Feminism: Destroying the Male and Female Relationship

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

( Sherlocks words are in bold )


--
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 ?
--


No..rather that you had to stop and think before jumping in to post defensivly.

Your two black and white options, wherent the only options, and not even close to what I was thinking or meaning....see ?

Understand?


--
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.
---


Im still stunned and cant believe you actually wrote the above.

Firstly, most of the women in history who were "very popular with men" WERE feminisits!
Marylin, Jacki O Audry Hepbrn Rita Hayworth etc..all feminists!
Documented card carrying feminists. Ditto several famous and 'popular' with men female writers, political leaders and poetess artists and teachers. Feminism was composed of REAL women!

Secondly, if you think all men are ruled by a womans 'popularity' , sexual beauty and physical attractivness and if you trurly think that the end goal of feminism is to be popular with men, which you appear to be suggesting here, then I feel sad for you.

Thirdly, your words again suggest feminism was solely about power OVER men..when it wasnt!

Also..when I said stunning..I meant from the inside. Attractive, I meant a person you want to be near, a magnetic person..someone to learn from and grow with, not a tool for mens ego agrandisement or about mens concepts of popularity..what a cheek!

So given how many times here I've had to say ' no thats not what I meant', and so obviously, you cant even read or know MY mind as a single female..how can you presupose to know the minds of so many women enough to make such wide gernalisations about 'all' women?

You consistantly claim I am a 'victim of revisionist dogma' and say you despise "generalisations" yet you dont even know me or my history and here you've fallen into using several of the most typical of stereotypes as a reaction to how you are *feeling*..not the *facts*.
Very mature and reasoned..great analysis going on there.

Wether you can see it or not, you are responding to images and stereotypes conjured up by people who are perhaps being exposed to the same 'rules' they've been happily accepting as normal for others for centries, and who are experiencing the truth of that oppression for the first real time in their lives and dont like it!

Tuff! We didnt either! Join the club!

These 'femiznazi' statements and views are not facts they are views generated and supported by political groups and people that are incapeable of addressing reasoned argument without the need to use stereotypes, which are intended to allow you to dimiss a point of view you dont agree with it and 'one up' yourself - to make yourself feel better and more in control - to DOMINATE other people!

We know..because in the first years of emancipation bought about by feminsism and in teh proces and time of taking back our personal authority and responsibility for ourselves- we did that too!
We know the game already.This is the reason I *left* feminist circles as that attitude was prevailing at the as more lesbian women joined the movement, but it was at THAT time..it isnt prevailing today.

Yes..many women have suffered at the hands of men..still do. That is a fact not a weapon of ego wars!
Men are suffering at the hands of women abusers too!
Again FACT not a weapon.
Even that though - abuse - is not the sole basis of feminism any more than 'chicks with daddy issues' is.

Never was...those are what YOU think..not the facts.

What I personally pointed out in my words, was that males had control of the institutions of social freedom and of exerting political power in the physical world..and used those powers to oppress and dominate women, as oposed to other uses of that power. FACT.

Given women cant drive in many regions still today, its hard to have them give realistic input on the state of freeways...so yes, men had to be the masters of change at those levels but women were the lever..and will always be a lever.



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


Am I suposed to feel anything more than a experiential empathy? We who had no say whaever in creating them and no power to affect change *within* them...could hardly be held to account for these instutions that caused the harm, whats more, we who had to clean up the mess they made, rebuild families, continue on in the absence of fathers, husbands and sons due to warfare, also suffered three times over. This isnt a whose suffering is worse contest.


--
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.
--


There is no monopoly on suffering and violence..everyone is a victim and everyone is responsible.



--
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.
--



Men though, for two hundred years in Western society, had the means to change that, and didnt...they accepted the norms and revelled in the power those norms gave to them.



--
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.
--



If to you, feminisim is solely about female supremecy over men, then you are misinformed, undereducated and buying into the lowest comon denominator of stereotypes.
For many women..there is simply no question anyway....so concepts of equality being expoused by the militant wings of feminist movements are actualy devaluing, not emancipating to the power of womanhood.


--
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 the fact that by any measure of sucess in society, being wives, scientists, academic professors, doctors, lawyers, and everything from fulltime mothers, council workers and musician.artists is irrelevent? The fact they are individual human beings is irrelevent? They all just get lumped into the 'same boat' by you to proove your point..so you can, for a quick moment, feel safe and empowered in your personal false sense of security by labeling them as weak willed free riding women.

Nice use of generalisation there....hows it working out for you?


--
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''.
--


Im sorry..but you have no real idea about the subject you are talking about. You would need to approach the topic objectivly and academically to be able to speak fairly on issues of ideology...other wise you are just reading minds and 'thinking for people'...when you really dont know each of their minds...you cant know or spek for them unless your claiming godhood...which is fine if you are..but there is another forum for you to go to here to announce and proove that through peer review.

If your not annoncing the kingdom come, then it remains you are just making absolute statments without the research or educational background to support them.

Also, and when I said *for men*...I meant something altogether different..which was something; a particular perpsective; that if you had let down your defences for a moment..you might have sensed and come to understanding of.




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


You betcha.


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


Ahh....ok...evidenced I supose by this thorough and well researched and unemotional academic analysis of feminism your sharing.


--
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.
--



Thats a good thing to note...as prior to the advent of feminism the comprehension of ' without the qualifying statement' wasnt even a part of the social male consciousness at all.



--
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 !
--



Again you are blanketly assuming feminists want to BE men...or DOMINATE men. 99% of the women I know who are feminist..couldnt be further from that concept - its not ABOUT you.

What you are saying is an attribution error....your attributing what you fear and think to 'all' men.what one or two groups might think to 'all women'.

Feelings..arent facts.





--
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.
---


This is not "the" problem, an absolute, it is YOU having a problem with ppl who are PC or feminist....something altogther different and something that doesnt make THEM "bad", just you "uncomfortable".

If you have the problem, you are obligated to self sooth as much as any human being is. You dont have a right just because you are feeling wounded to wound others.

Your discomfort is not my problem so if you wish to resolve this discomfort then, I genuinely not sarcastically, suggest you find a good friend or therapist to whom you can speak and be honest with, and find yourself a pathway to building a self esteem that is not so reliant on or moulded by external opinions. No one else is responsible for the way you *feel* but you.



--
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.
--


Lets just say, I dont know...why dont you go and find three ways they MIGHT be?
How threatening could that be? Self led research into a topic...not much to ask no?
Open your mind just a tad to see if they are doing anything..dont just sit there and say they are not...with so much contempt prior to the invetsigation.

I already know..so its no use me reeducating myself - for you..as you, who as a human being is perfectly capepable of getting out there and figuring it out by yourself, need to be the one to make the effort for the findings to be authentic and unchallangable...otherwise we'll just waste more bandwith going round in circles.


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


Im not. I am not offended or the one being affected by his deficit in comprehension. He is.

Its his responsibility to alter his views and shape his mind. Not mine. Even when give the opportnity to have an inflence..I am extremly careful.

The truth is, and is eventually made self evident, and prooven by action not maniplation.


--
It has changed.
--


Why...because you are feeling the effects of oppression or the first time?

Last year, over 4 million women were raped in the US, over 90 million women world wide were sold into sexual slavery, over 200 million girl children were murdered.

You think its really changed except in the politic..in the way you choose to view it?
The reality on the ground says the opposite.

If anything, the stats are getting worse...as men world over, having begun to reach a point of reflective maturity, are now being faced with the undeniable truth and reality of the full conseqences of both their actions and inactions in regards to women.

In many societies this has meant hyperreligous ( avoidance) or hypesexualised ( primal dominance) states are now growing and entire groups now exist where many men are psychologically incapeable of empathy or reason, many are devolving back into primal mysogyny, most are resentful they couldnt escape thier ownconsciences and so are seeking to vent that rage back at women more and more...increasing the crime rate.

In many nations still, it is not even a crime to rape or abuse a woman. It is considered a crime to abuse a fellow man though, so therein lies the lie.


Link: unstats.un.org...


--
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.
--


Equal is a loaded word in itself...and another that reqires that 'point of clarification'.

Here in Australia we treat unequal people unequally, and it works for us. If everyone were treated exactly equally here our society would be in as much social chaos as..well..the US.


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


Are they? Please point me to a specific example.


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


No. Some, not all humans seek control as a means to stabailise their internal paradigms.



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


Some women, some men.


--
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 !
--


Maybe, the effects of your character on them were such they felt a need to say something....rather than staying silent, meek little does. I dont know I dont speak for other people...I can only suggest that this comment remains invalid until you have examined your own interpretations of their 'controlling' behavior.


--
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 !
---


Perhaps they had their limits to what they were willing to tolerate from a man as well.
Expressing those limits..asking for what they needed isnt 'controlling'...its honesty.




--
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.
--


I dont think this way..in fact it would be a wonderful thing if all men - and women- could control their own minds.


--
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.
--



Regardless of what they are or are not in actuality, in viewing them as a threat to your personal wellbeing, yes, you are expressing a fear. The root of all anger is fear...and you do seem angry about this.
What do you care what these women think? Whats it to you?




--
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 !
--


Ahh if more men could look within to resolve their own problems it would be a wonderful day.
That said, we are what we are today, women, becase we can do that.

Oh...and please dont call ME a feminist. I am not...nor associated with any group that is..thankyou.

I do know though, that internalisation is not about 'switching the proble'm. It is about *being accountable and claiming responsibility for it and your reaction to it*

Something yes..that is a frightening concept to those whove never tried it and are fearful of maturation - of growing up.


--
I'm not waiting for society to sanction me.
--


You specifically wrote 'when society does xys..then I will abc...so forgive me for not being able to read your mind or know you were only kidding......that skill - next evolution.


--
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.
--


You *really* have no idea do you.

sigh.


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


If that is what you need to believe to feel secure..then so be it.
It isnt the truth.

As a woman I can say to you right now..I dont care. If you did it women did it..it is irrelevent. I just dont care.
Its done.

What does mater to me, is you trying to replace your ego at the expense of truth and of others welbeing, or to dominate others via this kind of pettness as that is the problem still facing women and men today.


--
Nonsense.
--


Write off sumarily anything that you dont agree with...ok. Hope that works for you too.
Show me where and why it is, and I might bother responding the comments that followed.



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


Ahh...so now you are having a real time experience of what it must have been like for women then.. Not nice is it....not comfortable, not 'right' is it?

Your angry because feminists are not standing up in defense of you? Defending your rights for you to other women?

Men didnt defend womens rights..we had to stand for that ourselves - and there is a value in doing that (standing up for yourself) Its not something to feel resentful over...in fact its someting to be thankful for!

What you are feeling now, was though, just the tip of the iceburg of the deep reality of opression for most women...every day of their lives..for centuries. Formost women, it still is.

Maybe if you refuse to 'get it' from any other perspective, this one, experiential learning, will teach you...that is, if you are mature enough and human enough to let it.


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


No..it concerns me that any agenda of feminism or any 'ism' currently operating in society has been manipulated to remove anyones rights.

Im just not buying into your self pity, or saying 'poor baby', standing in front to defend you, thats all. Nor am I ridiculing you for feeling the way you do...a courtesy not offered many women when it was womens turn 'in the docks' of social opression.

I could be wrong, but it sure sounds to me that you are feeling disempowered and angry...and just as I say to women who feel the same - what are you going to do about it?

Answering that question and finding the answer was the birth of feminism and that question and answer - came from within women...for women..and was acted on..by women.


If your not willing to do more than sit here typing your feelings and opinions..and refuse to take a similar course of introspective action, then you will deserve what you get!



Rosha.

reply to post by AzoriaCorp


Feminism used to be about equal rights, under law, and equal perception. Now it is about female supremacy, it pisses me off.

I'm all for them doing what we can do, but they start turning us into an image of jingoist chauvs.

These threads always follow the same predictable pattern:

1. Feminazis trying to progress their, not so subtle, ideological propaganda, which is based upon intellectual dishonesty and a view of society that may have had some basis in the 1960s - and even the early 1970s - but that gets shown up time and time again by those that challenge these assertions on an intellectual level.


Emotional blackmail doesn't work any more for the feminazi propagandists; that may have worked 40 years ago.

''Male guilt'' doesn't work, because men such as I, who grew up in the 1990s, have never been responsible for any ''institutionalised'' sexism, nor have we encountered or experienced anything other than gender equality in the society that we grow up in.


It is very much in the feminazis' interests to perpetuate the notion that gender inequality is still relevant - even so, it's demonstrably not - I mean, how are feminists going to get a free-ride in a society that is based upon equality ?





2. Most importantly, in these threads, the pattern continues in this way:

Posters continue to post unsubstantiated and apocryphal stories alleging discrimination against women.

There was even one previous poster who used the nauseating phrase, in regards to the subject matter, of an ''ongoing struggle for women'' LOL, and not only used a false analogy, but obnoxiously disrespected the black people in 1960s USA, by comparing their genuine struggle for equality with the feminist movement.

When these people get challenged and corrected by people who believe in equality, like me, then they are incapable of providing any logical or relevant riposte, because they know that their view-point is based on a intentional skewering of the facts, or that their utopian ideals do not correlate with the realities of the real world.




Seeing as though I have challenged ATS members, not just in this thread, but over the months, to provide an example of legal or societal discrimination against women that occurs in Western society in 2011; and all contributors have failed to provide any objective or substantive evidence to support this hypothesis, then, forgive me for assuming that there is no valid support for the feminazis claims until I receive some kind of objective support for their claims; but obviously that won't be forthcoming.




For those feminazis, and ''men'' with low self-respect and self-esteem, who support the feminist ''cause'', who can't be bothered reading my post in it's entirety, then I shall pose the simplest of questions to you, that hasn't been answered in the last few months on ATS, yet alone the last 30 years:




In what way, in Western society, are women discriminated against in 2011 ?

Any objective example will do !



Thanks.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

"Seeing as though I have challenged ATS members, not just in this thread, but over the months, to provide an example of legal or societal discrimination against women that occurs in Western society in 2011; and all contributors have failed to provide any objective or substantive evidence to support this hypothesis, then forgive me for assuming that there is no valid support of the feminazis claims until I receive some kind of objective support for their claims; but obviously that won't be forthcoming."

Simply untrue I gave you a link to look at wage inequality that you chose to ignore!

Did ya miss me? I am back!



Here is a tasty snippet just for you from a recent copy of the economist that well know feminist rag (Sarcasm)

Only 2% of the bosses of America’s largest companies and 5% of their peers in Britain are women. They are also paid significantly less than men on average. The second is that juggling work and child-rearing is difficult. THis is a signifier for a deeper malaise within any attempt of gender equality. Sure there have beem improvements but thereis still some way to go.

Unlike many men I am not scared of women hence do not need rigged mechanisma to get ahead in life.




Here is something from CBS again current 2011

www.cbsnews.com...


Again all I suggest is that one google's sexism 2011 + Economics.

reply to post by Rosha


Rosha

I am not sure about it not being life or death issues. The UK police were not bothered about the yorkshire ripper as long as he was killing prostitutes but as soon as good girls got killed the investigations were ratched up several notches. The police have sought to change their attitudes since then. Given the level of hatred that remains against those "uppity women". I would not be amazed if life does not end up being threatened.

Will A feminist-hating policeman apply all his resources to assist a feminist who comes to him for help???? Justy a thought experiment..


First we are going to disagree but thank you for so respecting me as to write such a well thought out post.

I have taken the ATS perspective perhaps a td too seriously and have decided to deny ignorance. I also like a good debate. There is a point that comes when my mother’s advice comes to mind. “ A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”.

I am also a person of multiple identities. Alternative politics is just one of them. Sometimes these differing identities seem to clash with other people’s perspectives but I am always happy with them.

The real problem is that we are in a political and intellectual trough because of two factors

1) No one has any time in the real world as we all are working too hard; and

2) The debating culture has changed there was a time when you could have a decent debate in a bar with someone who has a wildly opposing view and shake hands afterwards. Now is you try that you may find someone trying to fight with you.

I still feel that certain ideas that have moved from the mundane world to be aired in all their sordid glory are alive, well and more importantly unchecked on the internet. I challenged some of then like Mr Makow’s. The mere act of challenging shows an important alternative view that exists in as a permanent point in here in cyberspace. I do not care if I never actually defeat Mr Makow or his supporters here on ATS but for other who read both sides of the debate then perhaps it will give them some support and also realise that an alternative viewpoint penetrate what is seen as a highly reactionary environment


Irregardless of the personal methods we use to negotiate the issue of sexism there is still a need for a collective movement to make changes. Sadly in 2011 there is still a need for more social changes. I am fed up with the whinny men who keep pushing the idea that the women (and other minorities) are taking over and oppressing the rest. That is simply untrue.

Originally posted by tiger5
Simply untrue I gave you a link to look at wage inequality that you chose to ignore!

Did ya miss me? I am back!

Simply not untrue !

I didn't ''choose to ignore'' your links, I actually didn't see them.

I tend to skim through posts that bore me...

Originally posted by tiger5Here is a tasty snippet just for you from a recent copy of the economist that well know feminist rag (Sarcasm)

Only 2% of the bosses of America’s largest companies and 5% of their peers in Britain are women. They are also paid significantly less than men on average.

''Correlation does not imply causation''. Repeat to fade...

Please tell me what leads you to believe that those percentages are attributable to discrimination ?!

Perhaps, only 2% of America's bosses of large companies had suitable female candidates ?


I think that you said that you are a black man, and I know from some of your previous posts that you are British...

I think that the percentage of professional footballers who are black, is in the region 20-25%.

The number of black, black-mixed, people in the UK, is around 3-5%.


Even at the lowest estimates, that makes black people over-represented in football by at least 300%.

Now, is this an example of anti-white discrimination, considering that, firstly, white people are under-represented in the world of football, and secondly, that being a footballer earns you a ridiculously large wage, thereby making the job of professional footballer a highly sought after occupation.

Are you going to conclude from the statistics, that white people are being discriminated against, in Britain, as professional footballers ?

Originally posted by tiger5
The second is that juggling work and child-rearing is difficult. THis is a signifier for a deeper malaise within any attempt of gender equality. Sure there have beem improvements but thereis still some way to go.

I don't follow.

Women, who become pregnant during the time of their employment, are quite rightly granted maternity leave by law.

This surely isn't difficult to grasp for feminazis - although, you apparently claim not to be one .


Other than that, caring for your child is a 50/50 issue, as men are equally as affected by working their career around their children, as women are.

Originally posted by tiger5
Unlike many men I am not scared of women hence do not need rigged mechanisma to get ahead in life.

LOL.

Trying the ''flip-flop'' tactic.

It doesn't work on me, mate. Sorry.


It's the feminists whose whole raison d'être is to try and get an easy-ride and preferential treatment, at the expense of hard working men and women.

This is why feminists are scum. I find intellectual dishonesty abhorrent, and the feminazis formed a whole movement and ideology based upon it !

Originally posted by tiger5
Here is something from CBS again current 2011

www.cbsnews.com...
Again all I suggest is that one google's sexism 2011 + Economics.

1970.

LOL.

Talk about proving my point !





]Once more, I will end my post by leaving an open question to ATS:

In what way are women discriminated against in 2011 ???

I expect answers !

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by tiger5
Simply untrue I gave you a link to look at wage inequality that you chose to ignore!

Did ya miss me? I am back!

Simply not untrue !

I didn't ''choose to ignore'' your links, I actually didn't see them.

I tend to skim through posts that bore me...

Originally posted by tiger5Here is a tasty snippet just for you from a recent copy of the economist that well know feminist rag (Sarcasm)

Only 2% of the bosses of America’s largest companies and 5% of their peers in Britain are women. They are also paid significantly less than men on average.

''Correlation does not imply causation''. Repeat to fade...

Please tell me what leads you to believe that those percentages are attributable to discrimination ?!

Perhaps, only 2% of America's bosses of large companies had suitable female candidates ?


I think that you said that you are a black, and I know from some of your previous posts that you are British...

I think that the percentage of professional footballers who are black, is in the region 20-25%.

The number of black, black-mixed, people in the UK, is around 3-5%.


Even at the lowest estimates, that makes black people over-represented in football by at least 300%.

Now, is this an example of anti-white discrimination, considering that, firstly, white people are under-represented in the world of football, and secondly, that being a footballer earns you a ridiculously large wage, thereby making the job of professional footballer a highly sought after occupation.

Are you going to conclude from the statistics, that white people are being discriminated against, in Britain, as professional footballers ?

Originally posted by tiger5
The second is that juggling work and child-rearing is difficult. THis is a signifier for a deeper malaise within any attempt of gender equality. Sure there have beem improvements but thereis still some way to go.

I don't follow.

Women, who become pregnant during the time of their employment, are quite rightly granted maternity leave by law.

This surely isn't difficult to grasp for feminazis - although, you apparently claim not to be one

.


Other than that, caring for your child is a 50/50 issue, as men are equally as affected by working their career around their children, as women are.

Originally posted by tiger5
Unlike many men I am not scared of women hence do not need rigged mechanisma to get ahead in life.

LOL.

Trying the ''flip-flop'' tactic.

It doesn't work on me, mate. Sorry.

It's the feminists whose whole raison d'être is to try and get an easy-ride and preferential treatment, at the expense of hard working men and women.

This is why feminists are scum. I find intellectual dishonesty abhorrent, and the feminazis formed a whole movement and ideology based upon it !

Originally posted by tiger5
Here is something from CBS again current 2011

www.cbsnews.com...
Again all I suggest is that one google's sexism 2011 + Economics.

1970.

LOL.

Talk about proving my point !





]Once more, I will end my post by leaving an open question to ATS:

In what way are women discriminated against in 2011 ???

I expect answers !

edit on 7-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

Firstly if you had looked at the CBS link you would have heard that they were looking back 40 years After the 1970s action on discrimination.

Regarding the statisitcs on dicrimination if women and men have equal opportunities in education and equality for all then how come the statistics I have quoted are so damming.

Do you honestly believe in female inferiority?

You point on football is lost on me I cannot abide the the stupid sport. However I would assume that so many of the black footballers are foreign (read cheap) they are more affordable than the local stock. This of course buggers up the world cup for the UK but hey ho. I have no dog in that race.

Child care is a massive issue and what about the poor success rates for marriage (Go on blame the women for that). Inevitably women bear the brunt of this. And what about the more subtle issue of expecting a woman to stay at home even if she is a single parent?

Posted by Sherlock:

In what way, in Western society, are women discriminated against in 2011 ?

Any objective example will do !

While there are many areas that are still developing or in need of development, there are two primary areas where gender discrimination affects women in the US in 2011.... the real biggies are:


SEXUAL VIOLENCE and HEALTHCARE



HEALTHCARE:
www.seiu.org...

- 8 states and the District of Columbia allow insurers to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence because they have a "pre-existing condition." ( being abused is now a pre-existing condition!)

- Many insurers also consider pregnancy and Cesarean sections a pre-existing condition. ( yes I was born prengant :/)

* 64 million women in America do not have adequate health insurance coverage.

* 52% of women reported trouble accessing needed health care because of cost.

* 26% of young women in America (aged 19 - 24) have no health coverage at all.

* 27% of employed women work part time and are thus excluded from their employers' health insurance plan, versus only 13% of men. ( having to work part time in order to stay home and render parenthood to children is now a social defict.)




VIOLENCE:


-7.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. Of these, 21.6% were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32.4% were between the ages of 12 and 17. (Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)

-64% of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. (Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)

-The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.

-The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 college women experience completed or attempted rape during their college years (Fisher 2000).

-One out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. (Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998)

-Factoring in unreported rapes, about 5% - **one out of twenty** - of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. Speerate studies show that 19 out of 20 rapists will walk free. (Probability statistics based on US Department of Justice Statistics)

-According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, more than 260,000 rapes or sexual assaults occurred in 2000; 246,180 of them occurred among females and 14,770, among males (Department of Justice 2001).

- The costs of intimate partner violence against women exceed an estimated $5.8 billion. These costs include nearly $4.1 billion in the direct costs of medical care and mental health care and nearly $1.8 billion in the indirect costs of lost productivity and present value of lifetime earnings.

- Somewhere in America a woman is battered, usually by her intimate partner, every 15 seconds. (UN Study On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

- **Following the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 to strike down the civil-rights provision of the Federal Violence Against Women Act (ruling that only states could enact such legislation), only two states in the country (Illinois and California) have defined gender-based violence, such as rape and domestic violence, as sex discrimination, and created specific laws that survivors can use to sue their perpetrators in civil court. (Kaethe Morris Hoffer, 2004).** ( only two states? )

- 800,000 – Number of people trafficked across international borders every year.
Source: U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report: 2007.

- 80% – Percent of transnational victims are women and girls.( Source: U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report: 2007.)

-An estimated 50,000 women and children are trafficked **into the United States annually** for sexual exploitation or forced labor. (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 2000)


Sorces: www.uri.edu...
nhtrc.polarisproject.org...




Other areas :

- Miltary Rapes, Military promoitions. - see USDF statstics
- PAY gaps - see below
- Sexualistion and objectification in media
- Religous representation - women make up less than 1% of all religous 'leaders'.

As regards the issue of PAY:

Sexism and Gender Discrimination Statistics
www.urbanministry.org...

- Women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn; women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn (Bureau of Labor Statistics, cited in Hilary M. Lips, "The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the Rationalizations").

* Furthermore, women may work longer to receive the promotions that provide access to higher pay. For example, among school principals, women have an average of 3 years longer as teachers than men do (National Center for Education Statistics, cited in the same).

- Pay inequality figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earn only 72 cents and Latinas 60 cents for every dollar that men earn (AFL-CIO, "It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay").

- Even in jobs that are predominantly occupied by women such as cashiers or child care workers, women make about 95% of men’s wages (DoL, cited in Karen Harper, "Sexism in the Media").


--


So I could go on and on...detail how and why dying on a battlefield is no less meaningful or final than dying at the hands of your husband...I could go on with points and he said she said examples.....but its enough to say - while conceeding that there have been many government programs and regulations passed in the US in the past thirty years to remedy gender discrimination in the workplace, academia, and the home - there is still much work to be done.

First and foremost, the change that is needed most, takes place within men themselves who do need to accept individually and ' as a whole' the legal and literal equality of women and so need to make a decision within themslves to uphold the rights of women, such as the right _not_ to be raped and abused.

All the laws in the world can be passed to remedy these problems but without a change of base perception, and enforcement of these laws and the many regulations and statutes, with a judiciary willing to support them honestly not as a side bar, the song will remain the same. It is in those darker areas, of regulation and enforcement the discrimination hides out.

It does linger in those places because discrimination isnt just a matter of a lack of representation or access or law - it is a matter of perception and that can't be analysed or statistically measured or referenced, except via the effect - hence the violence on women stats Ive put here.

Is its stats like these that speak of the ongoing underlying an dmore truthful reality that shows, for many men, the world hasnt changed as they are still 'claiming of the right to abuse and rape' and claiming of that 'right' to rape, as only one example, as an abuse of physical power, is based in gender discrimination - "I "can" as I am more powerful/entitled/capeable - so I do."

It is not to say women dont rape, only that more men than women have 'claimed the right/entitlement to rape' and men have more access to social and political structures that support their claiming of that right, socially and in the absence of or in the limited penalties applied for the crime.

Its is discrimination of THIS kind - the actions and discrimination that begins and ends in the individuals own choice, that is ruining male/female relationships..not feminism imo.

Feminism, if nothing else, has called to light the fact that THAT choice is being made..and that is important to keep in mind.

Last point - All of the above is also not to say or deny that men are not discriminated against, it only address YOUR question as to how women are, which I have now answered..in full.

Discrimination of women still happens, it still exists, legally socially and perceptually, even in 2011.

FACT.


Rosha.

The women's movement came from within a greater movement, with much of the same players that fought for the rigihts of slaves, the rights of workers, also taking part in it...
There were men who were in the women's movement, and the women were pretty big on working towards the freedeom of the slaves. but I think that those were a continuation of a much greater movement, the breaking free of the church and the kings.
In plain and simple words, if you despise the spirit of the movement that gave women their rights, you also despise the movement that gave you your rights....

In all societies the obvious biological difference between men and women is used as a justification for forcing them into different social roles which limit and shape their attitudes and behavior. That is to say, no society is content with the natural difference of sex, but each insists on adding to it a cultural difference of gender. The simple physical facts therefore always become associated with complex psychological qualities. It is not enough for a man to be male; he also has to appear masculine. A woman, in addition to being female, must also be feminine.
However, once the contrast between men and women has been increased and accentuated in this fashion, it is usually taken as a further manifestation of biological differences which confirm the need for different social roles. Or, to put it another way, sex differences are used to create gender differences which are then explained as sex differences which, in turn, require gender differences, and so on. This may be no more than circular reasoning, but it is socially very effective. For example, in our own patriarchal society males enjoy a socially dominant position. Thus, from an early age, boys are helped to acquire a masculinity that allows them to assume and maintain that position. By the same token, girls are taught to cultivate a submissive femininity. The resulting difference in the male and female character is then described as inborn and used to defend the existing power arrangement. Only those who accept it are normal, and only they can expect to succeed. The male social role is designed to reward masculine men, while the female social role offers its relative advantages only to feminine women. (The aggressive man will run the bigger business; the pretty, agreeable woman will find the richer husband.) In other words, masculinity and femininity are gender qualities which are developed in response to social discrimination. However, once they have been developed, they justify and cement it. The masculine and feminine gender roles mutually reinforce each other and thereby perpetuate the inequality on which they are based.
Obviously, this psychological mechanism can operate only as long as the behavior of men and women does not transgress the generally accepted limits. Every society tries therefore to prevent such transgressions by calling the socially defined gender roles "natural", eternal, and unchangeable. Any person who refuses to accept them is persecuted as a deviant and punished as an offender not only against society, but against "nature" itself. An historical example of such deviance is the case of Joan of Arc who, as a young girl, not only led the French army to victory over the English, but also wore male clothing. In her later trial she was promptly accused of having thus violated the laws of nature.

Originally posted by dawnstar
The women's movement came from within a greater movement, with much of the same players that fought for the rigihts of slaves, the rights of workers, also taking part in it...
There were men who were in the women's movement, and the women were pretty big on working towards the freedeom of the slaves. but I think that those were a continuation of a much greater movement, the breaking free of the church and the kings.
In plain and simple words, if you despise the spirit of the movement that gave women their rights, you also despise the movement that gave you your rights....

Ermm But I do not forget how the suffragettes played their own game when it came to black emancipation versus white female emancipation. Have you ever heard the reason why and more importantly when Sojourner Truth made her "Ain't I a woman speach?

www.sojournertruth.org...


www.feminist.com...

And you should have read the English magazine Spare Rib in the late 70s before its demise when white feminists were caught up by black woman who challenged their racism.

I fully accept that there were decent white women in the abolition of slavery and as usual their efforts were never acknowledged like their white male counterparts but all was not as rosy in the garden as some may think. Like anything, even sugar there is a darkside.

Rgds

T

Originally posted by Rosha
No..rather that you had to stop and think before jumping in to post defensivly.

Your two black and white options, wherent the only options, and not even close to what I was thinking or meaning....see ?

Understand?

There's no need for you to attempt to patronise me.

We are quite capable of having a discussion without the need to resort to petty, snide comments. If you want to play with fire, then there's only going to one winner here - and it ain't gonna be you.

Besides, I think we have cross-wires.

You said that it was ''good that I didn't generalise'', or something along those lines, and I wasn't sure whether you were being sarcastic, considering that I generalise feminazis.

Either way, it's not really important to the overall debate, and on the subject of generalisations, I feel that it is wrong to generalise people who have a broad and varied range of attributes, such as ''women are this'', or ''men are that'', yet it is perfectly acceptable to generalise a group of people based upon their personal choices and actions.

Racial supremacists and feminists are perfectly valid targets for generalisations, because it was their conscience choice to adhere to the ideology or philosophy in question.

Originally posted by Rosha
Im still stunned and cant believe you actually wrote the above.

Firstly, most of the women in history who were "very popular with men" WERE feminisits!
Marylin, Jacki O Audry Hepbrn Rita Hayworth etc..all feminists!
Documented card carrying feminists. Ditto several famous and 'popular' with men female writers, political leaders and poetess artists and teachers.

I doubt that many of these people were genuine feminists. What happens a lot is that quotes are taken out of context, and butchered into a ''girl power ! girl power !'' mantra that is not necessarily representative of their true views on the subject.

Someone like Audrey Hepburn, for example, was a good actress, and I think commented, somewhat understandably, that she felt that she wasn't taken seriously enough and that she was treated mainly as a sex symbol, first and foremost.

This doesn't mean she supported special treatment and privileges for her gender. Not to mention that her point was a little moot, considering that people like her and Marilyn Monroe largely built their wealth and fame on the back of being physically beautiful.

All that being said, I may be wrong ( it does happen occasionally ) and a lot of these attractive women may well have been self-declared feminists, but that would probably be down to having bad experiences with men.

Originally posted by Rosha
Feminism was composed of REAL women!

''Feminist'' and ''real woman'' are mutually exclusive concepts, just as ''wife-beater'' and ''real man'' are.

Real men and real women are those that don't unduly compromise their femininity/masculinity, and they certainly do not exploit their gender as a means to gain power and control of the other gender.

Originally posted by Rosha
Secondly, if you think all men are ruled by a womans 'popularity' , sexual beauty and physical attractivness and if you trurly think that the end goal of feminism is to be popular with men, which you appear to be suggesting here, then I feel sad for you.

Some men, quite often, will behave like complete idiots when they are trying to attract a good-looking woman. This includes bowing down to her every wish and command, in a desperate attempt to impress her so she'll want to have sex with them. LOL.

It is easy for a good-looking woman to exploit these men, and to lead them on to gain what they want from the man. This is why good-looking women already have that element of power and control over a lot of men.

I never said that the end-goal of feminism was to be popular with men.

We can't deny that both men and women seek to be as attractive as possible to the opposite sex, and people generally like any sexually-motivated attention they receive from a member of the opposite sex. This is a common trait in most people, and we probably wouldn't have survived as a species if we weren't driven in this way.

Sadly, for many women who, shall we say, aren't traditionally attractive, they don't always receive a lot of attention from men, and certainly don't get the attention that the more attractive women do.

This, in some cases, may lead to bitterness and resentment at men, which will then manifest itself into an urge to control and gain power over men in the way they never could previously, hence the allure of feminism, and a chance for an embittered woman to ''get her own back'' on men, and the years of hurt she suffered from rejections.

The great thing for these women, of course, is that in feminism, they can hide their true motives and hide behind the nauseating societal acceptance of this supremacist movement and ideology.

Originally posted by Rosha
Thirdly, your words again suggest feminism was solely about power OVER men..when it wasnt!

Interesting choice of words there... While I don't think that you intended it in that way, your comment appears to admit that there was an element of attempting to gain power over men.

Not that that matters, as gaining control over men was, and still is, the prime motivator of feminism.

Originally posted by Rosha
Also..when I said stunning..I meant from the inside. Attractive, I meant a person you want to be near, a magnetic person..someone to learn from and grow with, not a tool for mens ego agrandisement or about mens concepts of popularity..what a cheek!

So given how many times here I've had to say ' no thats not what I meant', and so obviously, you cant even read or know MY mind as a single female..how can you presupose to know the minds of so many women enough to make such wide gernalisations about 'all' women?

''Stunning'' is a term that can mean someone who is very physically attractive. I'm not to know what context you're using the word in, when it could have applied more than one thing in the sentence that you used it in.

One of the drawbacks of written communication is that you do not always know what context someone is expressing their feelings in, as any intention or emotional slant that there may be in the writer's comments can only be generated internally by the viewer, and consequently do not always correlate with the real intention or emotion that the point was made.

If I have not correctly interpreted one of your comments, then that is usually down to the inevitable ambiguity that can arise from written communication.

I have never claimed to be psychic, nor a mind-reader, so I wouldn't be capable of knowing your mind from the dialogues that we've had on ATS, anyway.

That doesn't mean that there aren't broad psychological traits that can be interpreted in people, from the way that they behave and express themselves verbally.

I've never generalised about ''all'' women.

Originally posted by Rosha
You consistantly claim I am a 'victim of revisionist dogma' and say you despise "generalisations" yet you dont even know me or my history and here you've fallen into using several of the most typical of stereotypes as a reaction to how you are *feeling*..not the *facts*.
Very mature and reasoned..great analysis going on there.

I would take my comment that you're a ''victim of revisionist dogma'' as a complement, as I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, and operating on the basis that you're not deliberately misrepresenting the facts and history of feminism.

What stereotypes am I using ? If any of my views on this subject are stereotypical, then I am elaborating on my points to provide supporting arguments for them.

There is nothing unreasoned or immature about my view-point.

Originally posted by Rosha
Wether you can see it or not, you are responding to images and stereotypes conjured up by people who are perhaps being exposed to the same 'rules' they've been happily accepting as normal for others for centries, and who are experiencing the truth of that oppression for the first real time in their lives and dont like it!

Tuff! We didnt either! Join the club!

Hang on a minute, I'm trying to get my head around your argument here.

You're saying that these men who were happy to ''oppress'' women are now getting unhappy because the boot is on the other foot, as it were ?

Which seems to be implying that men are ''suffering'' in a similar way to how you claim women were many decades ago.

So you seem to supporting the notion that men are now on the receiving end of ''oppression'', which I've been arguing all along.

In other words, ''pay-back''. So much for the myth of feminists supporting ''equality''.

Originally posted by Rosha
These 'femiznazi' statements and views are not facts they are views generated and supported by political groups and people that are incapeable of addressing reasoned argument without the need to use stereotypes, which are intended to allow you to dimiss a point of view you dont agree with it and 'one up' yourself - to make yourself feel better and more in control - to DOMINATE other people!

''Feminazi'' is just a derogatory term to denote the unreasoned, emotion-driven, illogical views of feminists.
If you say the word ''nazi'', it usually conjures up images of jack-booted thugs riding roughshod over anyone and anything in an unwavering way. This is analogous with feminist beliefs, ideals, and the way that they conduct their movement.

I use the term ''feminazi'' to express my dislike and contempt for feminists and feminism, the same way as I may refer to the KKK as a ''bunch of knuckle-draggers'' to express my dislike at their odious view-point and beliefs.

It is not motivated by a wish to ''dominate'', but rather as a way to express my feelings the subject.


You keep on saying that I'm arguing along stereotypical lines, as if that somehow invalidates my points.

It doesn't. My points are well thought out, and if my conclusions happen to be similar to stereotypes on the matter, then so be it.

That's not my problem.

Originally posted by Rosha
We know..because in the first years of emancipation bought about by feminsism and in teh proces and time of taking back our personal authority and responsibility for ourselves- we did that too!

How can you ''take back your authority and responsibility'', if you claim that you didn't have it in the first place ?

This is contradictory.

I'm afraid it's you who isn't arguing along factual lines, but an emotional mish-mash of contradictory assertions.

Originally posted by Rosha
We know the game already.This is the reason I *left* feminist circles as that attitude was prevailing at the as more lesbian women joined the movement, but it was at THAT time..it isnt prevailing today.

I rather hope it may have been because you finally saw sense, and realised that you were just a pawn.

Originally posted by Rosha
Yes..many women have suffered at the hands of men..still do. That is a fact not a weapon of ego wars!
Men are suffering at the hands of women abusers too!
Again FACT not a weapon.

So the fact that you're stating is the one that I've been arguing along the whole time. Men and women have both suffered at the hands of each other.

Now that you agree with me on this fact, I don't see what the relevance of all of your other points are, unless you are just more concerned about unequal treatment of females than men.

Originally posted by Rosha
Even that though - abuse - is not the sole basis of feminism any more than 'chicks with daddy issues' is.

Never was...those are what YOU think..not the facts.

They can be large contributory factors.

The only fact that both of us have agreed upon is that men and women both suffer at times because of their gender.

That is the only fact that we've agreed on.

Originally posted by Rosha
What I personally pointed out in my words, was that males had control of the institutions of social freedom and of exerting political power in the physical world..and used those powers to oppress and dominate women, as oposed to other uses of that power. FACT.

Men don't group-think.

We're not all ''male chauvinist pigs'' you know.

What you say is not a fact at all. It is revisionist nonsense.

These institutions were male dominated, but that doesn't mean that they were used to exert power on a gender basis.

As I've pointed out countless times before, these institutions oppressed men just as much, such as forcing them to fight and die in wars, purely because they are male

Now that is gender oppression, and that is a ''FACT'' !

Originally posted by Rosha
Given women cant drive in many regions still today, its hard to have them give realistic input on the state of freeways...so yes, men had to be the masters of change at those levels but women were the lever..and will always be a lever.

Given the evidence I've seen of women drivers, I think it would be highly prudent to ban them from the roads in the rest of the world ! J-O-K-E.

Of course they could have a say on state of freeways, even in countries where they can't drive.

What makes you think otherwise ?

Originally posted by Rosha
Am I suposed to feel anything more than a experiential empathy? We who had no say whaever in creating them and no power to affect change *within* them...
could hardly be held to account for these instutions that caused the harm, whats more, we who had to clean up the mess they made, rebuild families, continue on in the absence of fathers, husbands and sons due to warfare, also suffered three times over. This isnt a whose suffering is worse contest.

Never heard of ''the vote'' ?

I believe women had this long before the 1960s.

Besides, I'm not actually blaming women for the mistreatment of men, but pointing out the fact that men were equally as oppressed by ''TPTB'', if you like, by being restricted, along with women, to narrowly-defined gender roles.

No amount of revisionism will change this.

You're acting as if women were like slaves; it's disgusting.

Facts do not support your view-point, as you'll see many women who held prominent positions and were pioneers in various fields, throughout the last century, and long before the 1970s.

Originally posted by Rosha
There is no monopoly on suffering and violence..everyone is a victim and everyone is responsible.

Speak for yourself !

Originally posted by Rosha
Men though, for two hundred years in Western society, had the means to change that, and didnt...they accepted the norms and revelled in the power those norms gave to them.

Once again, ''men'' do not group-think.

Once again, women had something called ''the vote''.

It's no wonder you have such a warped and fictional view on this issue when you think along such strange lines as these.

Originally posted by Rosha
If to you, feminisim is solely about female supremecy over men, then you are misinformed, undereducated and buying into the lowest comon denominator of stereotypes.

Now who's using language to attempt to discredit and dominate ?

Feminism is, and always has been, about domination over men and/or seeking preferential and unfair advantages for women.

How anyone could conclude otherwise is beyond me.

Originally posted by Rosha
For many women..there is simply no question anyway....so concepts of equality being expoused by the militant wings of feminist movements are actualy devaluing, not emancipating to the power of womanhood.

Roughly translated as: ''loud-mouth militant feminists let the cat out of the bag''.

Originally posted by Rosha
So the fact that by any measure of sucess in society, being wives, scientists, academic professors, doctors, lawyers, and everything from fulltime mothers, council workers and musician.artists is irrelevent? The fact they are individual human beings is irrelevent?

Well, being a wife or mother is hardly a ''success'', as it doesn't take much to achieve either.

I would imagine most feminists who achieved got a job in the other professions that you mention, would have done so with a bit of ''help'' from positive discrimination and affirmative action.

They're individual human beings, as are racial supremacists. It doesn't mean I've got to be nice about either, or to sugar-coat any unpalatable truths.

Originally posted by Rosha
They all just get lumped into the 'same boat' by you to proove your point..so you can, for a quick moment, feel safe and empowered in your personal false sense of security by labeling them as weak willed free riding women.

Nice, but erroneous, attempt at psychoanalysis. Although it did make me chuckle.

They all get lumped into the same boat by me, because that is my observations of those who align themselves with this festering movement.

Originally posted by Rosha
Im sorry..but you have no real idea about the subject you are talking about. You would need to approach the topic objectivly and academically to be able to speak fairly on issues of ideology...other wise you are just reading minds and 'thinking for people'...when you really dont know each of their minds...you cant know or spek for them unless your claiming godhood...which is fine if you are..but there is another forum for you to go to here to announce and proove that through peer review.

If your not annoncing the kingdom come, then it remains you are just making absolute statments without the research or educational background to support them.

Just because you dislike or disagree with my views on the subject, doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I lack an education on it.

I could easily say the same about your views on the subject, but then that doesn't really make for a particularly mature or interesting debate.

Originally posted by Rosha
Also, and when I said *for men*...I meant something altogether different..which was something; a particular perpsective; that if you had let down your defences for a moment..you might have sensed and come to understanding of.

I'm not being defensive... That was an attempt at irony. LOL.

Originally posted by Rosha
You betcha.

So you're just admitting that it is all about vitriolic ''payback'' for perceived ''scorn'' ?

That was the intention behind my use of that quote.

Originally posted by Rosha
Ahh....ok...evidenced I supose by this thorough and well researched and unemotional academic analysis of feminism your sharing.

You can't pretend that men and women are the same. They are not. There are biological differences between the average man and the average women.

Women, for example, are better at multi-tasking, on average. That can't be explained away by any social factor.

When it comes to hormones, women are much more likely to yet emotion override logic, which can have a negative effect on critical and logical analysis.

Once again, these are not hard and fast rules, and there are many women who excel at logic, science and maths, and many men who aren't very good in these departments.


From my experience, women and men are equally capable of logical thought, but men tend to be more consistent in its application, which usually is going to be advantageous in many positions in science and within academia.

Most anally retentive people and borderline obsessives are men; most geeks are men; most computer nerds and hackers are men.

Even if biological differences play a small part, there is also the fact about interest in the subjects. And while social factors may play some part, men, in general, are just more interested in pursuits involving analytical skills, maths and compartmentalisation than women are.

Originally posted by Rosha
Thats a good thing to note...as prior to the advent of feminism the comprehension of ' without the qualifying statement' wasnt even a part of the social male consciousness at all.

And why on earth would you lump me in to a ''social male consciousness'' - if such a thing even exists ?

What's ironic, is that you claim to preach equality, but just because I happen to be a man, you lump me into an all-encompassing ''social male conscience'' group-think !

Why would you assume that an individual man's view would have any relevance to ''men'', as a whole ?

You need to start practising what you preach, otherwise you're just going to keep tripping over your own comments and purported views on the matter.


Why would you think that my views are anything other than representative of my personal opinions, and would in anyway be indicative of some mythical ''group-think'' ? That's just pure bigotry.

Do you think a white/black/Jewish person expressing views on any subject would be representative of a ''white/black/Jewish social conscience'' ?

As you appear to be incapable or unwilling to separate ''a man'' from ''men'', you are just further proving, as if proof were needed, my points on this subject.


The more and more you comment on this issue, the clearer it becomes that your feminist views stem from dislike and bigotry towards men, which, as I've pointed out previously, is the number one reason for someone to adopt feminist ideology.

Secondly, and rather more disturbingly, you appear to be happy at men being ''oppressed'' in some areas, as some form of vengeful ''pay-back'', regardless of whether a man effected by this was responsible for any mistreatment of women, yet alone was born during the era that you are seeking revenge from.

This, again, as I have pointed out previously, is one of the prime motives for feminists. Vindictive and indiscriminate ''pay-back''. It can't be healthy to hold these views, but then feminists aren't intellectually or emotionally healthy people.

Originally posted by Rosha
Again you are blanketly assuming feminists want to BE men...or DOMINATE men. 99% of the women I know who are feminist..couldnt be further from that concept - its not ABOUT you.

What you are saying is an attribution error....your attributing what you fear and think to 'all' men.what one or two groups might think to 'all women'.

What ?!

You were replying to this point below:

''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 !''


I don't know whether you were intending to reply to another post of mine, or whether you got the wrong end of the stick, because your above reply doesn't seem to make any sense to my point above.

Originally posted by Rosha
This is not "the" problem, an absolute, it is YOU having a problem with ppl who are PC or feminist....something altogther different and something that doesnt make THEM "bad", just you "uncomfortable".

PCers and feminazis are enemies of a civilised society, and go against equality. It has nothing to do with any comfort or discomfort on my part, but rather to do with progressing society and my ideal of social equality.

Originally posted by Rosha
If you have the problem, you are obligated to self sooth as much as any human being is. You dont have a right just because you are feeling wounded to wound others.

I don't feel ''wounded''.

Are you seriously saying that if someone objects to something or someone that they cannot voice their concerns or thoughts ?

Or is it just the voiced thoughts that go against you narrow-minded ideology that offends you so ?

Originally posted by Rosha
Your discomfort is not my problem so if you wish to resolve this discomfort then, I genuinely not sarcastically, suggest you find a good friend or therapist to whom you can speak and be honest with, and find yourself a pathway to building a self esteem that is not so reliant on or moulded by external opinions. No one else is responsible for the way you *feel* but you.

LOL.

Nice try, but ad hominems don't cut it with me, so you'd be better off trying that one on someone else.

If by ''discomfort'', you mean that I'm voicing my displeasure at something that I disagree with in society, then that would make you equally as ''uncomfortable'' on this issue, as you are also voicing your own personal displeasure; thus making your ''accusations'' rather moot, and certainly worthless on a logical level.

Originally posted by Rosha
Lets just say, I dont know...why dont you go and find three ways they MIGHT be?

Roughly translated as: ''they're not doing anything about it''.

Thanks, that's just as I thought, and I didn't expect you'd be able to provide me with any examples.

Originally posted by Rosha
How threatening could that be? Self led research into a topic...not much to ask no?
Open your mind just a tad to see if they are doing anything..dont just sit there and say they are not...with so much contempt prior to the invetsigation.

What's hilarious, is that earlier on you falsely accused me of using stereotypes, yet you are using feminist invented stereotypes against me, in an attempt to stifle dissenting debate !

Namely, that anybody who is anti-feminist, is ''threatened'' or ''fearful''. I am neither of those.

Can you not get it into your head that some people, such as myself, are strongly anti-feminist, because we believe in social equality, and take a strong disliking to a supremacist ideology that is detrimental to a fair society ?

Why is that so hard to understand ?

Originally posted by Rosha
I already know..so its no use me reeducating myself - for you..as you, who as a human being is perfectly capepable of getting out there and figuring it out by yourself, need to be the one to make the effort for the findings to be authentic and unchallangable...otherwise we'll just waste more bandwith going round in circles.

Again, still no actual examples.

That speaks volumes.

It's the old ''if you need me to tell you that, then I'm not going to bother'' cop-out, done by those who can not back up a point when reasonably requested to do so.

Originally posted by Rosha
Im not. I am not offended or the one being affected by his deficit in comprehension. He is.

Its his responsibility to alter his views and shape his mind. Not mine. Even when give the opportnity to have an inflence..I am extremly careful.

The truth is, and is eventually made self evident, and prooven by action not maniplation.

At last, we're in agreement.

Personal responsibility is key, and someone who holds bigoted or prejudiced views is the one who ultimately suffers.

And they are the only ones who can alleviate it !

Originally posted by Rosha
Why...because you are feeling the effects of oppression or the first time?

I'm feeling effects of oppression for the only time.

Even then, men are only oppressed in some areas, and society is largely fair on these issues - until the feminazis gets their claws dug in.

I fail to see why you approve of punishing men like me, who haven't been responsible for any maltreatment of women, and have only known social equality, as some twisted attempt at ''payback'' for what other men may have done to you.

Surely, equality is what we should be striving for, whereby neither men or women should be ''oppressed'' ?

Originally posted by Rosha
Last year, over 4 million women were raped in the US, over 90 million women world wide were sold into sexual slavery, over 200 million girl children were murdered.

You think its really changed except in the politic..in the way you choose to view it?
The reality on the ground says the opposite.

Rape is a despicable crime that effects men, women, boys and girls.

To try and twist it into a gender issue, and to use victims of the crime of both genders as some kind of political football, is deplorable.

Originally posted by Rosha
Equal is a loaded word in itself...and another that reqires that 'point of clarification'.

Here in Australia we treat unequal people unequally, and it works for us. If everyone were treated exactly equally here our society would be in as much social chaos as..well..the US.

Treating unequal people unequally is exactly the way that it should be.

Equality should only apply as long as you stay within the laws of the society.

Originally posted by Rosha
Are they? Please point me to a specific example.

Any feminists who whinge about discrimination in the work-place or a disparity in the pay between men and women is the only example you need.

Once again, doing what feminists do best, which is sitting around complaining until someone gives them a hitch on the ''free-ride''.

As you cannot legally discriminate against women in the work-place, nor can you pay someone unequally because of their gender, there is nothing to complain about.

If women aren't reporting people for this, then that is their problem. It's their inaction that is costing them.

Originally posted by Rosha
No. Some, not all humans seek control as a means to stabailise their internal paradigms.

No, all humans seek control. Nobody wants to live in a chaotic, anarchic society.

Originally posted by Rosha
Some women, some men.

Just as I said. Another point we're in agreement.

Originally posted by Rosha
Maybe, the effects of your character on them were such they felt a need to say something....rather than staying silent, meek little does. I dont know I dont speak for other people...I can only suggest that this comment remains invalid until you have examined your own interpretations of their 'controlling' behavior.

LOL.

I knew when I posted this, that I was asking for a snide ad hom. You didn't fail.

The problem here, is that when you're holding a rigid, closed-minded position ( men try and control women's mind ) that when I bring up an example that this is not a gender-specific issue, and that some women attempt to control men's minds - instead of acknowledging this, you attempt to discredit the idea and offer excuses for this behaviour because it doesn't fit in to your pre-conceived narrow views on this matter.

You've shown your true colours on this issue by rejecting the idea put forward, and have actually tried to turn it against me for your own advantage.

Doesn't sound like someone who is too keen on the factual matters of this subject.

Originally posted by Rosha
Perhaps they had their limits to what they were willing to tolerate from a man as well.
Expressing those limits..asking for what they needed isnt 'controlling'...its honesty.

I have no problem with a girlfriend suggesting to me that it would be better if I didn't do something, or that an aspect of my behaviour was irritating, then, if the suggestion was reasonable, I'd attempt to change what she felt needed changing. There is nothing wrong with that, and compromise is a fundamental ingredient in any relationship. But that isn't how it usually goes down.

It's subtle, incremental attempts at changing you, that seem innocent and innocuous on their own, but are part of a broader attempt to mould you into her idea of what you should be.

The attempts can be very successful, as well, as I wouldn't even find out that I'd changed until friends would remark on it.


Anyway, that's not really too important, as the point is that some men try to control women, and some women try to control men, to suggest that it's any different is just not really logical.

Originally posted by Rosha
Regardless of what they are or are not in actuality, in viewing them as a threat to your personal wellbeing, yes, you are expressing a fear. The root of all anger is fear...and you do seem angry about this.
What do you care what these women think? Whats it to you?

I don't view them as a ''threat to my personal well-being''. LOL.

I can honestly say that I don't care what anyone else thinks, as it is of no relevance to me. If people want to have bigoted views, that that is there prerogative.

When they express their views, I am more than entitled to concern myself with them in a debate. If that's alright with you ?

Feminism would score about 2 out of 10 in my real-world concerns, and people who hold dishonest feminist views would score about 7 out of 10 in my dislike for them ( and this is pretty high, as I'm a pretty easy-going person ).


Why do you keep recycling this rubbish about ''fear'' and ''threat'' ?

Originally posted by Rosha
I do know though, that internalisation is not about 'switching the proble'm. It is about *being accountable and claiming responsibility for it and your reaction to it*

The tactic is switching a claim against yourself to make the accuser internalise, and think that they may be at fault.

For example, if a woman confronts her boyfriend, accusing him on cheating on her, and he says ''You're just being overly suspicious/jealous''.

If the internalisation had the desired effect, then this may make her think: ''Maybe I am being unreasonably suspicious or jealous''.

Therefore, turning his defensive answer into an attack that may lead to her blaming herself for being overly suspicious, when in actual fact she was right.

Originally posted by Rosha
You specifically wrote 'when society does xys..then I will abc...so forgive me for not being able to read your mind or know you were only kidding......that skill - next evolution.

I said:

''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 !''

Nowhere did I suggest that I was waiting for ''society to sanction me''. I was expressing my dislike at a small aspect, amongst thousands, of prevailing social attitudes.

Originally posted by Rosha
You *really* have no idea do you.

I do, and you know it. That is why you're getting evidently uptight about this.

Why don't you attempt to answer my question ?

What personal cost ?

Originally posted by Rosha
If that is what you need to believe to feel secure..then so be it.
It isnt the truth.

As a woman I can say to you right now..I dont care. If you did it women did it..it is irrelevent. I just dont care.
Its done.

LOL.

I'll admit, I was a bit harsh. My apologies.


Women were half-responsible for the change in attitudes and legislation, as they made up half of the electorate that voted in the politicians who changed these laws.

Originally posted by Rosha
What does mater to me, is you trying to replace your ego at the expense of truth and of others welbeing, or to dominate others via this kind of pettness as that is the problem still facing women and men today.

In other words, you don't like me correcting your revisionist version of events ?

All you seem to be doing is attempting to stifle any dissenting views on this issue by throwing around emotionally charged words, such as ''fear'' ''threat'' ''dominate'', in an attempt to make it look like that it's my problem that I'm posting the truth of the matter.

This is logically fallacy. You are offering this up as the only conclusion to me refusing to be brainwashed by altered historical accounts of events.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, perhaps I should just accept the feminist version of herstory.

Originally posted by Rosha
Write off sumarily anything that you dont agree with...ok. Hope that works for you too.
Show me where and why it is, and I might bother responding the comments that followed.

It was nonsense because you claimed that society would have gone stale without these women being the ''catalyst for change'', when in actual fact these women were just a symptom of the overwhelming movement for social change that was supported by large sections of society, hence the need for those in power to reluctantly implement these changes to placate the masses.

I think you need to give this more consideration, if you seriously think that small groups of women campaigning, made anything more than a ripple in a sea of post World War II social change.

How do you explain, for example, the abolition of homosexuality and the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1960s in Britain, and the movements for change that started a decade earlier ?

If you seriously believe that women's rights wouldn't have been improved without bra-burning feminist demonstrations, then I believe that you should think again.

Originally posted by Rosha
Ahh...so now you are having a real time experience of what it must have been like for women then.. Not nice is it....

Again, this vindictiveness. It can't be healthy to have this stored up.

For the record, I have never suffered any discrimination because I'm a male ( not as far as I'm aware ). But, I'm not selfish, so I deplore inequality.

Originally posted by Rosha
not comfortable, not 'right' is it?

Of course it's not right. When did I ever remotely suggest that any form of legal inequality was ''right'' ?

I know that you're getting a very hard time in this exchange ( sorry about that, truth hurts ), but there is really no call for you to make up points that I have never made.

Originally posted by Rosha
Your angry because feminists are not standing up in defense of you? Defending your rights for you to other women?

No, you've completely got the wrong end of the stick.

Feminists most certainly shouldn't be sticking up for ''men's rights''.


My point is about the feminazis who dishonestly attempt to cover their supremacist ideals with ''we believe in gender equality'', yet, when examples of legal discrimination against men are demonstrably shown, they are not interested.

I'm afraid that you're doing an awful lot of black-and-white thinking and coming to false conclusions on this thread.


Stating that ''you don't hear feminists complaining about discrimination towards men'', does not, in any way shape or form, lead to the conclusion that I was ''angry'' that feminists didn't ''defend men's rights''.

I sincerely hope they do not !

Originally posted by Rosha
Men didnt defend womens rights..we had to stand for that ourselves - and there is a value in doing that (standing up for yourself) Its not something to feel resentful over...in fact its someting to be thankful for!

Men and women don't not ''group-think''.

Of course, lots of men supported women's rights, other wise they wouldn't have been implemented, would they ?

Originally posted by Rosha
What you are feeling now, was though, just the tip of the iceburg of the deep reality of opression for most women...every day of their lives..for centuries. Formost women, it still is.

LOL.

You really have been brainwashed by the feminist propaganda machine.

As I've already explained, men and women were equally oppressed by the social hierarchy at the time.

Men and women led the change in social attitudes ( which included women's rights ), and those in power had to relinquish their outdated notions of society, and the roles in which people had to play within it.

I honestly don't know how you can't see this.

Originally posted by Rosha
No..it concerns me that any agenda of feminism or any 'ism' currently operating in society has been manipulated to remove anyones rights.

Im just not buying into your self pity, or saying 'poor baby', standing in front to defend you, thats all. Nor am I ridiculing you for feeling the way you do...a courtesy not offered many women when it was womens turn 'in the docks' of social opression.

There is no self-pity from me.

I'm bothered at unequal treatment of men in certain sections of society, because it's men being affected.

It's the feminazis who mindlessly look after their own, and are only concerned with getting the best free-ride possible.


I support equality, and deplore inequality, whether that be against men, women,race, religion, sexuality etc.

This is why feminists incur my wrath ( LOL ) on here, because they are taking society backwards, by taking advantage of ''male guilt'' to get preferential treatment and freebies, at the expense of men. That's not on !

They are attempting to gain supremacy, control and power over men - which stems from the numerous reasons I've outlined earlier.


If you think that I'm bothered about ''men's rights'' just because I'm a man, then you are mistaken.

Originally posted by Rosha
I could be wrong, but it sure sounds to me that you are feeling disempowered and angry...and just as I say to women who feel the same - what are you going to do about it?

You are wrong. On both counts, as well.

Originally posted by Rosha
Answering that question and finding the answer was the birth of feminism and that question and answer - came from within women...for women..and was acted on..by women.

No it came from within society, for society, and was acted on by society.

Nice herstory lesson, though.

What you are doing here is using rule number 2 of feminism, which is:

Take a wide social issue that applies to all sections of society, cherry-pick anything that applies to women, and then use these examples to falsely twist it into a female-specific issue to gain leverage and preferential and unfair advantages for women.

Originally posted by Rosha
HEALTHCARE:
www.seiu.org...

- 8 states and the District of Columbia allow insurers to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence because they have a "pre-existing condition." ( being abused is now a pre-existing condition!)

This has nothing to do with gender; men are victims of domestic violence too.

It is obviously ridiculous that they are allowed to call use domestic violence as a ''pre-existing condition'', but the legislation is not discriminatory towards women; it's discriminatory towards victims of domestic violence.

Even then, discrimination is not the intention of them including it as a ''pre-existing condition''. The reason, of course, is money.

Originally posted by Rosha
- Many insurers also consider pregnancy and Cesarean sections a pre-existing condition. ( yes I was born prengant :/)

You don't have to be born with a condition for it to be defined in this way.

The result of pregnancy costs money in medical bills, which is why they include it.

Here is a list of pre-existing conditions that are taken into consideration:

www.vaughns-1-pagers.com...


The whole US healthcare and insurance system is ridiculous. There should be no such thing as ''pre-existing conditions''.

Having said that, I would say that pregnancy and fertility treatment are some of the fairest ones to include in this, as both are personal choices, rather than most of the other categories, that are beyond somebody's control.

I don't understand why you would complain that they won't pay medical bills for someone's pregnancy, yet don't seem to mention that they also won't pay for someone's cancer treatment if they have a relapse.

I know which one I find more abhorrent.

Originally posted by Rosha
* 64 million women in America do not have adequate health insurance coverage.

This is not discrimination. If someone can't afford health insurance, then they don't get it.

It's hardly as if they're giving health insurance to the millions of men who can't afford it, is it ?

If you don't want or can't afford health insurance, then you don't get. It doesn't matter to the insurance companies if the paying customer is a man or woman, as they only care about getting the money.

Originally posted by Rosha
* 52% of women reported trouble accessing needed health care because of cost.

Again, women are not being discriminated against here. People are being discriminated against because they can't afford it.

What are suggesting ? Letting women have lower healthcare payments, because they might statistically be less likely to afford it ?

Originally posted by Rosha
* 26% of young women in America (aged 19 - 24) have no health coverage at all.

Because they don't want it or can't afford it, not because they are women ! This is not gender discrimination !

This is what I'm talking about, when I mention twisting broad social issues falsely into gender issues.

You are barking the wrong tree, and approaching the issue in completely the wrong way.


The problem is that the US doesn't have a national health system, which means that people from all sections of society will not have easy access to it, if they can not afford it.

This is an indictment on the US health system and health insurance scam, and is not relevant to the topic of gender discrimination.

Women are not getting discriminated against in US healthcare. The only people discriminated against, are those who haven't got the $$$.

Originally posted by Rosha
* 27% of employed women work part time and are thus excluded from their employers' health insurance plan, versus only 13% of men. ( having to work part time in order to stay home and render parenthood to children is now a social defict.)

Parents - both mothers and fathers - have got to realise that the world isn't going to bend over backwards to accommodate their personal choice of having a baby.

If someone can only work part-time because they are raising a young child, then that is one of the considerations they should have taken into account before having the baby.

A parent working part-time shouldn't get a better health-care plan than a non-parent who is working the same hours.

People need to take personal responsibility, and if they can't afford to raise a child adequately, then perhaps they
shouldn't have had it in the first place.


Once more, this point is not related to gender, but is actually about parents getting special treatment over non-parents.

Originally posted by Rosha
SEXUAL VIOLENCE

Males and females are both victims of sexual violence; males and females are both perpetrators of sexual violence.
The perpetrator/victim gender make-up of the crime can be one of the four combinations that are above.

Rape, sexual assault, molestation, and other sexual crimes are treated harshly by law and society, as a whole.

It is quite a complex issue, as there are still improvements that can, and need to, be made to improve how a victim can get treated as best as possible.


I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue at greater lengths with you on a thread where it was relevant and pertininent to the topic at hand.

However, the issue of sexual violence is an issue that has nothing to do with gender, or a lack of ''women's rights''.


At least - to your credit - you have attempted to back up your claims that women are discriminated against, with an argument, although, as I have mentioned, the ones you have offered are not really relevant to the topic or the question I asked, as you appear to be putting a slanted gender bias on issues that affect people throughout society.

The other people who have made this claim have understandably chickened out when challenged and corrected by me upon it. It seems that people don't expect to have their bluff called on the subject; trust me, you will be called out on this !

Whether their false position is based upon naive, well-meaning gullibility, or intellectual dishonest, is a matter for themselves, and only they can deal with it.

However, I would like to think that most of them fall into the former category, and that my posts ( hopefully ) have helped to them to, at the very least, conduct a bit of introspection on the views that they hold on this subject.


One of the main problems with people who want to hold these ''right-on'' views, is, as can be demonstrably proven, men and women have equal rights, as do people of all races.

What these people are really complaining about is that some people hold sexist, racist or homophobic views, which you can't really legislate against, so their position is emotionally-driven and illogical.

My views are formed upon objective analysis and facts. And that is why nobody can argue successfully against my point that there is no legal discrimination against anybody, because of race or gender, in Western society.


The normal course of action when one's claim is challenged, is to offer a supporting argument, and better still, verifiable evidence to back up the claim.

The claim that women don't have ''full rights'' in Western society is the only subject matter on ATS that I've come across where people do not attempt to back up their claim.

They seem to think that the claim itself is evidence ! And they are then at a complete loss and totally flummoxed when people ask them to provide the slightest piece of evidence to support their illogical claims. LOL. That's normally how it works, people !


However, I shall once more repeat my question that is open to all of ATS, waiting for an answer in hope rather than expectation:

Once more, I will end my post by leaving an open question to ATS: In what way are women discriminated against in Western society in 2011 ???

I have amended it slightly, as per the original way I posed this question which included ''Western society''.

Obviously, I am not referring to any other cultures, as I am fully aware that their are many places around the where equality is not safeguarded by law, nor practiced in a society.

Read this link and have no doubt that men are being robbed by women.

Between 2007 and 2010 80% of men lose jobs in states, Women? Not so.

*(Note: To all women reading this, If you are a woman who believes in true fairness between men and women this post is not referencing you, When I say "women" in this post, I am talking about feminists.I knoe their are good women out there who are fair and can have a healthy, balanced, fair coexistence with a man, and my wife is one of them. I speak not to you. Unfortunately, there are women doing this who are not really feminist, they are puppets of feminst liars, hence I must use the term "women". If you have done things to men to punish them, to steal from them, to take their children in divorce simply because you knew you could win in court and have a better life, not with him, but just his money.......if you have taken his children and try to control him using them, if you claim to work so hard, yet you use your sex card in any way to get ahead for any reason other than to find a mate to live with in harmony.....I REFERENCE YOU!!!!!)

If you wanna know if the country truly is in a recession, just keep an eye on the ever plunging neckline of a woman and the skirts getting shorter and shorter. This is how they work. When times are hard.....they all betray themselves and everything they believe in and pull out the sexual ace card to get better jobs or to snatch up a man with money so they can live better, or to marry some guy so they can take him for everything he is worth like most women do these days. Most women today are nothing but selfish, spoiled brats who claim they are everything good, but are really nothing more than beggars in miniskirts. Men have to truly work for what they get and we have no sex card to use when times get rough. We can't dance on a stripper pole, or marry and divorce women we despise so we can instantly win the lottery in a court case. We don't have people feeling sorry for us when we cry and times get tough. When times get tough, we get tough. Women cry and expect sympathy and help.They want help from their mothers, their fathers the government (who helps them more than anyone). They have problems in marriage the same as men, but women tend to run home to mommy like a pathetic child to get sympathy instead of sticking around like an adult to remedy the problem with their husbands. The mother, then instructs their whining brat to divorce the man and take him for all he's worth. Just what the government wanted. This was all planned to destroy the fight in men, to oppress them...to break them. I mean, what's more humiliating to a man than being oppressed by a woman right? Why do you think the divorce rate is so high in the United States? Do you think it's men's fault? That over 50% of all men that are married are just so bad that they must divorce knowing that they will lose everything, even their children and any and all future earnings? Like men would do so many things to get divorced knowing that everything was on the line against them. Sure their are exceptions but over 50%... statistically impossible. There is more tangible proof that it is the fault of women that all of these divorces happened. The first question in any crime is who has the most to gain? Men have nothing to gain from divorce, women have everything and even future estates coming to them because of court rulings against men, Hell, even if women smoke or drink around teir children and in some cases do drugs, the government still chooses tem as primary caretakers of the children. Just sick! So is the declination of morality in the States the fault of men? NO! It's the women's fault! They are the ones who divorce because it's all over money. It's true most women in the States are indeed.....golddiggers! They even calculate and marry men they despise just so they can divorce him and take all of his money and then have children with him and USE those children to get even more money. Another lie is that men cheat more than women. This is statistically impossible as well and men, if you think with your brain for once and stop letting these alluring jezebels hypnotize you with their eyes breasts and hips, you might just see clearly tat tey do this for a reason. Women cheat more because it is statistically proven that by the age of 20, a woman of just average attractiveness get's hit on by men 2000 times.....by the time they die 20, 000. Men you know from experience that we have not 1/10% of those opporunities for ourselves. We don't get hit on that much and that means that we have even LESS than 1/10% of a chance to cheat on women, because we don't get every woman we go after. Women, on the other hand, have opportunity and (upon removing your minds from the gutter guys, and removing the veil of seduction) you can look around you and see the cold-hearted fingerprint of women and what they have done to men. The prisons are full of men who have been lied about by women beating them or raping them and women get away with it simply because they are pretty (See here about the Hypocrisy of women getting away with pedophilism.) and ('Growing number of women want to sexually abuse female children') or because it is helping to destroy men. Basically, it was a man had to be the first one to give any woman rights......if they had none before, who else gave it to them?....and what did they do? Bit and that fed them. Took the ball and ran with it. We gave them an inch and they took a mile and they will not stop until they have robbed men of everything, your money, your children and your very soul in some cases. The Women who do this are not ashamed and they feel entitled to everything men have worked years for, simply because they exist. There is no greater hubris than that of an American woman. Sorry to say, this cancerous, social tumor called FEMINISM seems to be spreading worldwide. They even have commercials trying to get funding for feminism claiming that they are wanting to liberate women in third world countries from their oppressors, men of course. Although this may be true over in Afghanistan or Iraq or the like....by comparison, women have revealed their lie right there! By comparison to women who are 'really' oppressed, women in America live like queens! Yet they cry and complain like they're living in a muslim dominated area. These commercials are nothing but lies. They use this money for their own cause and fund themselves with it. They use poor, abused, oppressed women in war-torn areas to control men and fund an evil agenda of self-servance. Interesting enough, they cry more than the truly oppressed. This is why they make such delicious pawns for the government. They will betray themselves and their whole country just to serve themselves.....women are predictable and weak, thus they are useable to the government because they are so self-indulged that they cannot see further than themselves. they care not who else suffers under their government sponsored tyranny. Feminism is nothing more than a sick joke that only women can laugh about. A party that men are not invited to.The government is behind them 100% and it's all to destroy the will of men so we will have no fight in us when the government tries to take our country from us. In essence you could say that most women, especially the ones who do this to men using their great protector the government as a shield, are traitors! They are the direct degradation of our country. It was about the time of the second wave of feminism (when the real reason for feminism got highjacked) that America really started to plummet. Not only did it start to plummet financially, but also spiritually. Women came to work and the country SHOULD be 50% richer, because they were able to tax the other 50% of non-workers, yet women came in and just STOLE from the 50% who had been keeping them alive in the past by the sweat of his brow and the blood of his hands. They stole our jobs (with government help, of course), they stole our children, and they stole our money while robbing us in courts of divorce and winning 90+% of all court cases and getting anything they want. Why did no one stop this before they destroyed our country? Feminist are nothing but selfish, ugly examples of what true women should be. They try to corrupt good, decent women and are succeeding at it because they lie to them about men and their nature. They use falsified propaganda and blatant lies in the media and polls to try to make men look like rapists and oppressors of women. It is YOU feminists that are the oppressors. Don't get all proud of yourselves either because you could do NOTHING without the governments help, which means that YOU ARE NOTHING! You only succeed because of a larger agenda, not because you are smart. You are nothing more than a spoiled child getting what they want from a parent plagued with favoritsm for one child over another and the government is your god. Enjoy your ride while you can, for when you finish your work and spend all of your dirty money, you will run out when their agenda is complete and they will turn and devour you just as they did us men. So it is written, and the prophecy will come to pass.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


actually, there is a tad bit of discrimination built into our healthcare system. The main source of most people's healthcare insurance is through their employer...and although some of those insurance programs offer family plans, more and more employers will not pitch in any funding for the rest of the family, the extra cost for the family plan goes right to the employee, and well, if more often than not too expensive. the the societal norm of mom stays home and takes care of kids, dad goes to work and earns the bread is still held up as the ideal arrangement, well, women are at a disadvantage when it comes to healthcare. the gov't has child health plus for the kids, dad has his insurance from work, but well, the stay at home mom usually gets crap!!!
and this discrinimation, if you want to call lit that, gets even more insane. since the neighbor down the street could very well be just staying at home with her kids also, not have a husband there working hard to support her, and well....she has the healthcare.
to say that well, if you can't afford the k id, you shouldn't have them is really, really is, a rather stupid solution to the problem. are you married? if so, if one of yas decided they didn't want to have kids or you couldn't afford kids, do you think that not having sex until the situation changes is a viable solution that both you and your spouse would go for??
no birth control is 100% effective...so birth control is not a guarentee that there won't be a child in your future...only abstinance is!!
so, well, you are saying to all those married as well as unmarried couples out there, don't have sex if you can't afford the kid, well.......kids are very expensive and the wages in this country are crap!!! so, now if you are poor, there is no reason to be married, since you shouldn't be having sex anyways, married or not!
now consider that you got a trillion and one churches that are teaching that women are practically the husband's personal slaves, that she should be doing what his wants, shouldn't be working unless he wants her to, and on and on.....well....
men think they have the right to have sex whenever they want....
men don't get pregnant, so it isn't gonna interfere with his career.
men get to call all the shots according to the religious beliefs in the country...
women are the primary caretakers of the children...
you need a job to get affordable healthcare in this country...
women have a danged religion saying she can't work unless dad wants her to, only dad doesn't want to be sacked with the kids so he doesn't go along with the idea....
women are left out in the cold when it comes to healthcare!!! dads have their employers, kids have the gov't program.....nothing for the mom.....except a bunch of antiquated ideas that are still being preached about how she should be a good little wife, make hubby happy, keep home and kids taken care of, blah, blah, blah!!!

Here's proof that the Rockefellers funded women's lib for their personal political agenda to destroy men. Aaron Russo (February 14, 1943 - August 24, 2007). He was best-known for producing Trading Places, Wise Guys, and The Rose. A businessman and popular filmaker and certainly credible as a witness to pure evil as Nick Rockefeller was his best friend ....until he found out what their plans were for mankind. Want to know who funded feminism and why? Watch the videos below. This guy is as about as credible as it gets. He made these interviews just before he died.

Watch this video in its entirety:



The first forty seconds of this video will suffice.......but there is interesting stuff later in the video as well. But for te purpose of proving my statement (2 posts back)...here is evidence from the mouth of a previous "insider" of the rockefeller Empire.

My boyfriend recently began a new job, he is a chef. After he came home from his first day he told me about a woman he works with. She was carrying a stack of plates through the kitchen and went to lift them to their place. He reached to grab the stack, offering her his help. She pulled the dishes away then she said to him "I'm a feminist and I do not accept help from men."
He was confused about her comment. He was just trying to help, he said.
Not all feminist act like a man is an affront to their womanliness, but some do.
I will and do advocate social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men, but I do not believe that it can be accomplished without the help of men. I feel that it will take the help of men and mutual respect between the sexes to fully accomplish equality between men and women.
But it will not happen with an attitude like this : "I'm a feminist and I do not accept help from men." I think it is an absolutely absurd attitude to have.

reply to post by King Loki


How about this then?

The idea that feminism has destroyed the Male/Femaler relationship is ridiculous. There is no reason that women should be second class to men; and should be ab le to work, vote, and provide for their families how they see fit.

your beliefs likely stem from the long period of time that society has spent under the christian doctrine which outright says that women should be quiet and live only to serve their husbands... But let me hit you with some facts;

woman on average are more empathetic then men; which makes them more suited for jobs that require them to think about the benefits of a single course of action for all people while men are more inclined to serve themselves and seek out a quick solution. Not only that but there have been great civilizations in history that gave the women of their socieites plenty of responability.

Look up Genghis Khan, and what the women were doing in his society

So maybe the dynamics have changed in the relationships; that however is a good thing allowings households to have higher amoutns of income and allowing women to pursue their own ideas thus making our work force that much stronger.

I prefer a woman who is intelligent and funny to some pretty bird who can't even articulate her views. The flaw isn't with feminism it is with sexist men who want to hold on to their positions because they fear losing their authority.

reply to post by Rosha


I thank you for taking the time to illustrate why feminism is a female supremacist hate movement.

Point 1) Attractive Feminist's:

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what a feminist looks like. The fact that you spent so much time on a non issue is sad.


Point 2) Women control America's Medical and the K-12 Educational System. And women have had a great deal of moral power since the late 1800's(See Mothers of the Republic, a women's rights group circa 1800's, created notion that women are inherently more "moral" then men).

b) Since Women got the right to vote, women have consistently voted for Presidents who engaged in war: Case in point: Obama.

C) Women have been part of the process fairly firmly for well over two decades now. One can make such arguments about problems from the 1800's-1950's; but to make such a claim now is so beyond ignorant one has to question your motives.

Point 3) Decent enough answer

Point 4) utter BS!

Men didn't gain the universal right to vote until after the Civil War( Prior to the Civil War many states had wealth tests in order to vote. For Example: In NJ before the Civil War a wealthy woman could vote while a poor veteran couldn't).

And women got the right to vote 50 years after men did. In many nations like Australia and the UK, women got the right to vote nearly immediately after average men got the right to vote. Making your statement at best as clear example of your ignorance on gender historical issues, or at worst proves my statement that feminism is a hate movement. As your engaging in intentional disinformation for the purpose of justifying hate speech against males.

Point 5:

Every feminist is a militant feminist. Every feminist, "militant" or "not like that", worships the same radical, male hating feminist leaders. Reads the same male hating books(SCUM Manifesto).

Take Title IX as a good example of feminism engaging in female supremacy:

1) It was about "equal access" when men outnumber women on college campus's.
2) Then it was about absolute equality when men and women had similar numbers in college attendance.
3) Now that women outnumber men it is about proportionality.

That led to the modern college situation. With men only having 3 sports(basketball,football and baseball) that generate revenue that is used for the wide range of College women's sports.

Then add in the intentional war against boy's, how the AAUW lied about the "girl crisis" to start a "boy crisis".

Heck if you still believe feminism is about equality:

www.theatlantic.com...
news.discovery.com...

Point 6) Not sure what is going on here so: Every single feminist study has been either outright debunked, found to be a blatant act of fraud or contained massive amounts of inaccuracies for "dramatic effect".
Now that I read it again I want to slap someone but I digress; as the Agent Orange files show that feminists are very capable and dangerous human rights violators and gendercide advocates.

www.avoiceformen.com...

Point 7) traditionalism is a movement about gaining power over men but again I digress. Feminism is only interested in subjugating and/or destroying men. You have to look up my concept of the "Traditionalist Noose" to understand why feminists are so hell bent to destroy the male gender.

Point 8) Actually that is just a statement from chauvinistic guy's to describe how annoying chauvinistic women are. The reality is, Hell hath no fury like a wronged victim. And the feminist hate movement has created many, many victims.

Point 9) Subjective. For Example: I am a guy, and I am more of a writer/thinker then a mathematician.

Point 10) Nonsense. Most men where always willing to give a woman a fair chance, it was the Mothers of the Republic women's right movement that fought for such harmful gender norms. They protested in front of businesses that hired women(they wanted to be SAHM's and wanted to increase the value of their husbands labor via reducing the competition) till the businesses agreed to pay women less because they where women. After a generation or two, the concept stuck and wasn't corrected till the 70's.

Point 11) Invalid statements on both of your part. Feminism is relatively new, and in America it is very, very new.
Feminism in America was born out of the ashes and tears of the women who wanted to work(but where forced out by the Mothers of the Republic[precursors to the Traditionalist's].


Point 12+) main Focus on your justification of discrimination against men: Shame on you! Honestly your statement is so bigoted that there is no coming back from that kind of statement. Not only are you outright lieing about men's contribution to women's equality, you use your lie to justify discrimination against males.