of "real" value to men..it was a strange and sad loss to _our_ world for too long.

It is good to see *that* changing..whoever and whatever force of change is bringing that to fruition.
Matriarchy doesnt work..Patriarchy either...we've been there..done that.
The time for a new paradigm ' in it together' is already here...already working quite well for most people..and will mean greater things for everyone if we can continue to solicit reason and overcome our fears.

Historically speaking, Makow is right in one thing, and that is that it is inately difficult for men to let go the need to protect, to control, to posses the female mind and direct it or set terms for its public engagement - to manage their own fear. But that fear isnt going to stop what is already begun...and eventually the combined power of the free minds of both sexes will add significantly to our growth as a species, as a whole, it will not diminsh it one iota..so there is nothing to fear...but fear.

I feel men who are fearing, need to keep in mind that nothing is attacking, and so nothing needs defending.

What I dislike is the fact that society doesn't acknowledge the fact that women and men, by and large, aren't suited to the same jobs, and that employing people on merit ( ie. equality ), may result in some professions being 95% male dominated, and other professions being 95% female dominated !

If you are waiting for society to sanction you, you are on a slippery slope. The entire undertaking of the feminist movement you just laid claim to in your last post to Tiger was to act in definance of sanction or fear, regardless of the personal cost.

These women became a catalyst for changes men had to make...or risk a greater loss. Men may have had to make the legal and physical changes..but that is a matter of proximity to the mechanisms of law and the physical world women didnt have access to.

Without the catalyst..without the annuciation of the need to change, bought about by and through the urpising of women, nothing would have changed....we would as a society have not just gone stale..we would have started to decompose.

That many men DID listen and did begin the changes within and without that women were pointing to, is a great thing and something to be upheld..it was a splendid act of trusting I do value and honour greatly today.....but for you now to go beyond that, to 'lay claim' to those changes in singularity, is neanderthal.


EQUAL work..EQUAL pay does not mean an open door to politically discriminate, cook the gender books, or manipulate the reality of what works best and most efficiently. Similarly unequal work uneqal pay does not diminish the worth and value of the individual person. It has come to mean that in many fields..but not in all and not in good business run by wise people.. The right *person* for the job..regardles of wobbly bits..is to me the best ways and means to success in all things.




Rosha.

Originally posted by tiger5
Can you explaain to me why men suddenly decide to campaign and then change the laws regarding sex discrimination and spousal rape? Some links would be nice.

Probably because attitudes changed quite quickly in those times, and the societal change was expertly implemented by men.

You are the epitome of the obnoxious feminazi, by using the phrase ''men'' to blanket 50% of the world's population, regardless of their individual views and beliefs.

I'm sorry to shatter your delusion, but ''men'' do not group think.


You've still not explained to me the difference between your mother being denied service at an electrical store, because of her gender, and my Grandfather being conscripted into the British army and serving in the trenches in WWI, because of his gender.


Surely you must see that this idea of ''female oppression'' is just a con ?


It's abundantly clear that both men and women were oppressed in equal measure because of society's narrowly defined ''gender-roles''.

Originally posted by tiger5
The feminists lit the fuse by campaigning and demonstrating.

Pardon my French, but, ''bollocks''.

Originally posted by tiger5
I can remember the left giving some assistance also.

Trying to bring politics in to this debate doesn't work. Soz.

The left/right paradigm is a load of rammel, and those who identify themselves with a certain wing, are just doing so because they ''need'' to hold a surrogate quasi-religious belief.

Originally posted by tiger5
I remember feminists on the current affairs shows and debates everywhere.

I remember vegetarians on current affairs shows and debates nowadays.

How's that vegetarianism working out for us ?

What a huge influence !

Originally posted by tiger5
The net effect was a social pressure that forced (well overdue) changes in the law.

Which was changed by men using logic and common sense.

I'm sorry, but no ugly feminists were involved in these law changes.

Originally posted by tiger5
Many people like you were reactionary but the sheer numbers and the Agitprop actions won.

LOL.

''Many people like you'' ?

And what exactly do you mean by that ?!


I'm afraid that you are falling for the oldest logical fallacy in the book... Namely, the ''if you're not with us, then you are against us'' mode of thinking.

Check your logical radar out.

Poor show.

Originally posted by tiger5
Do you not see an uncritical opposition to feminism in all forms makes you a reactionary?

Yes, but I'm also a ''reactionary'' in my uncritical approach towards racial supremacists.

I make no apologies for my scorn and contempt for racists, and equally, I make no attempt to disguise my disgust for feminazis.

Feminists and racists are the same side of the coin.

Originally posted by tiger5
If you were not around then why not ask those who were?

I have.

Originally posted by tiger5
Please give me some names of the prominent men who campaigned for the feminist agenda if it was not women. Did they write much? Where are they now?

LOL.

The most prominent names of the men who campaigned and voted for equality legislation, can be found in copies of Hansard.

You don't seriously believe that equality legislation was introduced because of ''special interest groups'', do you ?

Originally posted by tiger5
In fact how did the law change? And why?

A general social change, and a detachment from more dogmatic social attitudes that were based on some - shall we say - ''robust'' interpretations of the Bible.

Originally posted by tiger5
You may not like them but your intellectually honesty should give credit where credit is due unless you are overcome by blind hatred.

My intellectual honesty does not give ''credit'' to what the KKK has ''achieved''. Why should I give any ''credit'' to a comparable, knuckle-dragging movement ?

Originally posted by tiger5
I am intrigued but believe that a feminist may have done something horrid to you but I will not pry.

LOL.

There is nothing wrong with a little bit of amateur psychoanalysis ( no matter how inaccurate it may be ).

Feminists are scum. I have no acquaintance with anybody who holds on to the primitive and illogical views that feminists do.

Similarly, I do not waste my time with obnoxious racist or homophobic twats.

Originally posted by Serenity08
There are plenty of examples of women who though they make up 70% of a workforce in a company only make up 10% of the mid-level and upper management.

I'm sure if these women were good enough to make the grade as managers, then they would be hired.

As I say, no employer is going to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps only 10% of these women are suitable managerial material ? Hmm ?

Still, let's bury our head in the sand, and pretend that ''the man'' is subjugating women !

In fact, that gives women a great excuse to neglect self-responsibility and self-accountability.
There's no need to face up to your own personal shortcomings or grow from these experiences, instead, just whip out the ''gender card'' !

Amazing scenes.

Originally posted by Serenity08
Wal-mart has a 10 year lawsuit over this issue. Women are routinely hired at low paying part time jobs and work up to a full-time position and promote to a department manager after working five or more years for the company, but some guy comes in and is promoted immediately, and within a year is in the salaried management class and working his way up to higher positions.

I find this flippant link to black rights and slavery, not only cowardly, but deeply disrespectful.

Nobody is ''forced'' to take any job; we don't have slavery any more in the West.

Originally posted by Serenity08
It has been going on a long time at many companies. The glass ceiling is real and so are male chauvinists who would hire a male over a female if given the choices and all things were equal. He'd pick the male.

Yeah, and there are Jewish chauvinists who would hire a Jew over a gentile, there are Masonic chauvinists who would hire a fellow Mason, there are white chauvinists who would hire a white guy over a black guy...

Humans form cliques and are sometimes fearful of those who are superficially different to them.

Newsflash: Bears defecate in woods.


The thing that I'm attempting to pummel into you people's heads, is that there are laws that specifically prohibit this kind of behaviour in the workplace.

This is a non-issue. If you are the unfortunate recipient of discrimination in the workplace, then thankfully there are legal avenues in which you can go down to achieve resolution of these issues, and in more serious cases, justice for your mistreatment.

Originally posted by Serenity08
It's very easy for some to say, fight it, and it's against the law, but if you ever really experienced this sort of discrimination then you would know that bucking the system only gets you fired.

I think that's hardly likely.

Your scenario is fantastical.


Female worker: ''Hello boss, I've just found out that I'm earning 50 cents less per hour than my male colleagues''

Male boss: ''Of course, because you are a girl ! Don't you know that we pay men more, just because they are men ?!''

Female worker: ''Right, I'm going to get the Trade Union and the police involved''

Male boss: ''Oh, please don't buck the trend''.

Originally posted by Serenity08
Rarely do people win lawsuits over discrimination in the work place. It's too nebulous and costly to fight. Once you have been fired and made it a public issue of that workplace just whom do you expect would hire that person?

Or maybe it's because most discrimination cases are frivolous, and are made by bitter ex-employees ?

Sorry, but once you get sacked and legally challenge the dismissal, then you do not become a social pariah...

That's not from personal experience, by the way ...

Originally posted by Serenity08
So, risk your career and future or move on and hope to find a better job is what happens in reality.

Again, this is nonsense.

How would you risk your career by rightly getting a firm in to trouble for breaking the law ?

I'm sorry, but your refusal to take responsibility, and your mollycoddling of other women who are too scared to take responsibility, is truly frightening.

The audacity is quite staggering.

Originally posted by Serenity08
I think I have made my points about the inequity of how women's work is valued and how men's work is valued.

Nah, I don't think so.

As far as I can see, ''work'' is valued. I very much doubt that any employer - other than a kamikaze one - would differentiate between the productivity of a man or a woman.

You're living in cloud-cuckoo land if you think that a male employer would shoot himself in the foot by illegally paying his female employees less money.

I think that you are living on fantasy island.

Originally posted by Serenity08
I doubt you will ever see this in any way other than how you do now, and thus we shall agree to disagree.

Ah ! The snide ad hominem, dressed up as a ''serious'' comment.

Where would threads on this subject be, without the traditional ad homs from the illogical and defeated feminists ?

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp
The above article is an excellent example on how feminism has collectively destroyed the male and female relationship. I will try to go into some detail as to why using key points from the article.

So, you'll be using some snotty dudes opinion piece about how it's Society's Ills are all Uppity Women's Fault.
Uh huh, well, at least his was you can ignore actual feminists opinions. How convenient for you.

Therefore in the feminist perception, is that men have power over their wives and that the bond of marriage is a commitment that robs them of their freedom and independence in their lives.

No, that's just a straw-man argument you created to tear down"feminism."
It's has as much to do with "feminism" as camels have to do with making honey.

Women today are more focused on college and careers that if the right man walked into their life, they would easily brush him aside in pursuit of their own interests in financial support, in an attempt to sustain her perception of freedom and independence in life and from men.

In other words Real Women are Homemakers, and those with careers are just LIberal COmmie pinko-lebso-nazis?
I notice you've ignored that fact that it takes two incomes to survive in this day and age. After all, bringing up facts would derail your ranter, intelligent discussion.

In the past, men had to prove their love and commitment before they could have sex. As a result, women were cherished and given a lifelong role (mother, wife) that satisfied their deepest emotional needs.

Women also have constant fears fabricated from media and entertainment that all men are pigs, secretly rapists, and sexual opportunists. Not that men like that don’t exist but the large majority of men want a true relationship and a prosperous life with women that arouses their intellect as well as their loins.

No, in the past men had to pay for the property that they were getting. AS a result women were treated like property and then made to reproduce the men's offspring. That doens't mean every amn was rapist, as some women would be quite willing to so. But if they didn't it didn't matter, as they didn't have a say in it.

Men also have their own fabricated fears, from the same sources, in which they believe marriage is a setup for them to lose all of their assets to a failed marriage; thus the same with children, as it poses a risk to their income. Factors in which men all collectively have in their overall perception of marriage instead of its true meaning. These key perspectives contribute to which both men and women consequently destroy or severely hinder healthy, productive relations between eachother. Fabricated fears induced from mainstream media, movies and television propagating to achieve a broader agenda. Desecration of marriage, moral ethics, and the traditional family.

Aaah, yes, the 'liberal media conspiracy' nice. Completley unoriginal, but nice to see it hasn't been forgotten.

Women wonder why average men have a lacking respect for women in America;

And your evidence of this is? Oh that's right you couldn't be bothered with that sort of thing.

"David Popenoe, a Rutgers sociologist who co-authored the study, is concerned that the downward trend will continue. 'I'm worried most because of the teenagers', Popenoe said. 'With the breakdown of the family, peer culture, which includes popu culture, has gotten stronger. Nothing could be more anti-marriage than much of the popular culture."

If you want stronger "families" then make is so that one parent can make enough for a family to live off of.

Why would a Liberal sociologist like Popenoe be worried by severely declining marriages in this country? He has studied case histories of dozens of cultures throughout the world in his academic pursuits, and knows that no country can survive without the core unit called the family.

Unfortunatley marriage and family are to different things. Trying to magically connect them, or pretend that they are "naturally" connected won't get you very far. Families can and do exist without marriage.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Well I guess now its my turn to quote 2 words of yours...
Counter arguments.......??
I'm having a discussion with people in this thread not arguing or counter argueing.
Get a life. This is a discussion forum , not a court room.

On the topic of men changing the laws in the 70s it was you who denied the fact that it was women who force through changes in the law. Hence by your own perspective it must have been men. I do not do group think neither as a man I am a one off. Yet you go on and mention Hansard. So why did Parliament suddenly decide to pass laws to change discrimination and spousal rape? Special interest groups did change the law. We are talking about politicians (probably Labour) who are interesting in gaining votes. A populist politician is a vote whore.

Calling me a feminazi is hilarious I can't abide Nazis and would never call myself a feminist. Some of your posts did give me a laugh and I hope you appreciate the funny side of this exchange. Discussing this topic with you is becoming an exercise. We hold firmly entrenched views. But I saw the whole thing unfold at the time. THe 70s marked a time of intense social questioning and optimism before money took over the majority of th thinking.


Oh I nearly forgot. Tragic as it may seem your grandfather (male) was sent to war by the males in Power or TPTB if you prefer who were male. In terms of gender politics my mother's experience at Ketts had gender implications as a female being discriminated against by a male power structure. As she asked whether a married man would have suffered such a comment?

As a black man I would rather sit down with the average feminist than a racist. There are extreme feminists that hate men but they were always in the extreme minority. If you manifest the blind anti racism that you do towards your anti feminism I would be disapointed. Knowledge is power.


There are also some pretty feminists out there so stop blanketing women who happen to dislike gender based discrimination.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

DID the men want the women in the military.....NO.....

Did the men of the past want the women economically independant and credit worthy....NO!!!

Did some women go to the extreme to do both.....I believe they did, and quite frankly, I don't believe it turned out too well for many of them. Thinking witch trials here for some reason....

Do men want women in the military now?? NO....
Do men want their wives financially independant?? Many do not... and, of course all the main religions place the desires of the men far above that of the women still..so we have religious leaders saying stuff like:
It means that if the husband doesn't want his wife working, then she shouldn't be working!!!

The religions says that a women is only allowed to those freedoms and wealth that her husband choses to provide to her.

Reality says that the women (and the man) is only allowed those freedoms and wealth that those (mostly men) in power chose to bestow onto them.
Today, they might decide to be generous, tomorrow, maybe not so much. But got to tell ya something, it seems to me that little boys that grow up in homes with authoritarian father figures who chose not to extend liberties and are greedy with the resources are more likely to grow up with the idea that there is nothing wrong with depriving those liberties and resources to their fellow women, AND MEN!!! To despise the rights and liberties that women have today, only makes it more possible that your own rights and liberties will be despised by others tomorrow.

Originally posted by dawnstar

Reality says that the women (and the man) is only allowed those freedoms and wealth that those (mostly men) in power chose to bestow onto them.
---

For me this isnt describing reality....just a construct within it.

A bit more compassionately, it also describes a society still very much bound by fear.


Rosha

I think the worst thing that happened to children in the old days before the 70s era of questioning that started with feminist theorising was the complete acceptance of the absent father" who never had time to sit and play or just communicate with their own children. I know several women of my age who were dubbed "split arsed bastards" by their own fathers because they were actually born female. This may have been an extreme example but nontheless a true representation of a majority fatherly perspective.

Originally posted by tiger5
I think the worst thing that happened to children in the old days before the 70s era of questioning that started with feminist theorising was the complete acceptance of the absent father" who never had time to sit and play or just communicate with their own children. I know several women of my age who were dubbed "split arsed bastards" by their own fathers because they were actually born female. This may have been an extreme example but nontheless a true representation of a majority fatherly perspective.

In a society where men between themselves and women themselves have demanded men be impervious to pain, emotion and fear yet have condemned them for being unfeeling, unthinking fearless 'actors', its easy to see why and how this could be so.

Imo its not the truth..rather its not the 'fact' of who we are, just another self made reactionary construct we have devised and allowed and so, we the capacity to alter any time we choose.


Rosha

reply to post by Rosha

ya know, I can change the way I react to things, I can decide to act when confronted by another person who insists on doing something I don't like...
but when it comes to having a boss who is paying other, less skilled employees more than me, who is allowing some the priviledge to thin their ink to a more maneageble level while others are strugging, and then who lies to me about it when he knows that doing this has already hurt me and I am crapping blood more than likely because of it....and then tells me that if I can't do the job, well, I probably should just find another one...
I am sorry, there's no way I can twist my mind around that one to find it even remotely acceptable!
and by nature, I am not a fighter, and well, I am smart enough to realize this one is very deeply embedded into reality and not worth fighting about!
No matter how much I try, I cannot change another person, unless they want to change!! So, well, I decided to act on what is reality! And find myself another job.....hopefully..
otherwise, I probably just spend a heck of alot of money for medical care that is just gonna get destroyed trying to print with ink that is way too thick...while the pets continue on their marry way with the thinner version.

Yes, I can change my thought process...
no, I am not gonna try to coerce, manipulate, threaten, or whatever, to infridge on the other person's right to do whatever they want. if they are that much of a headache to me, then I should just distance myself from them as much as I can....and avoid the aggrevation completely if possible!

Originally posted by Rosha

Originally posted by tiger5

Imo its not the truth..rather its not the 'fact' of who we are, just another self made reactionary construct we have devised and allowed and so, we the capacity to alter any time we choose.


Rosha

edit on 4-1-2011 by Rosha because: spell edit.

You may feel that it is not the truth but yet whole generations of people's lives were profoundly affected. We could debate the nature of reality but philosophers have done this for decades. I cannot blanket demonise feminists. On balance they were a force for good. I completely reject the OP. Do you?

reply to post by dawnstar


I would contest the "men of the past" generalisation since IMHO there is a definitive line for English speaking nations to say that their society changed into the one we know today.

The line is the Norman invasion of England in 1066 and the imposition of the Norman culture, adding Canon law and the Gregorian Reform led to the anti-feminism we see diminishing but still prevalent in society.

But it is worth noting that pre-1066 Anglo-Saxon Women had a different experience of life at the hands of both their church and state, hence why I don't feel the "men of the past" generalisation accurate.

Tho, all I will say on the topic is that I find it sad that it has taken nearly 1,000 years for women to reclaim some of their lost rights.

As for the OP.. my position is one that I welcome the return of equality in male and female relations with the world and each other.

We read this article in college and found it to be a good example of how people can justify controlling others. I hope you enjoy the article. Though I am not a huge fan of Steinem, I do find her words thought provoking:



If Men Could Menstruate
by Gloria Steinem


Living in India made me understand that a white minority of the world has spent centuries conning us into thinking a white skin makes people superior, even though the only thing it really does is make them more subject to ultraviolet rays and wrinkles.

Reading Freud made me just as skeptical about penis envy. The power of giving birth makes "womb envy" more logical, and an organ as external and unprotected as the penis makes men very vulnerable indeed.

But listening recently to a woman describe the unexpected arrival of her menstrual period (a red stain had spread on her dress as she argued heatedly on the public stage) still made me cringe with embarrassment. That is, until she explained that, when finally informed in whispers of the obvious event, she said to the all-male audience, "and you should be proud to have a menstruating woman on your stage. It's probably the first real thing that's happened to this group in years."

Laughter. Relief. She had turned a negative into a positive. Somehow her story merged with India and Freud to make me finally understand the power of positive thinking. Whatever a "superior" group has will be used to justify its superiority, and whatever and "inferior" group has will be used to justify its plight. Black men were given poorly paid jobs because they were said to be "stronger" than white men, while all women were relegated to poorly paid jobs because they were said to be "weaker." As the little boy said when asked if he wanted to be a lawyer like his mother, "Oh no, that's women's work." Logic has nothing to do with oppression.

So what would happen if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?

Clearly, menstruation would become an enviable, worthy, masculine event:

Men would brag about how long and how much.

Young boys would talk about it as the envied beginning of manhood. Gifts, religious ceremonies, family dinners, and stag parties would mark the day.

To prevent monthly work loss among the powerful, Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea. Doctors would research little about heart attacks, from which men would be hormonally protected, but everything about cramps.

Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of such commercial brands as Paul Newman Tampons, Muhammad Ali's Rope-a-Dope Pads, John Wayne Maxi Pads, and Joe Namath Jock Shields- "For Those Light Bachelor Days."

Statistical surveys would show that men did better in sports and won more Olympic medals during their periods.

Generals, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve God and country in combat ("You have to give blood to take blood"), occupy high political office ("Can women be properly fierce without a monthly cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priests, ministers, God Himself ("He gave this blood for our sins"), or rabbis ("Without a monthly purge of impurities, women are unclean").

Male liberals and radicals, however, would insist that women are equal, just different; and that any woman could join their ranks if only she were willing to recognize the primacy of menstrual rights ("Everything else is a single issue") or self-inflict a major wound every month ("You must give blood for the revolution").

Street guys would invent slang ("He's a three-pad man") and "give fives" on the corner with some exchenge like, "Man you lookin' good!"

"Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!"

TV shows would treat the subject openly. (Happy Days: Richie and Potsie try to convince Fonzie that he is still "The Fonz," though he has missed two periods in a row. Hill Street Blues: The whole precinct hits the same cycle.) So would newspapers. (Summer Shark Scare Threatens Menstruating Men. Judge Cites Monthlies In Pardoning Rapist.) And so would movies. (Newman and Redford in Blood Brothers!)

Men would convince women that sex was more pleasurable at "that time of the month." Lesbians would be said to fear blood and therefore life itself, though all they needed was a good menstruating man.

Medical schools would limit women's entry ("they might faint at the sight of blood").

Of course, intellectuals would offer the most moral and logical arguements. Without the biological gift for measuring the cycles of the moon and planets, how could a woman master any discipline that demanded a sense of time, space, mathematics-- or the ability to measure anything at all? In philosophy and religion, how could women compensate for being disconnected from the rhythm of the universe? Or for their lack of symbolic death and resurrection every month?

Menopause would be celebrated as a positive event, the symbol that men had accumulated enough years of cyclical wisdom to need no more.

Liberal males in every field would try to be kind. The fact that "these people" have no gift for measuring life, the liberals would explain, should be punishment enough.

And how would women be trained to react? One can imagine right-wing women agreeing to all these arguements with a staunch and smiling masochism. ("The ERA would force housewives to wound themselves every month": Phyllis Schlafly)

In short, we would discover, as we should already, that logic is in the eye of the logician. (For instance, here's an idea for theorists and logicians: if women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long? I leave further improvisation up to you.)

The truth is that, if men could menstruate, the power justifications would go on and on.

If we let them.

reply to post by Serenity08



Well thanks for the article. It was an interesting exercise in reduction ad absurdum. I can just imagine the fun of further extrapolating the thought experiment. But this of itself is a weakness where those without the necessary intellectual attitude or just blind hatred for feminism cannot read the peace and study its virtue.

Also it is a well needed lengthy and in depth essay that counters the OP’s sentiments.

The basic problem with the anti-feminist lobby was that the counterarguments seemed to have be created after the creators imbibed several beers. In fact to this day there is very little anti feminist theory. Perhaps this is a tacit agreement that it is wrong to support discrimination against 50% of the society.

Originally posted by tiger5
You may feel that it is not the truth but yet whole generations of people's lives were profoundly affected. We could debate the nature of reality but philosophers have done this for decades. I cannot blanket demonise feminists. On balance they were a force for good. I completely reject the OP. Do you?

On issues like this, that are primarily these days sociopolitical ones not life/death ones ( excepting in certain parts of the world) I dont think I am capeable of blanket rejections. I havent found doing that generally, a wise or useful thing in my life.

Also, what I mean by 'not the truth' was specifically framed to mean that its not the absolute truth of who *we* really are as a whole, as I view *us* - men and women- as human beings.
Its about a difference in perspective of what we are, and why we are, not an undermining attempt at a/your perspective.

To me, feminism and chauvenism are not *the* truth of the whole human being - not solid form perpetual states of 'fact'. They are transient, representative, evidence and expressions of deeply held pain, wants, needs or fears the human being is having long before they are externalised to become political forces or forms - 'social facts'.

I am not 'feministic' constantly as a part of my entire indentity. I am a woman yes, but being a feminist is a political association and I am more than just a poilitical being.
I can be feminisitic..in action or ideology...but that too is of mind not permenance, and it passes, changes and changes to the nature of that feminism occur and come and go depending on my needs and growth.
That these states do take hold and solidify in society as quasi factual constructs, is an affect we permit...not inevitabilities. For me, feminism was / has never been about emanicpation FROM men.

As as result of having that view, I dont or rarely have those fears or needs or feel a call to direct political action present every moment of my life and even when I do, I dont feel any automatic instinctive need within to express them in a form outside of myself or gather others together who feel similar and form policy or forces out of them that others are made subject to or affected by. I can accept others do do that...but I still get to choose not to make myself subject to them or to subject others.

I dont agree and do stand in oppositions to the OP's views, politically emotionally and morally but I am willing to own and let go of my own fear and anger long enough to learn about those views; why they are, where they stem from what generates them, how they affect me and my world and what exactly the OP'S understanding of the world gains by having them. Fear doesnt rule my decision making. I do.

That comprehension process doesn't alter my postion until I choose or undermine/devalue it. I'm not 'selling out' or 'betraying the sisterhood' in seeking understanding nor am I sitting on the fence when I accept another humans views are different to my own.

Engaging in shared understanding of the 'other' *is* a primary point of feminism as I understand it..its 'the point' for me of the whole shebang.

If the whole point of feminisim was just physical empancipation, getting more money, or was to end up a militant man hater, then thats not good enough for me sorry. I'd never have supported 'the cause' at all.
Understanding and mutual growth, a way to walk together in forward motion, is what gives feminism a high purpose for me.

And from within that point of view, through engaging with it as a force on that level, I have learned that to deny men automomous existance as men and as who they choose to be, is to deny myself the same autonomous existance as a woman as I choose to be......its self defeating...eventually. This is how I can accept that a man may have even a polarically opposite view to my own, without resenting HIM as a person for having it or fearing it or feeling threatened or imposed upon by it. More, through it I can make the choice to either 'stand with my sisters' in isolation from men, or I can choose to 'stand with my fellow humans' to make a better world for all humans regardless of genitalia. Most often I choose the latter...and the former is specific, targeted and usualy envoked becuase there is a really good reason to do so, that again, affects the whole not jst my ego or self insterest in some way.

To me, seeking _understanding over victory_ is an active step forward into examining the next steps that can be taken towards an even greater understanding and even perhaps, some form of reconcilliation that will allow us to move on *together* forming even better and more satisfying and effective partnerships, as oposed to elongating the struggle or fight or diving into the quagmire of he said she sad, which to me is, despite appearances, a specious process and a passive reaction to sensations of frustration or powerlessness/disempowerment.
Its making the changes and struggles that have already taken place, purposeful and meaningful to me.

I dont feel frustrated or powerless or a need to defend myself or my views - I dont feel reactionary- as I dont view the OPS views a threat to me as woman or a person. Nothings attacking me in his having his views. They are his, not mine. I know and hold to what I know as it is prooven to me and so I dont even feel challenged by the views he holds, which are his to own and be responsible for. I actualy also enjoy BEING challenged....its not a threat its something I embrace fearlessly.

As regards pay and work, yes some things are 'wrong' and unfair. Life is. And there have been times I have been exceedingly grateful for that state of unfairness in the universe...sometimes not so much.
That said though, if you as a person, geninuely feel a situation is unjust - go change it for yourself, or not..as YOU choose. That is your power...to affect a change...nothing and no one *outside of you* can take that away from you..ever.

If I were you I would use the tools I already have, to strike to fight or campaign with others or I would simply choose to leave..and find an employer who respected me and valued my worth as a person. Why stay where you are not valued?

I would though, if I had no choice but to stay, be compelled to accept it...as it is..in the first instance and work then on changing my attitude to whatever it is that is bothering me. Thats my job to do..no one elses.

If my employer was a prick or only respected me for being or not being a set of genitals..then that too isnt enough for me...its typecast..is political...and its the human being and valuing that humanity, matters more to me. Priorities I guess...which eating and havigna roof over yor head is a major influence I know.

His (the OPs) ideas dont have the power to usurp and penetrate my mind without my choice to allow the same though...ditto other peoples views or actions in the outside world. What is, is..the statemnt ' what are you going to do about it tends to take on a new and evolutionary meaning at times.

The existance of oposing views though, dont have the power to have a form in the political or emotional life of my being and were they are formed as constructs in my social environment and are impendiments to me, I can still choose to move aside..not accept or condone - to act or not. Im not powerless...only at times...too easily convinced by fear or others, that I was.

Its not to say his( ops) views are powerless or non existant to me or that they are meaningless to me or dont have a value in themselves, or that they dont have the potential to affect my world - its just to say that they dont have the power to affect *me* and disempower *me* unless *I* choose to allow them to - something they seem to have been given that power to do by others.

I have a friend in Palestine who remarked on her blog that " If the Jewish people want to wall themselves in..I feel sorry for them but it is their right"

In truth I personally dont have enough evidence to know absolutely if feminism was a 'force for good'. " Good" is a judgment made at the ends of things..and this struggle to be heard and understood going on between the sexes and the expressing process that imbibes isnt over as far as I can tell. I only know for certain it was *a* force, a powerful one, and that it compelled significant changes. Some changes I have observed have been for the better some for the worse.

Am I glad to have been alive during the time it was at its most active peak aka the time of first results? Yes. Have I and woman kind really benefited from the changes of that forces exertion and change that came through it? Honestly?....yes and no. To me there is no absolute yes or absolute no...everything along this nature of change is in flux constantly...its organic and often has effects not seen through the cloud of militancy, ones that can be conterproductive.

The best I can say as I have already written in another post is that feminism was and today is a force, a catalyst for deep holisitc change in our societies and around the world that has already changed the way we view humanity itself not just womanhood or manhood and imo, its that point that matters, its evidence of our human capacity TO change itself and that is the most important thing - to me. Its, hope.

Thats the position I come into this 'debate' from, that's how I examine it and align or dont align myself to it. It is this way for me as I find that position the most useful, for me, and I wont be pressured or guilted into adopting anyone elses position of entry into the debate simply because I share a similarity of genitalia....or dont. I think, differently, adn that is an asset to me not a burden. I am responsible to as I am capeable, of making my own choices and decisions...and so I do.

Maybe its a long game short game issue..a matter of perspective/viewing positions..I dont know.



Rosha.

Originally posted by Rosha
Good.

What's good ? The fact that I answered your post cagily, or the fact that I didn't know whether you were being sarcastic or not ?

Originally posted by Rosha
Yet you have just made one to Tigers opinion and view..."pimply faced feminisits? "

Some of the most stunning feminine, humble and gentle women on the planet were a part of that early feminist movement and still are..also, some of the most harmed, most damaged, most broken as well - broken, damaged and harmed, of course, by men

Not every discussion has to be dealt with in a completely stern manner. There's nothing wrong with sprinkling a serious conversation with humourous comment and hyperbole..


Come off it !

The number of attractive feminists can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Why would someone who is popular with men become a feminist ? She would already have the element of power and control over men that feminists are so desperately seeking.

I have already mentioned that another reason that women become feminists is because of negative experiences with male figures in their lives, which you also point out in your above comment.

Originally posted by Rosha
and the institutions men set in place, not those designed to foster community and mutual growth, but those in which they weilded absolute authority in order to essentially, govern their own fear and sate their innate needs, one of which, is to control.

The institutions that also resulted in the death and destruction of countless men over the years ?

You are falling for the oldest feminist brainwashing trick in the book, which is myth that women had the monopoly on mistreatment in days gone by.

Men and women were equally mistreated by those in power, due to narrowly-defined gender roles. Yes, women were sometimes treated badly because of their gender, but so were men.

It is shameful that feminazis revise history and use this misrepresentation of history as a tool of power to get preferential treatment and female supremacy by stealth.

Feminist tricks can not work on me, because I see them for what they are; pathetic, weak, feeble women, who haven't got the guts, capabilities or determination to succeed in life, so attempt to hop-on for a free ride, ignoring any ethical considerations in their attempt for any kind of preferential treatment they can find or squeeze out of society.

Thank goodness feminists are outnumbered by real women.

Originally posted by Rosha
Men, generally, often make the mistake feminism as a movement was about them, against them, or led by them.

It wasnt.

It was and is though, at least in part, for them.

Feminism is a movement which is about attempting to gain control and power over men and other women that don't share their warped ideology.

The only part of feminism that was intended for men, is an embittered attempt at ''payback''.

''Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned''.

Originally posted by Rosha
Of course. Though there are many jobs and roles that either gender could not physcally or emotionally 'fit in to' without a severe shock to the evolutionary time line. When you grow a uterus, let me know.

As an example: I give birth ' better than you'. I can 'do something you cant' as a male, and I am supported by biology psychology and spirit in that task, in a way you are not and will never be...even if you do find a way one day to transplant a uterus.

LOL.

I was commenting more on the workplace...

Obviously, there are biological functions that only men and women can exclusively perform, but giving birth has little to do with my comment.

I was thinking more along the lines of academia, where men tend to be more suited with use of analytical skills, logic, maths etc.

That doesn't mean that there aren't women who are equally adept at these skills, and consequently it would be ludicrous to assert that men are superior to women in these disciplines, without qualifying the statement.

Similarly, men are physically stronger and more powerful than women, on average, but that doesn't mean that a female boxer, martial artist or power-lifter wouldn't whoop my ass if she needed to !

Originally posted by Rosha
My response to those that find that and similar absolutes offensive is - Get over it:/ Cnosider the uses of the diffreneces as much as the similarties.

In everything else or in the world outside of those absolutes, "some" men are better at, "some" women are better at are the terms I use. The existance of my breasts and vagina do not qualify me to be better at pushing a broom or even being a parent than a man, nor do his strong arms or sturdy back better define him as a garbage bin remover or dog walker than my own arms and back do.

The roles best suited to a particular gender are most often very specific and highly specialised..and no one is qibbling about that.

I agree.

But like I say, there is a clear difference between saying ''all women are better at giving birth than men'' and ''all men are better at science than women'' ?

Some absolutes are justified, and others are where social discrimination between genders stems from.


I think the main point is, though, that in a truly equal workplace, some professions will always have an imbalance in the workforce between men and women.

For example, garbage collectors will always be predominated by men, because men are usually physically stronger and biologically more suited at this. That shouldn't mean that an employer should automatically not employ a woman for the job, if she passes the same criteria for the job as a male does, then she should be employed.

The problem with PCers and feminazis, is that they won't accept that some jobs are more suited to women and others will be more suited to men, and will never be happy until they get a 50/50% workforce, which is complete cloud-cuckoo-land stuff, and goes completely against equality.

Originally posted by Rosha
Where feminism as a force is still relevant and working today is in the area of Mind imo. As, unlike men, women were 'permitted' to enage their body's within society albeit in restricted forms, but their minds were not considered equal in value, nor fit, or of "real" value to men..it was a strange and sad loss to _our_ world for too long.

And what is ''feminism'' doing about that ? I mean an actual example, rather than sitting on their arses and whinging about it, desperate for society to hand them a leg-up.

If a man considers a woman to not be equally mental to men, then how are you going to change his opinion ?

I think that most current figures support the fact that girls perform equally well in school exams ( if not better in some cases ).

Originally posted by Rosha
It is good to see *that* changing..whoever and whatever force of change is bringing that to fruition.
Matriarchy doesnt work..Patriarchy either...we've been there..done that.
The time for a new paradigm ' in it together' is already here...already working quite well for most people..and will mean greater things for everyone if we can continue to solicit reason and overcome our fears.

It has changed.

This is why feminists are despicable frauds. People are treated equally by society, and if they are not, then there is sufficient legal recourse for any breach of this.

You are never going to stop people being sexist or racist, but as long as you have legislation against it, you can sufficiently, quell it getting a foothold in society, and punish the perpetrators.

All of this is in place now, so why are feminists attempting to get a free-ride ?

Originally posted by Rosha
Historically speaking, Makow is right in one thing, and that is that it is inately difficult for men to let go the need to protect, to control, to posses the female mind and direct it or set terms for its public engagement - to manage their own fear. But that fear isnt going to stop what is already begun...and eventually the combined power of the free minds of both sexes will add significantly to our growth as a species, as a whole, it will not diminsh it one iota..so there is nothing to fear...but fear.

Humans seek control. It's not strictly a gender thing ( although that plays a relevant part in that case ).

Women attempt to control men just as much as men attempt to control women.

Just about all my ex-girlfriends have attempted to control me in incremental ways, by trying to change the way I act or behave or even think about things - that's why I had to tell most of them to # off !

They had their ideal of how a man should think, act, and behave, so they gradually tried to turn me into their ideal. If that's not an attempt at control, then I don't know what is !

you mustn't think that some women don't also try to control a man's mind, just because they are more subtle about it.

Originally posted by Rosha
I feel men who are fearing, need to keep in mind that nothing is attacking, and so nothing needs defending.

I don't ''fear'' feminists. I just strongly dislike their ideology of gender superiority in exactly the same way that I strongly dislike groups who support racial superiority.


It's very suspicious that you are trying to label anyone with disgust for feminists as ''fearful''.

This is an obvious attempt to make men internalise their justified problems with these femmos, and try and switch the ''problem'' to the man. I'm afraid that your feminists mind tricks do not work on me !

I've seen them all before.

Originally posted by Rosha
If you are waiting for society to sanction you, you are on a slippery slope.

I'm not waiting for society to sanction me.

However you got this out of my last post, you are mistaken.

Originally posted by Rosha
The entire undertaking of the feminist movement you just laid claim to in your last post to Tiger was to act in definance of sanction or fear, regardless of the personal cost.

''regardless of the personal cost''.

LOL.

What personal cost ? The cost of a new bra that was burnt ?

It's sad to see so many being brain-washed by this revisionist propaganda.

To deliberately misrepresent an already gradual softening societal attitude and attribute it to ''brave'' women is absurd and intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Rosha
These women became a catalyst for changes men had to make...or risk a greater loss. Men may have had to make the legal and physical changes..but that is a matter of proximity to the mechanisms of law and the physical world women didnt have access to.

The men changed it. The women had practically nothing to do with it.

This isn't a sleight on the women of the time, after all, there weren't many women in positions of power at the time to influence these changes.

Originally posted by Rosha
Without the catalyst..without the annuciation of the need to change, bought about by and through the urpising of women, nothing would have changed....we would as a society have not just gone stale..we would have started to decompose.

Nonsense.

There was a general softening of social attitudes from the end of the Second World War, which included equal rights for races, women and decriminalising homosexuality.

No doubt, the revisionist feminists will take the credit for these, as well.

There were general social shifts in attitudes, and men and women were equally responsible for these at ''ground level'', as it were, but it was the men at the top who implemented these changes.

Originally posted by Rosha
That many men DID listen and did begin the changes within and without that women were pointing to, is a great thing and something to be upheld..it was a splendid act of trusting I do value and honour greatly today.....but for you now to go beyond that, to 'lay claim' to those changes in singularity, is neanderthal.

I've already explained.

Men implemented the changes after the social tide was gradually turning, which was hastened by both men and women who weren't in positions of power.

Originally posted by Rosha
EQUAL work..EQUAL pay does not mean an open door to politically discriminate, cook the gender books, or manipulate the reality of what works best and most efficiently. Similarly unequal work uneqal pay does not diminish the worth and value of the individual person. It has come to mean that in many fields..but not in all and not in good business run by wise people..

Equal work and equal pay is legally prescribed.

I know this upsets the feminazis, because they were never really interested in this in the first place. It was used as a tool to get preferential treatment.

Now that full equality has quite rightly been awarded, they are now seeking more and more unequal advantages, and many of these are being granted, through, no doubt, emotional blackmail.

Originally posted by Rosha
The right *person* for the job..regardles of wobbly bits..is to me the best ways and means to success in all things.

Absolutely.

And this is what I've been arguing for all along !

The problem is that men are now legally discriminated against in many jobs, but not a peep from the feminazis showing their true colours.

It appears ''equality'' is only important when a woman is on the receiving end of unequal treatment...

Originally posted by Flighty
Well I guess now its my turn to quote 2 words of yours...
Counter arguments.......??

I'm having a discussion with people in this thread not arguing or counter argueing.
Get a life. This is a discussion forum , not a court room.

I think you're getting confused.

Arguments and counter-arguments are the foundation of any debate, which are usually conducted on a discussion forum.

Originally posted by tiger5
On the topic of men changing the laws in the 70s it was you who denied the fact that it was women who force through changes in the law. Hence by your own perspective it must have been men. I do not do group think neither as a man I am a one off. Yet you go on and mention Hansard. So why did Parliament suddenly decide to pass laws to change discrimination and spousal rape? Special interest groups did change the law. We are talking about politicians (probably Labour) who are interesting in gaining votes. A populist politician is a vote whore.

Social attitudes change.

The laws of the day reflect the general social attitudes of the time, especially in a democracy where major social changes would be very influential at the ballot box.

I think it was in the 1960s that homosexuality became legal in the UK, which again, was reflective of society's softening attitudes.

Originally posted by tiger5
Calling me a feminazi is hilarious I can't abide Nazis and would never call myself a feminist. Some of your posts did give me a laugh and I hope you appreciate the funny side of this exchange. Discussing this topic with you is becoming an exercise. We hold firmly entrenched views. But I saw the whole thing unfold at the time. THe 70s marked a time of intense social questioning and optimism before money took over the majority of th thinking.

Yeah, but I don't think the ''nazi'' that is attached to the term ''feminist'' is meant to be complimentary.

I have to say that for someone who doesn't call himself a ''feminist'', you do a rather good impression of one...

I do see the funny side of the debate, and I don't think that either of us will come out of it with our opinions on the matter changed, but it's still entertaining to get involved in a healthy exchange of views !

Originally posted by tiger5
Oh I nearly forgot. Tragic as it may seem your grandfather (male) was sent to war by the males in Power or TPTB if you prefer who were male. In terms of gender politics my mother's experience at Ketts had gender implications as a female being discriminated against by a male power structure. As she asked whether a married man would have suffered such a comment?

I have never denied that women were discriminated against by ''TPTB'', but I'm pointing out that men were equally discriminated against by being assigned roles and codes of behaviour within society.

Being forced to potentially die or be maimed fighting, purely because of your gender, is the most obvious and extreme example of sexist discrimination in previous decades.

Unsurprisingly, the feminazis never bring this up in their unique revisionist take on history.

Originally posted by tiger5
As a black man I would rather sit down with the average feminist than a racist. There are extreme feminists that hate men but they were always in the extreme minority. If you manifest the blind anti racism that you do towards your anti feminism I would be disapointed. Knowledge is power.

If I had the choice between having dinner with a racist or a feminist, I would pick neither.

I am anti-racist because it doesn't stand up to stand up to logical scrutiny, and those who hold racist views are largely ignorant, closed-minded and think lazily.

I am anti-feminist because feminists are largely ignorant, closed-minded and think lazily.

Originally posted by tiger5
There are also some pretty feminists out there so stop blanketing women who happen to dislike gender based discrimination.

They'll probably be the ones who have had negative relationships with a boyfriend or father, then.